Sitting of 3 May 1972

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

  BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS BILL (By Order)
  Order for Third Reading read
  To be read the Third time on Wednesday next

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  SCOTLAND

    School Building (Midlothian)
    Mr. Eadieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what total financial allocation he has approved for Midlothian's school building programme; and what total sum was sought for approval.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office (Mr. Hector Monro): The education authority sought approval to start work to the value of £1,175,000 in 1973–74. So far £220.000 has been approved, but the allocation of investment for the year in question has not yet been completed.
    Mr. Eadie: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some of us expected that he and his hon. Friends would be wearing black ties today after last night's election results in Scotland? Since the original suggestions by Midlothian for the school building programme have been discriminated against and as there is disquiet about school building programmes that may not materialise, will the hon. Gentleman assure us that in the allocation of financial resources there has been proper
    360
    appreciation of the new town in Midlothian which has a rapidly increasing population?
    Mr. Monro: I will not follow the hon. Gentleman in his morbid forecast except to remind him that in future years he may wish his own side had not misrepresented the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill. I appreciate his important point about the new town. This point together with others will be discussed at the meeing which I have suggested with the education authority.
    Mr. Dempsey: Will the Minister give his reason for slashing the secondary school building programme? Does he realise that he has absolutely crippled Lanarkshire and that there is little prospect of any new school building going ahead in that county?
    Mr. Monro: The hon. Gentleman must realise that allocations for school building have to be shared out amongst all the authorities and this is done to the best of our ability in the Department. He may like to be reminded that in the current two years we are spending almost £90 million on school building, which compares with £60 million—the highest two-year figure which the Labour Government ever produced.

    Electricity Generation
    Mr. Robert Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board on its plans for future generation of electricity.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Development (Scottish Office) (Mr. George Younger): My right hon. Friend's Department and the Scottish electricity boards have been in constant touch with each other for some time on this matter.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Under-Secretary of State recollect that in correspondence he has been given me similiar replies to that for over a year? Is he not aware of the disquiet in the whole of North-East Scotland at the delay in the generating programme, which was due to start this year, by going out to tender for new generation capacity? When will a decision be made?
    Mr. Younger: What we know is that the boards have stated that they require

    361
    a new station to be commissioned by 1978 in order to meet demand. What is at issue is the precise type of station which will be best. This is an extremely technical matter, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will recognise readily from his own knowledge, and it is not a decision that we can rush quickly through on the spur of the moment. It has to be very carefully considered. This we are doing, and we shall announce the decision as soon as we can.
    Mr. Grimond: Does the Minister think it likely that the generation of power in the North of Scotland will be cheaper because of the discovery of oil? In considering schemes for reviving the Scottish economy and reducing unemployment have the Government considered giving additional grants for the supply and distribution of electricity to the areas in the islands which are without it?
    Mr. Younger: No, Sir, we have not discussed these matters. The first part of the supplementary question is another matter, but I shall be glad to answer the question if the right hon. Gentleman will put it down.
    Sir J. Gilmour: In view of the discovery of North Sea oil, does my hon. Friend agree that both electricity generating boards should together approach the oil companies for the bulk purchase of oil at the cheapest price for the generation of electricity?
    Mr. Younger: The electricity boards are well aware of the point my hon. Friend has made. As he will know, they have a joint generating board between the two so that they can take such decisions.
    Mr. Ross: Surely the Under-Secretary of State appreciates that consideration is now being given to a nuclear power station at Stake Ness as against other types of power station. It may well be said that a power station will have to be commissioned by 1978, but unless a decision is soon taken certain possibilities will be ruled out.
    Mr. Younger: We are well aware that a station has to be commissioned by 1978. As the right hon. Gentleman will know better than most people, when the original announcement was made no decision had been taken on what type of
    362
    power station would be built. That is still being assessed and we will push forward with it as fast as we can.

    Production Platforms (Moray Firth)
    Mr. Douglasasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his recent visit to the sites for the construction of production platforms on the Moray Firth.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell): I visited the site of Brown & Root/Wimpey Highland Fabricators Ltd at Nigg on the Cromarty Firth on 6th April. I was very impressed with the progress the company is making both in the construction of the yard and in the training of local labour.
    Mr. Douglas: Will the right hon. Gentleman concede that we are grateful for the employment opportunities which will come into being in the North-East? However, will he visit the South-East and look at the possibility of detracting from employment opportunities regionally arising from the proposed oil terminal at Maplin?
    Mr. Campbell: I take it that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the South-East of England rather than to the South-East of Scotland. I do not think that developments taking place in the Foulness area need in any way conflict with what we are proposing in Scotland.

    Scottish Council on Crime
    Mr. Sproatasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement upon progress in the establishment of the Scottish Council on Crime.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): The Scottish Council on Crime has now been set up. It held its first meeting, which my right hon. Friend attended, on 14th April.
    Mr. Sproat: While I welcome the fact that the council has held its first meeting, may I ask my hon. Friend to say whether he or my right hon. Friend have found any justification for the charges made, notably by the police, that the council was not properly representative, and whether my hon. Friend has found evidence that so large a body will be able to agree on any policy or advice?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: In addition to the two chief constables who are members of the council, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary also attends meetings. The police are well represented on it. As for the second part of my hon. Friend's question, it is interesting that the new initiative that we have taken in establishing the council has been widely welcomed. The quality and breadth of membership that we have been able to attract to the council demonstrate that it has a real rôle to play.
    Mr. Ronald King Murray: The Government having made a great deal of propaganda capital out of crime, will this body be allowed to get its teeth into some of the more intractable problems of crime in Scotland? Will it be encouraged to voice its views independently?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. and learned Gentleman would show a more responsible attitude to this question if he dealt with it more seriously. Just because the Government are trying to get to the roots of problems concerning crime in Scotland, there is no need for the hon. and learned Gentleman to be so sour about it. I am confident that the council will produce good results.

    Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill
    Mr. Ewingasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many local authorities have now indicated that they are opposed to the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill; and how many have indicated their intention not to implement the Bill.
    Mr. Younger: Eighteen local authorities have indicated to my right hon. Friend their disagreement with some of the main provisions in the Bill. On the question of implementation, any expressions of intent at this stage must be speculative.
    Mr. Ewing: I take it that the 18 were previous to yesterday and not after yesterday's local election results. Will the hon. Gentleman, as the Minister responsible for piloting the Bill through its Committee stage, now adopt the honourable course by offering his resignation to the Secretary of State for Scotland in view of the fact that he has failed to convice the people of Scotland of the worth of this
    364
    Bill, despite issuing a Press statement to all local papers last week which appeared in the form of a contributed article and was a gross misuse of Government stationery, time and expenditure?
    Mr. Younger: I do not pretend to understand the tortuous details of the hon. Gentleman's question, which I have no doubt he worked out carefully. I should be surprised if many people yesterday voted against introducing rent allowances for the first time to people in privately rented property and whether many people voted against reducing the burden of housing on the rates by more than half.
    Mr. Brewis: In the event of a local authority refusing to implement the legislation, will not this mean that many poor families who otherwise would have been entitled to rebates will not be able to have them.
    Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend is quite correct. If that were to happen, that would be the result. But I do not think it likely that local authorities will decide to break the law of the land.
    Mr. Strang: Surely the hon. Gentleman is now aware of the deep-seated resentment throughout the length and breadth of Scotland about this Bill. Does he intend to use his English majority to impose this socially vindictive legislation on the people of Scotland?
    Mr. Younger: Here again, I very much doubt whether people in Scotland object to the new slum clearance subsidy, which is the most generous there has ever been in a housing Bill in Scotland. What is more, I doubt whether many people in Glasgow will object to having their help for housing increased from £6 million to £10 million in the next two years.
    Mr. Strangasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has estimated the number of commissioners he will require to operate the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill.
    Mr. Younger: None, Sir. The Bill does not provide for commissioners.
    Mr. Strang: That is true, but is the Under-Secretary determined to provoke a confrontation with elected local authorities in Scotland on the two basic issues in the Bill, the effect on rents and

    365
    the abominable rebates scheme? Would it not be more statesmanlike to go back to the local authorities with an open mind and reconsider these matters?
    Mr. Younger: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for acknowledging that the first part of my answer is correct. Regarding the second part, the last thing I would want to do is to provoke a confrontation with anyone. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] As the hon. Gentleman very wells knows, the Government are providing in the new Bill that more money will be spent in supporting local authorities in their housing problems. I believe they will come to welcome this and that it will be of benefit to everyone, particularly those who qualify for rebates, to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
    Mr. John Smith: The hon. Gentleman had a confrontation with the electorate yesterday, when the electorate very clearly expressed a view. The hon. Gentleman said earlier when dealing with the Bill that he did not believe the electorate were voting against the Government's policy. In his opinion, what was the source of dissatisfaction that was so clearly expressed yesterday?
    Mr. Younger: What I said earlier was that I should be very surprised indeed if the electors were voting against such things as the slum clearance subsidy, and so on. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will study yesterday's figures closely. He may be interested to know that the percentage poll for the Labour Party yesterday fell by 2·5 per cent. over last year.

    National Galleries of Scotland
    Mr. John Smithasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will pay an official visit to the National Galleries of Scotland.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: I make both official and unofficial visits from time to time.
    Mr. Smith: When the Secretary of State next pays a visit and has to pay for entry, will he bear in mind that the total amount which will accrue to the Exchequer from imposing charges is as low as £30,000 from the National Gallery of Scotland and that in respect of the Scottish National Portrait Gallery the cost
    366
    of collection is as high as 45 per cent.? Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is a miserable proposal to make charges and thus deter people from visiting our national galleries and museums for such pitiful sums? Will he not have the courage to say that the Government intend to drop this miserable Bill as soon as possible?
    Mr. Campbell: I visited the National Gallery unofficially only the Sunday before last in order to see the recently acquired Cuyp. I saw again the Domenichino the purchase of which I authorised last year. I shall probably visit the galleries even more later on when I pay, and I shall be glad to make a contribution to such valuable collections.

    Health Centre (Oakley)
    Mr. Adam Hunterasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the reasons for the delay in finalising the plans for the health centre in Oakley.
    Mr. Monro: The architect's brief for Oakley health centre is now complete, following the recent approval of the schedule of accommodation. Sketch plans will be circulated for discussion as soon as they are available.
    Mr. Hunter: I am grateful for that reply. I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands the frustration which is felt in Oakley because of the delay.
    Mr. Monro: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern about this. There have been long and detailed discussions. I hope he will realise that the building is rather complicated because it involves the adaptation of the doctors' consulting premises.

    Employment (South Ayrshire)
    Mr. Sillarsasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if, in view of continuing concern about employment prospects in South Ayrshire, he will state what further action is proposed by his Department to help to solve the problem.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: Within the fields for which the Scottish Office is responsible I have authorised the expenditure on public works in Ayrshire of over £6 million under the additional works scheme. I am confident that the

    367
    measures to stimulate the national economy and the strengthened regional measures announced in March will also have a beneficial effect on employment prospects in South Ayrshire.
    Mr. Sillars: Is the Secretary of State aware of the most recent proposals from the National Coal Board now being put to the unions concerned in South Ayrshire which will have the effect of producing large-scale redundancies and reducing job opportunities in the near future? Bearing in mind this fact, will the right hon. Gentleman send one of his Ministers to South Ayrshire for the purpose of meeting the people involved, including the local authorities, as a preliminary to his office accepting the responsibility for devising a solution to our acute problem?
    Mr. Campbell: I am aware of and concerned about the future of the mining industry in the area as a result of proposals which are being considered. But provided that the National Coal Board succeeds in retaining its main customers, it should be possible to keep redundancies to a minimum. The question of ministerial responsibility for the industry lies elsewhere, of course.
    Mr. Brewis: Has my right hon. Friend any information about the number of mines that were closed in South Ayrshire under the last Administration?
    Mr. Campbell: I could not supply that information without notice.
    Mr. Ross: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the concern and lack of confidence in the recent measures is not confined to this side of the House and that all the available Members representing Ayrshire constituencies, including the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean), had a meeting with the chambers of industry? Will the right hon. Gentleman take note of three points with which that meeting was very much concerned? The first was the inadequacy of help for existing industry under the present scheme. The second was the need for an early and generous statement about the future of REP. The third was the question of a basing point, especially for special steels, in Ayrshire.
    Mr. Campbell: I note the right hon. Gentleman's three points. However, we
    368
    announced recently that a Scottish Industrial Development office is being set up without delay. That can take initiatives besides dealing with grants and loans in Scotland, and we have ended the situation in which there was a difference in incentives for existing industry wishing to expand as opposed to incoming industry.

    School Milk (Lanarkshire)
    Mr. James Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many primary school children in Lanarkshire receive free milk on medical grounds at the latest convenient date; and what this is as a percentage of those medically examined for the provision of such milk.
    Mr. Monro: The figure was 21,153 in January, 1972.
    I understand that in Lanarkshire the decisions were taken by the medical officer after scrutiny of the pupils' medical records and not after medical examination.
    Mr. Hamilton: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that that is a formidable figure and that it is in accord with what is happening throughout Scotland? Would he now agree that the money which the Government were reputed to save by depriving children at primary schools of free milk has proved to be a nonsense? Will he now repeal that measure and give the children in primary schools what they are entitled to, namely, free milk?
    Mr. Monro: The hon. Gentleman is very wide of the mark in his figures. Talking in terms of the whole of Scotland, the number of pupils in Lanarkshire is 21,000, which is 45 per cent., but in the whole of Scotland it is 10 per cent. The hon. Gentleman should also bear in mind that medical officers elsewhere in Scotland consider that most primary school pupils are healthy and do not require this supplement to their normal diet.
    Mr. MacArthur: Will my hon. Friend tell the House how many secondary school children in Lanarkshire and Scotland were denied free milk by the Labour Government?
    Mr. Monro: I have no doubt that the numbers were substantial, but I should

    369
    need notice of that to be able to give a complete answer.
    Mr. Buchan: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that every fresh piece of evidence demonstrates not only the meanness of the Government's action but the crass stupidity of it? Even if in some areas the figure is as low as 10 per cent. —in some areas it is lower, and in Lanarkshire it is 45 per cent.—does it not show that the scheme is operation on no basis whatsoever when one school gets zero and another gets more than 90 per cent. within the same area, as happened in Aberdeen? The scheme is ludicrous. Will the Government please drop it?
    Mr. Monro: Again the hon. Gentleman is wide of the mark with his figures. In Aberdeen Burgh it is 6·63 per cent. and in only 3 authorities is it more than 10 per cent.—Lanark, Midlothian and Glasgow. The important point is that this must be left to the medical judgment of the authorities concerned.
    Mr. Ross: The Government are a miserable lot.

    School Camps (Abington and Aberfoyle)
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the future of camps at Abington and Aberfoyle, which are partly financed by his Department.
    Mr. Monro: I am now considering the views of the constituent bodies of the Scottish National Camps Association and of other interested parties on the future of the five school camps. I hope shortly to have further discussions with the association before coming to any decision.
    Mr. Dalyell: As in this matter the Minister's heart is in the right place, may I ask who is pressing for the closure of the camps?
    Mr. Monro: I know the hon. Gentleman's great interest in these camps. Last month I visited Abington and West Linton, and I was impressed with what I saw.
    Mr. Dalyell: Answer the question.
    Mr. Monro: I shall if the hon. Gentleman will wait a moment. The Government and the association have looked very
    370
    carefully at the figures for rebuilding the camps, bearing in mind that they are all more than 30 years old, and that must be taken into consideration before we come to a final decision.
    Mr. Edward Taylor: Can my hon. Friend give any idea of what cash is involved in maintaining the camps in their present form and how much would be involved in rebuilding them?
    Mr. Monro: Bearing in mind their size, to rebuild the camps would cost about £1 million. It would cost substantially less to maintain them. The capital expense of doing so would be of a much lower order and I am looking very carefully to see how we can do this.
    Mr. Maclennan: Who is pressing the Department to close the camps?
    Mr. Monro: I am giving careful consideration to the point which the hon. Gentleman is making—
    Mr. Dalyell: Who?
    Mr. Monro: —and I shall make an announcement when I have considered all the facts.

    Business School
    Mr. Dempseyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when and where he proposes to construct a new Scottish business school for the purpose of training in management and business methods; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Monro: I understand that the Scottish Business School based on the Universities of Glasgow, Edinburgh and Strathclyde has made a good start, and that the University Grants Committee and the Council of Industry for Management Education will each be contributing to the capital cost of a new building to be erected on the Strathclyde site.
    Mr. Dempsey: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that the existing fragmented efforts at management instruction and the lack of uniform direction and control leave a lot to be desired if we are to succeed in capturing the markets of Europe and elsewhere? Does he not think that we need a Scottish business school now, run on the same lines as Harvard Business School, where modern

    371
    methods and management techniques can be taught, leading to a diploma or degree?
    Mr. Monro: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman is saying, and that is why we are anxious to get ahead with the construction of this new building in 1973, but that does not mean that there is not a great deal going on now. All the universities are involved, as are some of the colleges of further education and my Department will shortly be publishing a guide entitled "Management Education" which I hope will bring home to all the people of Scotland the opportunities that we are giving them.
    Mr. MacArthur: Will my hon. Friend welcome the recognition by the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) of the great opportunities for Scotland inside the Common Market?
    Mr. Monro: I am sure that, given an opportunity, as he will be later today, he will do so.
    Mr. Douglas: Will the hon. Gentleman recognise that there is a serious problem in relation to the Scottish Business School? The three universities concerned ought to be brought together and there ought to be one clear head for this business school. While it is the direct responsibility of the UGC and the universities, will the hon. Gentleman's Department use its good offices to see that what I am suggesting is done?
    Mr. Monro: I think the hon. Gentleman appreciates that a great deal is being done, particularly in view of the fact that this new school got off the ground only this session. I think that by next year we shall see a big increase on the present total of 700 students, which will develop as the new school is built.

    Town Centres (Trunk Routes)
    Mr. David Steelasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make it his policy to seek to divert all trunk routes from town centres.
    Mr. Younger: The diversion of trunk routes from town centres is often justified on traffic and environmental groundsm, but each case must be considered on its merits.
    Mr. Steel: May I ask the hon. Gentleman to pursue this policy with the same
    372
    verve as that of his colleagues in the Department of the Environment? Is he aware that in three towns in my constituency—Peebles, Galashiels and Hawick —there is public concern over this issue and that we would like a more positive statement of policy from the Scottish Office?
    Mr. Younger: I am aware of the problem to which the hon. Gentleman has referred in these towns in his constituency, but we do not want to have an overriding dogmatic policy which does not conform with local conditions. Each case must be considered on its merits in the light of the traffic that will use the roads, and in particular the percentage of the traffic which goes past the town concerned and the percentage which goes through it. In the case of Hawick more than 90 per cent. of the traffic either starts or stops there.
    Mr. Clark Hutchison: Has my hon. Friend seen the proposals to drive trunk roads through parts of Edinburgh which would involve destroying many good houses in my constituency? Will he take steps to put the kibosh forthwith on this crazy scheme?
    Mr. Younger: I know my hon. Friend's strong views on this matter, but it is at present a matter between the consultants and Edinburgh Corporation and they have not so far brought it to my attention.

    Local Government Reorganisation
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to conclude his discussions with interested parties on the restructuring of local government boundaries, functions and financing.
    Mr. Milianasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he is currently having with local authorities regarding the reform of local government.
    Mr. William Hannanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the consideration he has given to representations he has received on his proposals on the reorganisation of local government.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: On 22nd December, 1971, in reply to Questions from several hon. Members, I announced

    373
    my conclusions on the representations I had received relating to local government boundaries and functions and arising from the White Paper of February, 1971.
    Consultations are continuing on the financial and electoral aspects of local government reform and on the names for the new authorities. I hope to conclude these discussions within the next few months.
    Mr. Hamilton: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has received any evidence in the last few months which would make him or would seek to influence him to make any kind of major changes in the boundaries of areas, particularly in Fife? Does he not recognise that there was an adverse reaction to the Green Paper on local government finance? Can he say what alternative proposals he received on that matter from various organisations?
    Mr. Campbell: On the first point, I left open for as long as possible for further consideration a number of questions which were controversial, including the future structure for Fife. But uncertainty had to be ended, and I said that I would take a decision and announce it before the end of last year. I made that announcement on 22nd December. So major changes in boundaries are not now expected, so far as the Government are concerned, though adjustments to boundaries will go on and eventually be taken over by the new Boundaries Commission. As regards the financial side, the previous Government excluded from the remit of the Wheatley Royal Commission any consideration of finance. Therefore, the study which it started was completed and a Green Paper was brought out, and that must be the basis of discussion from now on.
    Mr. W. Baxter: Is the Secretary of State aware of the considerable discontent existing throughout Scotland with the proposed new scheme of local government reform? Is he further aware that it seems fantastic that Members of Parliament elected to give guidance on these matters have not had an opportunity to discuss this since the Tory Party came to power? When will he let the wheels of democracy run in a proper manner and give us an opportunity to debate this important subject?
    Mr. Campbell: On the first point, this is a subject on which it is impossible to get agreement from everyone. There are three or four major points of controversy. [Interruption] I am coming to the second point. The first point that the hon. Gentleman put was as to whether I was aware of major dissatisfaction with the scheme. What I am saying is that one can never get complete agreement. I am aware of the three or four main points of controversy, and I left extra time for further consultation on them. As regards a debate in the House—the hon. Gentleman's second point—I am naturally keen to have a debate in the House but this subject is competing with many other demands for the Floor of the House. This is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. We offered time to the Opposition last summer in the Grand Committee, but the Opposition decided, on days on which they had the choice, upon other subjects.
    Mr. Edward Taylor: Is my right hon. Friend yet in a position to say what will happen to the capital debts of existing authorities when they are brought into the new regions? This is obviously a matter of serious interest to Glasgow and other areas.
    Mr. Campbell: The question of finance is the subject of a Green Paper which is still a matter for discussion, so this is one of the points on which in due course the Government will be making a statement.
    Mr. Ross: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that there is some merit in discussing these things with Members of Parliament?
    Mr. MacArthur: The right hon. Gentleman had the chance.
    Mr. Ross: We now have almost a shelf-full of White Papers and Green Papers, not one of which has been discussed. The right hon. Gentleman said that he offered us time in the Grand Committee. What we are pressing for is time on the Floor of the House. Grand Committee time, as he knows, is limited. What we preferred to do on that occasion was to discuss the White Paper that had just ben produced regarding housing in relation to a future Bill.
    Mr. Campbell: As I have said, I would be glad to have a debate on the Floor

    375
    of the House if time could be found for it. I hope that time can be found. No doubt the remarks made by right hon. and hon. Members will be noted by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. There was, however, a debate in the Grand Committee after the Wheatley Report was published, so there has been one debate on the subject there, although not on the Floor of the House.

    Fishing Methods
    Sir J. Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what investigations are taking place in Scotland as to the practicability of fishing in the sea with a combination of electrodes and a suction pipe instead of using nets.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Reports from overseas do not suggest that experiments in Scottish conditions would be fruitful.
    Sir J. Gilmour: Would my hon. Friend agree that indiscriminate "Hoovering" of the sea could be very dangerous to the fishing industry but that on the other hand in view of the possibility of the method being used in British waters if we did not do some research ourselves we would not be in a position to argue the toss as to whether it should or should not be allowed?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Regarding experiments overseas, there has been no confirmation that they have been successful and certainly different conditions in Scottish and British waters may mean that they may not be necessarily appropriate. So long as this was just "sook" it might be all right, but "sook and blaw" might be dangerous.

    North Sea Oil
    Mr. Wolrige-Gordonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the Scottish Economic Council has considered the effects of new installations in North-East Scotland related to exploration and production of North Sea oil; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: The opportunities and problems presented by the North Sea oil discoveries were discussed by the Scottish Economic Council at its meeting on 14th January and will, I am sure, come up for further discussion from time to time.
    Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Has the council got power in deciding the applications of oil companies for these installations? If not, who has it? There is doubt about this in the public mind and it ought to be clarified.
    Mr. Campbell: The Scottish Economic Council is not an executive body but an advisory body. The Minister responsible for planning in Scotland is the Secretary of State. I assure my hon. Friend that we are combining speed—where all the proceedings, naturally, are carried out—with making sure that industrial development does not take place where it should not. I am glad to be able to say that where the installations have so far been started, they are in areas where there should not be danger of either pollution or anything else.
    Dr. Miller: Would the right hon. Gentleman care to comment on recent statements that North Sea oil, which includes not just North Sea oil but oil beds going right round the north of Scotland, has a potential for development which could more than cover the total of the United Kingdom' requirements?
    Mr. Campbell: I could not confirm that. These matters are still for conjecture. It is clear that there is a major oilfield in the North Sea but that it is a tremendously expensive investment to carry out the technological operation of tapping it.
    Mr. Sproat: Would my right hon. Friend agree that there may be much to be said for a Gaskin Report for development in the North Sea that would take into account all the oil discoveries made since that report was published?
    Mr. Campbell: I do not think that anything that has happened conflicts with the Gaskin Report and its general recommendations. I shall certainly bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said. In the planning decisions so far, I do not think we have met difficulties which have been unable to be resolved.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: When will the Secretary of State inject some new money into the economy of the North-East? When will he give capital grants

    377
    instead of regarding the North-East as a suitable place to which to lend money?
    Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that the Government have already decided to accelerate expenditure on improvement of main roads to Aberdeen, and the A9 north of Inverness to Invergordon.
    Mr. Eadieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussion he has had with companies involved in North Sea prospecting for oil with a view to establishing an oil refinery in Scotland.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: I have had discussions with BP and Shell. BP proposes to use its Grangemouth refinery and has announced that it is considering its expansion. The other companies exploring in the North Sea are not yet in a position to make production plans.
    Mr. Eadie: If we have our own oil finds in the North Sea, will it not be nothing short of ridiculous if oil found off our own shores is taken away to other countries to be refined? What is the Government's attitude on this matter?
    Mr. Campbell: As I said, we are in touch with the companies and BP intends to expand its Grangemouth refinery. But the companies have not come forward with their production plans as regards further exploration.
    Mr. Grimond: Will the Secretary of State look at the policy of the Norwegians in connection with oil? Second, will he ensure that the Royal Commission on the Constitution revises its estimate for the Scottish economy and the financial state of Scotland in the light of these important discoveries of oil?
    Mr. Campbell: We are watching what Norway is doing. At the conference which I attended at Aviemore I heard some criticism of what the Norwegian Government are doing, especially as regards slowness, as well as praise of particular parts of their policy. I do not at present see a need for revision of the document to which the right hon. Gentleman referred.
    Mr. Maddan: Will my right hon. Friend take it that I came here principally to get an answer to a later Question to the Minister for the Civil Service,
    378
    but will he on this matter agree that the point made by the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) is very serious in view of the present state of the Scottish economy?
    Mr. Campbell:I accept that it is a serious question. The Government and others are bending their minds to it.
    Mr. Ross: Does that mean that the Government have no attitude, or no attitude which they can presently state, in relation to the refining of oil which may be found off the Scottish coast?
    Mr. Campbell: Certainly we have a view, but it is impossible to state it in two sentences in answer to a supplementary question. I think that many hon. Members will know of, or will have heard or read, my speech at the oil forum at Aviemore. They will understand also that this is, as I said before, an extremely complicated and expensive technological operation and, therefore, industry and the Government must approach it together.

    Bus Services (Uneconomic Routes)
    Mr. Gourlayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will issue a directive to the Scottish Bus Group to provide the relevant information to the several local authorities in Fife from which the group has requested financial support for uneconomic routes.
    Mr. Younger: My right hon. Friend can give the group only general directions on matters affecting the national interest, and he does not consider that this is such a matter. However, I understand that the Bus Group has already supplied full information about costs and revenue on all the services for which it is seeking a subsidy.
    Mr. Gourlay: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that is a most disappointing reply? Is he further aware that the bus company has still not answered the queries of the local authorities which are extremely dissatisfied with the company's refusal? Is he also aware that the authorities are somewhat concerned about the company's operating costs which obviously have an effect on the running of services in view of the introduction of a productivity scheme costing something in the region of £60,000 without apparently producing any increased productivity? Will he make an effort to

    379
    consider the bus company's finances and thus safeguard the position of the local authorities?
    Mr. Younger: Most of these matters concerning the Bus Group are really for the internal operation of the group. I am told that it has supplied to the county council full information about revenue and costs on the routes for which it has asked for a subsidy. If it has not done so perhaps the hon. Gentleman will let me know and I will see that the county council gets whatever it needs.
    Mr. David Steel: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the system laid down by the previous Government in the Transport Act for serving unremunerative routes is quite unworkable and that it is high time we had a national system of subvention to those areas which require help in running unremunerative services, if necessary from the savings the Government have made in closing railway lines?
    Mr. Younger: I am not sure I would agree that the system has been unworkable. Where a local authority decides to support a route there is a 50 per cent. Government grant for it and the remainder of the cost can come in for rate support grant. That is a reasonable basis upon which local authorities can support bus routes in their areas.

    Teachers (Training)
    Mr. Buchanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will bring forward proposals in place of the special recruitment scheme for teachers in order to assist the entry of mature students to higher education.
    Mr. Monro: Under the Students' Allowances Scheme and the Education Authority Bursaries Regulations provision already exists for assistance to mature students who wish to pursue courses of high education and who are ineligible under the special recruitment scheme.
    Mr. Buchan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that answer will be deplored? Does he not agree that this makes a mockery of the whole drive towards a second opportunity in education? Reverting to an earlier question, who is pressing him?
    Mr. Monro: The hon. Gentleman is again quite wrong. I hope he has taken
    380
    the trouble to read the Adjournment debate initiated by his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. William Hannan) in which it was explained in detail that we are in no way reducing opportunities for mature students to enter teaching. We value what they have done and will do for teaching.

    Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970
    Mr. McElhoneasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many local authorities have carried out the requirements of Section 5 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: As I told the hon. Gentleman on 23rd November, 1971, the Act does not require local authorities to provide information on this. Nor does it give me powers to obtain it. I issued a circular of guidance covering this Section in October, 1970.—[Vol. 826. c.330]
    Mr. McElhone: Is the Secretary of State aware that in the long circular to local authorities advising on services for the handicapped, dated 10th April, no mention is made of this valuable service and as far as I know Aberdeen City is the only local authority which has applied the provisions of Section 5? Will the right hon. Gentleman give more encouragement to local authorities to act under that Section?
    Mr. Campbell: I will certainly give them encouragement, but I have issued several circulars to local authorities on the important subject of the disabled. The circular on this Section was dated 29th October, 1970. I would ask the hon. Gentleman to look at that. I supported the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) in his Private Member's Bill which became this Act. I know that he considered very carefully the wording and scope of the Section.

    Lodging House Accommodation (Allowances)
    Mr. Buchananasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of the cost of accommodation is paid by the Government in allowances toward the users of lodging house accommodation.
    Mr. Monro: This is mainly a matter for the Supplementary Benefits Commission, and the amounts of its allowances to individuals depend on their circumstances.
    Mr. Buchanan: Is the Minister aware that in the City of Glasgow 99 per cent. of the people who stay in lodging houses are recipients of supplementary benefit and that the Supplementary Benefits Commission avers that board and lodging can be had in Glasgow for £6 a week? It allows beneficiaries only £7·20 a week when the economic cost is £11. Is that not an unreasonable amount to be made up by the ratepayers?
    Mr. Monro: I appreciate the interest the hon. Gentleman has in this case. This is a matter for the Supplementary Benefits Commission and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

    Industrial Development (Sutherland)
    Mr. Maclennanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to ensure that the benefits of the industrial development of the inner Moray Firth area are shared by East Sutherland.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: Sutherland, like the rest of Scotland, is eligible to benefit from our new incentives for regional industrial development, and the Highlands and Islands Development Board takes every opportunity of assisting development in the county.
    Mr. Maclennan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that reply is quite disgraceful and shows no evidence whatever that he is aware of the potential employment benefits in Sutherland arising from the oil industry and the aluminium smelter at Easter Ross? When will he give approval to the bridging of the Dornoch Firth? Do we have to wait years, until there is another Labour Government? [Laughter]
    Mr. Campbell: Many, many years—for the Labour Government. As the hon. Gentleman ought to know, I was one of the first to be aware of the potential of the Dornoch bridge and it was I who announced the bridging of the two firths to the south. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should have said what he did because recently I visited Nigg
    382
    Bay where the most northern development is taking place and it was he who recently objected to me to the new scheme for bringing employment to Tain.

    Selective Schools
    Mr. MacArthurasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a further statement about the future of local authority selective schools.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: My Department has today written to the Glasgow Education Authority explaining why I am unable to reach a decision on the proposed amendments to its educational provision and transfer schemes in time to take effect from the beginning of the 1972–73 session, and asking whether the authority intends to carry out its duty under the existing schemes. I am putting copies of my letter in the Library.
    Mr. MacArthur: Will my right hon. Friend state clearly that he is rejecting all proposals that are educationally unsound? Will he immediately insist that these excellent schools should be required to take the usual intake of pupils this coming academic year?
    Mr. Campbell: I understand my hon. Friend's anxiety about this. While the corporation has now supplied me with some further information that is required, the scheme is still not complete and it is not possible for me to consider it or to give approval until I have had these further details and further consultations have taken place with those concerned.
    Mr. Hugh D. Brown: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that he is now in a very dangerous position? Is he aware that the people of Glasgow have again given their decision and the political outlook of the party opposite is such that it may be thought that he is using administrative obstruction as a means of thwarting the will of the people in Glasgow? Will he not agree to accept the decision of the people and try to co-operate?
    Mr. Campbell: I do not regard this as a decision of the people on this matter. It has to be considered in the light of the enormous number of gains by Conservatives three years ago. The effect of local elections does not release the corporation from the duty to formulate

    383
    schemes which meet the requirements of the Education Acts. Neither does it release any Secretary of State from his duty of examining schemes and ensuring that they are not defective before giving the approval required of him.
    Mr. Galbraith: My right hon. Friend is a very polite gentleman but would he not agree that the plan put forward by Glasgow Corporation does not even begin to make sense? Will he please say this firmly and clearly so that we can set at rest the anxieties of parents who feel that their children are being treated not as children requiring education but as units to be shifted about like sacks of potatoes?
    Mr. Campbell: As I have made clear in the House earlier and when I saw members of the corporation, the first proposals were defective and not enough consultation with parents and teachers had been carried out. For those two reasons alone it was not possible for me to give my approval.
    Mr. John Smith: Will the Secretary of State confirm that he does not object to the abolition of fee-paying in principle if that decision is arrived at by the local authority? Will he make that crystal clear to his hon. Friends on the back benches who do not seem to accept it?
    Mr. Campbell: The issue at present is selection rather than fee-paying, but I confirm that the Government are not trying to lay down what local authorities should do in these matters. However, that does not release them from their duty to put forward schemes which meet the requirements under the Act.
    Mr. Edward Taylor: Is it not outrageous that parents of children in the first and second years of school do not know to which school their children will go in the new session? Will my right hon. Friend make clear to Glasgow that, even if Labour wins every seat in the city, this will in no way release the corporation from its obligation to ensure that children's education is not disrupted by mad schemes?
    Mr. Campbell: I agree about the unsettling nature of the present situation, and I know there are a great many parents—thousands have written to me—who are anxious about their children's future.
    Mr. Buchan: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that he is indulging in a disgraceful piece of stalling? If he wishes to break his own promises of freedom for local authorities, why does he not have the courage to do so plainly instead of proceeding in this way? Was not a further, statement about the future of local authority schools made by the people of Edinburgh yesterday?
    Mr. Campbell: "No, Sir" to the first point, and "No, Sir" to the second.

    Sea Transport Facilities (West Loch, Tarbert)
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide a pier at West Loch, Tarbert, capable of taking the largest new transport containers and coping with the passenger and commercial needs of the Western Isles.
    Mr. Younger: Following the recent report of the Scottish Transport Users Consultative Committee, my right hon. Friend is considering his attitude towards the support of sea transport services to the Islay group of islands. A decision to construct a new pier would, however, be a matter for the local authority or transport operator concerned.
    Mr. Rankin: Will Ministers accept from me that the proposals outlined in this Question represent the views of every one of the islanders who are suffering under the present state of affairs and the views of many people in public life elsewhere? May I take it that these proposals will be accepted by the Secretary of State when he puts his policy into operation?
    Mr. Younger: I am not certain to which proposals the hon. Gentleman is referring. If it is to the proposal mentioned in his Question to provide a pier at West Loch, Tarbert, that is a matter for the operators concerned or for the county council in the light of the considerations which my right hon. Friend is giving to the future arrangements for subsidy on these services.
    Mr. Rankin: Is the hon. Gentleman telling me that a pier will not be provided at West Loch, Tarbert, capable of taking all the services for the island, the transport of commodities and the rest which are necessary for every aspect of

    385
    life, including the transport of motor cars? Will not that be done?
    Mr. Younger: There are already two piers at West Loch, Tarbert—
    Mr. Rankin: They are insufficient.
    Mr. Younger: One is not capable of taking roll on-roll off services, but there is another at Kennacraig which is capable of taking vehicles on a roll on-roll off basis, and it is in use now.

    Improvement Grants
    Mr. Robert Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what sums of money in each of the last three years paid for improvements to private property have been paid to landlords; and what comparable sums have been paid to owner-occupiers.
    Mr. Younger: Information about amounts paid is not available, but with permission I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT figures for the amounts of grant approved by local authorities.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Under-Secretary recollect telling me the other day that £1ࡩ million had been given in the last six months to private landlords? Does he not think it wrong that landlords should have increases in rent on improvements carried out with public funds?
    Mr. Younger: When the hon. Gentleman sees the figures he will observe that of the improvement grants allotted in the private sector over three-quarters were to owner-occupiers and only 24 per cent. in respect of privately rented properties. He must surely recognise that the people who benefit most from improvements carried out to tenanted property are the people living in the houses. It is they who enjoy the benefit of the improvements.
    Mr. James Hamilton: Will the hon. Gentleman take it that it has been brought to my notice by one local authority that people with more than one house are receiving improvement grants for houses—in the plural? Does not that make nonsense of the scheme, in view of the Bill which will shortly be coming before the House and which the Government guillotined in Committee? Ought not the whole situation to be reappraised?
    Mr. Younger: Local authorities have a discretion as to whether they give
    386
    grants or not, and that is no doubt one of the matters which they will take into account.
    Following are the figures

    APPROXIMATE AMOUNTS OF IMPROVEMENT GRANT AND STANDARD GRANT APPROVED BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES FOR OWNERS OF PRIVATE HOUSES

    £000

    Owner-occupiers

    Others

    Total

    1969

    1,100

    260

    1,360

    1970

    2,400

    760

    3,160

    1971

    3,700

    1,200

    4,900

    German Investment
    Mr. Douglasasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on Scottish initiatives to attract German direct investment to Scotland.
    Mr. Younger: The Committee for European Investment in Scotland has been set up with the co-operation of the Scottish Council, and my right hon. Friend is paying a grant of £100,000 a year to support its work in attracting industrial investment to Scotland from Europe. The committee's initial attention has been directed to the Federal Republic of Germany, and together with the Committee's Chairman, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, I led a mission in November last year to launch the promotion campaign there. The committee's staff is in active contact with firms in Germany about prospects in Scotland, and attention is now turning to other countries in Europe.
    Mr. Douglas: When does the Minister expect to announce a single piece of direct investment in Scotland from a German company?
    Mr. Younger: I hope we shall be able to announce some results before long. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that a matter of this kind is a big operation and it takes a long time to achieve results, but it is well worth doing. Every job which is brought to Scotland in this way will be warmly welcomed by the people of Scotland.

    Drugs
    Mr. Ewingasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he proposes to take consequent upon the publication of the report entitled "Misuse of

    387
    Drugs in Scotland ", published by his Department; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Monro: The main aim of the report is to keep those concerned with drug abuse in touch with the most recent information about the extent of the problem. I have therefore arranged for copies to be widely distributed throughout the National Health Service and to education authorities, social work departments and other interests. The report indicates that the problem, though serious, is still a limited one in Scotland; but it will be kept under constant review.
    Mr. Ewing: Many of us who are interested in the problem consider the report to be very weak. In order to alleviate its weakness, will the hon. Gentleman take steps to expand educational facilities to educate people against the misuse of drugs?
    Mr. Monro: The hon. Gentleman must make his own decision on the report. A great deal is already being done by the appropriate authorities at local level, where direct contact can be achieved. I assure the hon. Gentleman that my Department is watching the matter very closely.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Sir G. Nabarro: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention once again to the fact that the garrulous character of the Scots has once more frustrated my pursuiae of the Minister for the Bureaucracy, and my Questions Nos. 39 and 40, put down 14 days ago, are once against not reached? I have in South Worcestershire the largest concentration of scientific civil servants of any establishment in Britain, and I am denied by the Scots the opportunity to ask Questions about their welfare. May I put to you that the time is now long overdue when the Scots should be relegated to a proper position on the Order Paper in order to allow the English to protect the interests of their constituents?
Mr. Speaker: I make no comment on garrulousness, but I think there is a serious point here which I hope the usual channels will consider. I think it is very proper that the Chair should have reasonable facilities for allowing questions to be
388
pursued, if they appear to be important, which will not be pursued in any other way. That is why on certain Questions I allow more supplementaries. Nevertheless I think it is unsatisfactory that Questions to an important Department should begin at No. 35 on the Order Paper, and I hope that that matter will be considered.
Mr. Neave: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is the Chairman of the Select Committee on Parliamentary Questions, would it be in order for him to say something now on this point?
Mr. W. Baxter: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. The easiest way to rectify the wrong complained about by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) would be for Parliament to give serious consideration to setting up, or giving us back, a Parliament for Scotland. We should then be able to attend to all our requirements.
Mr. Speaker: That is going rather wider than the matter of Questions on the Order Paper.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robert Carr): If an Englishman may stay safely south of the border—[Interruption]
Mr. Speaker: I think the right hon. Gentleman is on the point of order. Do I understand that the Leader of the House was rising to the point of order?
Mr. Carr: Yes, Mr. Speaker, if I may. I was saying that if an Englishman may stay safely south of the border and stick to the Civil Service Question point, perhaps I could see that the matter is inquired into by the Committee which I chair.
Mr. Lawson: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I again remind you and the House that the Secretary of State for Scotland is responsible for about seven Departments? If we have someone questioning our rights as Scots someone whose own origins might be quite doubtful in terms of which nation he comes from, the Chair might inquire a little more closely into his antecedents. We are very concerned—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Chair has enough troubles, and if I were to be asked to look into the antecedents of right hon. and hon. Members I should find it an insupportable burden.
Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Further to that point of order. May I say how much the House appreciates what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has just said? May I ask him, through you, Mr. Speaker, whether he will expedite the consideration of the matter, which is becoming increasingly urgent, bearing in mind the very important establishments in the various constituencies?
Mr. Ross: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have no objection to the Select Committee having a look at the point about Questions to the Minister for the Civil Service, but if the Leader of the House had been here he would have heard the Secretary of State for Scotland say that the House had not been able to find time for discussion on the Floor of the House of any of the White Papers and Green Papers on the reform of local government in Scotland. We already have very serious complaints about the fact that we have only one day in three weeks to question the Secretary of State, who carries portfolios equivalent to seven Ministers.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I point out that under the last Government the Secretary of State for Scotland came up for questioning only once every six weeks?
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have a debate on this matter, which is a question of the practice of the House. The Leader of the House has said that he will consider it.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES (SUB JUDICE RULE)
Mr. Atkinson (by Private Notice)Mr. Atkinson (by Private Notice) asked Mr. Speaker if, in view of the uncertainty in the application of the sub judice rule to industrial disputes, he will exercise his discretion under the Resolution of 23rd July, 1963, by permitting debate on all matters affecting the National Industrial Relations Court until the House
390
has come to a decision on a Report from the Procedure Committee on this subject.
Mr. Speaker: I decided to allow this Private Notice Question to myself, which is a somewhat unusual procedure—I am not certain about how good a precedent it is—because I am aware of the anxieties felt by right hon. and hon. Members on this matter.
I cannot bind myself in the manner suggested by the hon. Gentleman, but I promise carefully to consider in each case all the circumstances as they arise and to exercise my discretion as appropriate. Nevertheless, I would hope for a speedy report from the Select Committee on Procedure, although that is not a matter for me.
Mr. Atkinson: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to put to you personally my Private Notice Question, and I thank you for your interim reply.
I believe that the Committee will not be able to report to the House before July, and, therefore, we shall not have a decision on the matter before then. As least, it looks as though that is the approximate time scale. In view of that and all that is happening on the industrial front, Mr. Speaker, are you first of all saying that you will favourably consider allowing the House to debate a possible fresh application by the Secretary of State for Employment to the court for an extension of the 14 days' cooling-off period, which was the court's ruling in the railway dispute? Do you not agree, Mr. Speaker, that before that matter can go back to the court it is essential for the House to debate whether extra money is being made available by the Government which would possibly justify the court's extending the 14 days already granted? Secondly, do you agree that we should want next week to discuss the possible engineers' dispute at C. A. Parsons and Company Limited and the dockers' dispute? Therefore, can you indicate whether your rulings on those matters will be favourable before the Minister makes up his mind whether he should apply for an extension of the 14 days' period already given by the court in the railway dispute?
Mr. Speaker: I think the House would want me to pronounce on each situation as it arose. All I can assure the House

391
very genuinely is that I am very sensitive to this point, and I shall try, therefore, in reality to exercise my discretion.
Sir Elwyn Jones: On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, Mr. Speaker, may I say that we welcome your approach to this matter? The discretion is entirely in the hands of Mr. Speaker. In view of the peculiar difficulties with which the Industrial Relations Act presents the House—in that, for instance, by submitting to the court a matter of possibly great national importance the Secretary of State can not only prevent the House deciding upon the matter but even prevent it discussing it by reason of the application of the sub-judice rule —we welcome what appears to have been a liberal interpretation of the rule on Mr. Speaker's part, and hope that certainly in this interim period the greatest latitude will be exercised in regard to questions in this difficult field.
Mr. Speaker: Hon. and right hon. Members must put their own interpretation on my words. I realise that there is a very important point of principle here concerning the sub judice rule. I am very sensitive to the argument that it would be wrong to deny the House the right to discuss matters of great national interest just because some matter has gone to a court. I am not prepared, and I do not think that anyone would expect me to be prepared, to rule on a specific case in advance. With that the House must be content.
Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are you aware that as a result of the somewhat liberal interpretation of the sub judice rule the National Industrial Relations Court cannot be regarded as being exactly in line with any court in the land? This bears out what many of us on this side of the House have suggested—that it is a political arm—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. I allowed a Private Notice Question to be put to myself. That in itself involves problems for the Chair. It also involves the Chair in having to select those hon. Members whom it will allow to put supplementary questions. What the hon. Gentleman has just said was a supplementary question, not a point of order. I did not call him, and I must be allowed to continue.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (ACCESS BY CONSTITUENTS)
Mr. Speaker: At the end of Questions yesterday I was asked to consider the question of Mr. Eric Camp and the matter of an order of a court preventing any citizen from having, in effect, access to this House. Mr. Camp's case is before a court and I have no hesitation, in the general interest and in his particular interest, in invoking the sub judice rule.
As to the validity of a condition imposed by a court when granting bail which, in effect, prevents the person charged from having access to this House, and as to interference with what is called the right of access to this House, there is, in my view, no such general right of access. Sessional Orders impose a duty on the Commissioner of Police so far as Members of this House are concerned.
It is obviously sensible and convenient that everyone with any responsibility should do his best to ensure that con stituents and others are able to come here to talk to hon. Members. The Services Committee has considered this matter. But, in my view, there is no such right of access, the infringement of which involves privilege. That is my view, firmly held, but I may be wrong, and I would welcome consideration of the matter, when convenient, by the appropriate Select Committee.
Mr. Harold Wilson: Thank you for your ruling, Mr. Speaker, on the point which my hon. Friends and I raised yesterday. While immediately accepting your ruling, may I put this to you in support of your concluding words?
While it is true that there has never been an order of the House giving freedom of access, there has been a growing feeling on both sides of the House about the right of those who come to this building to see Members—which may not have been the case in the matter referred to yesterday. Indeed, successive Leaders of the House and Chief Whips of both parties have gone to a great deal of trouble to help facilitate access, as have the officials of the House.
Is it not therefore right, as you have suggested, Mr. Speaker, that this matter should be considered by the appropriate Select Committee—I do not know whether that Committee should be the

393
Select Committee on Procedure; it would be probably treating the matter too heavily to send it to the Committee of Privileges—in order to ensure that the general wish of the House about freedom of access for constituents and others is upheld so that, if necessary, the House can pass a Motion on this question?
Mr. Speaker: The Services Committee considered this matter and made a report on it.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robert Carr): It is a matter of deciding the appropriate form in which the question should be considered. I will give that matter consideration.
Mr. Stallard: I am very grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for the detailed consideration which you obviously gave to the point which I raised yesterday. I should like to give detailed consideration to your reply before going further. However, I took your advice and spent a fascinating hour considering the case of Mr. Bellingham, who shot Prime Minister Perceval in the Lobby of the House in 1812. But, in all honesty and with due respect, I could hardly link it with the case of Mr. Camp, who was simply on hunger strike outside the carriage gates at Westminster. I shall try again to see the relevance of the Bellingham case. Perhaps I would have joined in the protests about the haste with which Mr. Bellingham was despatched, but I could not see the relevance of his case to the matter I raised.
Mr. Speaker: It has a direct bearing on what is claimed as a right of access to this House by anyone. If there were
394
a right of access to the Lobby of the House to do, not necessarily to a Prime Minister but to a leader of a political party, what Mr. Bellingham did, I doubt whether it is what the House would want.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY, 19th MAY
Members successful in the Ballot were

Mr. Charles Simeons

Sir Ronald Russell

Mr. Kenneth Marks.

BILL PRESENTED
  NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Sir Keith Joseph, supported by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Whitelaw, Mr. Secretary Campbell, Mr. Secretary Peter Thomas, Mr. Secretary Macmillan, Mr. Michael Alison, and Mr. Paul Dean, presented a Bill to amend the provisions of the National Insurance Act 1965, the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act 1965 and the Industrial Injuries and Diseases (Old Cases) Act 1967 as to the rate or amount of benefit and contributions; to alter the conditions for payment of attendance allowance and unemployability supplement; to modify certain provisions as to the determination of claims and questions under those Acts, and to make other administrative and financial adjustments; to make paralled provision for Northern Ireland; and for purposes connected with those matters: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed
  NATIONAL INSURANCE

    EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES BILL
    [1ST ALLOTTED DAY]
    Considered in Committee [Progress, 26th April]
    [Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]
    Clause 2

  GENERAL IMPLEMENTATION OF TREATIES
  3.48 p.m.
  Sir Derek Walker-Smith: On a point of order, Sir Robert. May I seek your guidance concerning the provisional selection of Amendments, including those which you helpfully indicated as being assigned for Divisions?
  The prospects of dividing upon those Amendments are, presumably, contingent on the state of play reached when the guillotine falls. In any event, Amendment No. 7 does not figure on the list. Whether that is through inadvertence or through the pessimistic conclusion that it is unlikely that we shall get that far in the time allotted I am not sure. But I would respectfully suggest that the Amendment should be on the list just in case we reach it during the time allotted by the timetable Motion.
  Mr. Edmund Dell: Further to that point of order, Sir Robert. I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) for the care with which he has attended to the Amendment in my name. As you know, Sir Robert. I intended to raise a point of order on this matter. It is not clear as a result of the timetable Motion where a Division on Amendment No. 7 would occur. I assume that it would occur on the third day. I should be grateful to you if you would indicate whether that is correct.
  The Chairman: It is quite clear that it will not come in today's section. It may be reached if we get beyond the matters which have been allotted, but I cannot hold out high hopes of that. It is almost certain to come during the second allotted day, whenever that is.
  Mr. Dell: Further to the point of order. You say, Sir Robert, that it is likely to come during the second allotted day. You will observe that Amendment No. 7 is in the form of a new subsection (3). I should therefore have thought that it would come within the classification on the third day, "Clause 2, Amendments before subsection (4)". rather than on the second day, "Amendments before subsection (3)".
  The Chairman: No; I think that the right lion. Gentleman is incorrect. It will come during the second day.
  Mr. Michael Foot: We certainly trust that there will be a Division on Amendment No. 7, and we understand that the Chair has made its position on the matter absolutely clear. We fully understand that if a Division on that Amendment is prevented, it will be because of the way in which the guillotine falls.
  There are many other matters which are the subject of Amendments which ought to be subject to Divisions. We are concerned not only with the Amendment suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell), which is extremely important, for there are other matters which will fall under the guillotine. One of the disadvantages of the guillotine procedure is that whether we are to have a Division rests not with the House or with the Opposition but solely with the Government, and I hope that there will be no misunderstanding about that.
  We hope that there will be a Division on Amendment No. 7 and that the Chair will be able to give us that guarantee, and if the Chair cannot give that guarantee, it will be because of the ruthless operation by the Government of their attempt to prevent even pro-Marketeers from having a clear undertaking that they will be able to vote on these matters.
  The Chairman: I understand the hon. Gentleman's anxiety about this issue, and to some extent it is not without foundation. If the Amendment is not reached by the time the directions of the Business Committee come into force, there will not be a Division, because the Business Motion expressly precludes that. It allows not only Government Amendments, of which there is none, and the Amendment already reached to be put to a Division.
  Mr. Foot: I am grateful to you for what you have said, Sir Robert, because you have made it clear to the House and the country, if the country is interested in our proceedings, that if we are deprived of the opportunity to vote on Amendments such as that of my right hon. Friend, which is an Amendment suggested by a pro-Marketeer about the way in which the House of Commons should deal with these matters, it will be due to the action of the Government and to nothing else. That ought to be understood. I hope that even at this late date the Government will understand that the ruling that the Chair has just given means that many pro-Marketeer Members are to be denied the right to force their Amendments to a Division because of the operation of the guillotine. Let us have no misunderstanding about it.
  The Chairman: I hesitate to join in argument with the hon. Gentleman, but there are many contingencies which may arise with other Amendments which are now cluttering the Notice Paper—and I use the expression respectfully—which may make reaching that Amendment difficult. There is no need for me to protect the Government, but in all fairness I do not think that the Government can say exactly where a Division will happen. Even if they go out of their way to make it happen, they have no way of guaranteeing when a Division will occur.
  Mr. Foot: I am sorry to persist, and I am not arguing with you, Sir Robert, for after your ruling the matter should be clear. We shall now have to proceed to debate the Amendments on the Notice Paper in the best way we can. The Opposition will consider these matters in the light of the decision made in the House yesterday, and we will seek by our arrangements of the Amendments to provide the fullest opportunities for debate.
  All I wished to establish beyond any possibility of doubt was that if hon. Members such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead, or my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins), or my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever), were here and wished to move Amendments on these matters, they would be deprived of the right to do so by the operation of the guillotine. I want it to be absolutely plain
  398
  to them that that is because of the Division in the House last night. I wish to make it particularly clear to the Liberal Benches, which are now totally empty, that if we are denied the right to vote on the matters which yesterday Liberal Members said they wished to vote on it will be because of the Government's decision and not because of any decision by the Opposition, or any decision by the Chair.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Further to that point of order, Sir Robert. I refer to your ruling immediately before the last intervention by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). Would you not agree that it would have been possible, if so desired, within the terms of the Motion by which we are now governed to provide that the Question should be put on Amendments which the Chair had previously ruled were to be subject to a Division if required?
  The Chairman: That may or may not be so, but it is nothing to do with me. It is a question for the Government to decide for themselves, and they are within the rules of order in doing so.
  Sir Robin Turton: Further to that point of order, Sir Robert. If the Government had accepted the second Amendment which I suggested yesterday, all the Amendments which the Chair has selected for a Division would have come within the guillotine. As they refused that Amendment, we are denied that opportunity which we had previously been promised.
  The Chairman: That is not a matter for me.
  Mr. John Mendelson: On a point of order, Sir Robert. As you have twice said that it is not for you, is it not high time, at the beginning of the procedure now governing us, that we should hear a Government reply to the comments from both sides of the House?
  The Chairman: That, again, is not for me.
  Sir Elwyn Jones: On a point of order, Sir Robert. Is not the position particularly deplorable, because we had full discussions about Amendment No. 7 when there were valuable contributions from both sides of the

  399
  Committee? Is it not intolerable that the matter would be left in a state of suspense because of the operation of the guillotine?
  The Chairman: That is not a matter for me. We are now becoming inclined to become a little disorderly. I have given a ruling, and I think that we should now continue to debate the Bill
  Mr. Foot: I am sorry to persist, Sir Robert, but it so happens that the House of Commons should understand that we are starting these discussions in a complete shambles on these Amendments because of the way in which, following the Division last night, the Government have not been prepared even to comment on what has been said from both sides of the House about how we are to have an opportunity to divide under this extremely clumsy guillotine Motion and to vote on matters on which we have already had some discussion, matters which the Government themselves have described as important, but on which we are not to have Divisions because of the clumsy and indiscriminate and haphazard nature of the guillotine Motion for which the House of Commons so foolishly voted last night.
  We now seem to be in the position that nobody in the House knows whether we are to have a chance to vote on these matters, least of all those in charge of the Bill. That adds to what has been said by the Father of the House about how these matters might have been better handled. It is a further illustration of how little the Government care about the way in which the House conducts its business.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman, who is supposed to be in charge of the Bill, should rise now and tell us whether he thinks, for example, that the House will have a chance of voting on Amendment No. 7, and, if he does, when that chance will occur, and when further opportunities to divide on similar Amendments will occur. That would be a start to attempting to deal with the matter properly, particularly as he has said that he wants an orderly discussion of these matters. The Government have not yet been able to tell us, although the Chair has been inciting the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say what he will do.
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): My difficulty is that I do not know how quickly the Committee will proceed to the discussion of the Amendments or how fast it will deal with them. You, Sir Robert, put it fairly when you said that it all depended on how the Committee proceeded; and, of course, I cannot order the business of the Committee
  Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
  The Chairman: Order. The Committee having made a considerable demonstration about this matter, I suggest that it might be as well to proceed to the next Amendment. I therefore call Mr. Hugh Jenkins.
  4 p.m.
  Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I beg to move Amendment No. 211, in page 2, line 26, after ' Treaties ', insert:
  ' except such rights, powers, liabilities, obligations and restrictions as arise under the following regulations and notices dealing with the film industry, namely Directives 1/63, 2/63, 3/68, and 4/70; Regulations 15/61, 38/64, 221/64, 360/68, 1612/68, and 125/70; Directives 63/607, 65/264, 68/369, 70/451'.
  It was the intention of those whose names appear to this Amendment that we should at this stage have a major debate on the film industry, but in the situation in which we find ourselves it may turn out—as you rightly say, Sir Robert. one cannot forecast these things; none of us can control what the Committee decides in the circumstances—that we shall have a short debate on the industry now, with special reference to the relevant treaties and regulations, and perhaps a longer and more detailed discussion when we come to Clause 8.
  I had intended to make a somewhat lengthy exposition of the situation. I shall reduce that to not more than 15 minutes, which means that my contribution to this preliminary examination will be brief, with I hope a fuller contribution later.
  This is not to say that if the Minister's answer is not satisfactory we shall fail to divide the Committee. On the other hand, we do not expect a prolonged debate at this stage, for there are many other important Amendments which merit full discussion, on matters not necessarily more important than the one with which I am dealing, although they can be said to spread over a somewhat wider canvas.

  401
  It will be generally agreed that a purpose of Clause 2 is to apply the treaties and international agreements of the Six —past, present and future—to this country. My Amendment seeks to exclude the British film industry from the consequences of the Clause. That is its simple objective.
  The directives and regulations mentioned in the Amendment are various and sometimes complex, but the reason for excluding the industry is simply that if it were included British film production would suffer a severe blow. After the treatment which the industry has already received at the hands of the present Government, it is in no condition to take further punishment.
  All European film industries endeavour to protect their home markets. They all live in the shadow of the American film industry, which established itself as the world dominator as early as the first war. But in this country—this is precisely why what will do for the Six will not do for us—the Americans secured almost complete domination of the film industry between the wars simply because we speak dialects of the same language; we both speak a form of English. For this reason, the British industry is totally different from any of the film industries of the Six.
  In an endeavour to protect at any rate some of our own screen time for our own production, a Conservative Government some years ago created a British quota system. This was designed to ensure that 30 per cent. of our time would be our own. It was also designed to keep a native film production industry in being, and in order to syphon money back into British production a levy was established, the money being taken from the box office. I speak of the well-known Eady Levy.
  The effect of the treaties, agreements, directives and regulations which we seek to remove will be to make the British quota a quota for the Six, or the Ten as it will be. It will no longer be a British quota but a Community one.
  At first glance there may seem to be little danger in this, for who, after all, will make French, British or German films for the British market? But the American industry not only still commands 70 per cent. of our screen time
  402
  but also influences the British sector in that many, if not most, British quota films are made here with American capital.
  It will be seen, therefore, that if the British quota becomes a Community quota, films for our market could be made in any European country and derive the benefit of the production quota, if not of the levy as well. There is no doubt that such films will get full access to the British quota, though there is some doubt about whether the levy will also be paid.
  Will quota films be made abroad, and will they be as damaging as I suggest to the British film industry? Why not? After all, production costs are cheaper in Italy and Spain, and a co-production film made in two languages with American capital would sell in this country as British and get all the production advantages and, of course, more reliable location weather.
  Unless the Bill is amended in the way we suggest, it is likely that the British film production industry will decline. That would be a pity because this industry has considerable achievements to its name, and not only artistic ones. It was an outstanding dollar earner at a time when we were sadly in need of dollars. All the big spectaculars were made here because we were cheaper than the United States. We undercut the American price. Now, by this Bill, we are preparing to cut our own throats.
  There is a certain similarity between the Community and the present British Government. Both started out with a fanatical belief that what could not make a profit on its own feet must die. Both have since recognised that a country must have industries which have to be protected and assisted by the State in the national interest.
  The economic difference between the parties seems now to be that the Tories are in favour of public money enriching private pockets while we prefer the people to have the benefits of their own taxation.
  One might say that after the Tories have crippled the National Film Finance Corporation, have threatened the Film Fund and have introduced a wrecking Industrial Relations Act, our entry into the Common Market could do little more

  403
  to damage an industry which the Government seem to regard as an opponent. If the Amendment is not carried, this Bill may administer the coup de grace
  The countries of the Six administer high admission taxes on the cinema. This is one reason why I have not wasted time trying to get VAT off the cinema but have concentrated on the theatre. In other respects, however, the Six have been laboriously moving towards the British system of protection for their film industries, but here we have the British Government appearing to be keen to dismantle ours.
  British adhesion to the EEC could damage not only our film industry but the industries of the Six as well. No wonder the majority of the French seem to believe, with the majority of the British, that de Gaulle was right to keep us out, for it seems that by our adhesion we shall do them harm as well.
  The Minister seems to believe that the Eady Levy will be permitted to continue on a Community basis. In the opinion of one expert, Dr. March Hunnings, that is a very doubtful proposition, and I think he is right, as I shall suggest when we come to Clause 8.
  The European co-production film which may replace the old mid-Atlantic product which we had in the American co-production days is likely to be as culturally null and void as that was, located nowhere in particular with all the characters constantly in flight from one capital to another, probably being raped in flight and whipped upon landing.
  Another possible consequence of the Europeanisation of the British film is that we shall have a constant diet of Rolf Harris and Engelbert Humperdinck, a fate which hon. Members may regard as worse than the alternative. Then also there are the people pushing large balls in strange competitions, which appears to be a main product of the European television industry.
  The Community envisaged in its first film directive, which is among those we seek by this Amendment to escape, the establishment of the European film made by the European companies, and, I suspect, producing glossy rubbish for morons. The first European Economic Community firm directive of October,
  404
  1963, paved the way for the second directive of 1965 which added to the abolition of distribution quotas the abolition of import quotas; so far the rules provide for equal treatment of films of the six, but this means very unequal treatment of British films. These directives also provide for free circulation within the member States of co-production films; that is to say, it will be impossible to prevent —and this is important—an Italo-Spanish film made with American capital from being treated as British provided that the British quota regulations are otherwise observed. If that is not the case I shall be happy to hear it denied by the Minister when replying to the debate.
  Indeed, it might be even worse than that, as I shall try to explain when we reach Clause 8, but it is a lunatic proposition, because it seeks to apply to this type of product something which might be defensible as applied to others but is certainly not in this field. By regulation 1612/68 and the fourth directive of 1970 we find that the Eady system of redistribution clearly is intended to become illegal, and no measures which seek to ensure that British films are British will be permissible.
  Whatever one may say about the products of industry, the substitution in the cultural field of a non-existent Community nationality for the flavour and variety which make the sampling of the films of different countries an adventure is an appalling proposition, because artistic and cultural and even entertainment products are essentially national and to pretend that they are not is to run up the flag of the Philistines. It is to erect the international cartel into a principle and to call a narrow Western European continentalism by the name of that which it seeks to destroy—true internationalism under the United Nations.
  Another commentator who advised British Equity on these matters points out not only that the labour provisions of the Treaty of Rome and its derivatives render it impossible for that body to distinguish between British actors and those from the Community nations, but that the Commission does not accept obligatory trade union membership. He argues, therefore, that Equity is helpless to reject Continental newcomers and non-actors as it is now prevented under

  405
  the Industrial Relations Act from the enforcement of a pre-entry closed shop on British newcomers. Therefore, this ludicrously overcrowded profession of performers is to be open to a fresh influx of aspirants from the Six.
  Dr. March Hunnings points out that under the regulations which this Amendment seeks to reject Americans are likely to count as British because the definition is a linguistic definition rather than a national one. I shall expand this, again, on Clause 8, but of course, it creates inescapable consequences for us, and it would virtually abolish the independent existence of the British film industry.
  These regulations to which I have referred are some of those we seek by this Amendment to prevent from coming into effect. The commentators whom I have quoted foresaw the acceptance of the Treaty of Rome in principle, because, I think, they are people who basically accepted that the Market was to come, but they thought, and they were entitled to think, that there would be a long period of legislation, following acceptance in principle, a period in which the application of the regulations and directives could be discussed and the regulations and directives modified in detail. They did not anticipate, nobody anticipated—certainly none of those commentators did—this kind of Bill, a Bill by which at one fell stroke regulations and directives perhaps suitable for the Six and negotiated and discussed by the Six would be applied to us without alteration and without a long period of consideration. They did not anticipate they would be applied to an industry in this country quite different in character from that of the industry in the Six, and with different traditions and different relationships with the dominant American industry. These directives and regulations almost without exception are gravely harmful to the British film production industry and to those engaged in it, and thus also harmful to the cinema-going public. I have no hesitation in asking the Committee to reject them.
  4.15 p.m.
  Finally, this sad tale which I have only briefly outlined in this preliminary speech illustrates with abundant clarity a point that the Government and pro-Marketeers have been trying very hard
  406
  to conceal. I speak here as someone who is against entry in principle, but a person faced with the consequences and recoiling from them and saying "No, if this is what it means we want no part of it" is honourable and sensible. Anyone connected with the film industry, even if he were in principle in favour of entry, would be entitled to say, on examining the consequences of entry—I for my own part would say—" If entry into the Community on these terms means seriously damaging the industry in which I am engaged, I must say, 'No, I want none of it '." If that is what it means it is honourable and sensible for hon. Members to adopt that attitude, whether they are leaders of either of the parties or back benchers. They ought not to be subjected to the calumny which has been heaped upon them, but are entitled to the congratulations which should be the lot of those who, on seeing the evidence, have the strength of will to change their minds.
  Mr. J. Selwyn Gummer: I must start by declaring an interest in the sense that I have made and do make films, largely for the juvenile market and for television. I have, therefore, a particular interest in this Amendment.
  What worries me is the way in which it has been proposed, because I must say that there are many parts of the film industry which would not put the kind of case which has been put for the proposition in this Amendment. The speech of the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) reminds me of an earlier one which he made in this Session on the subject of the commercial radio Bill, a speech in which he proposed that we should attempt to stop Commonwealth radio programmes from coming into this country because they would provide unwelcome and unfair competition for those which were manufactured in this country. I opposed the hon. Gentleman on that occasion, and I think that the House opposed him on that occasion; he was unsuccessful in what he suggested.
  The British film industry is in no such dire need of protection. It is necessary to state clearly that it is perfectly capable of doing what the film industries of the Six can do. It is difficult to make the case that it is entitled to be exempted from the perfectly reasonable regulations

  407
  and directives referred to in this Amendment. We have to see whether there is a special case which can be presented for excluding the British film industry, as against the industry in any of the other countries, from the regulations and directives referred to in this Amendment. I believe the case has not been made out, and that it cannot be made out, and that in any case it would be unsatisfactory if it were to be made out.
  There are three points. I speak from a position which is no more rigid than that of the hon. Gentleman. His proposition came from the point of view of somebody who has been continuously opposed in principle to our entering into the European Economic Community. I speak from the point of view of somebody who has been enthusiastically in favour of it over some long time and as one who believes that entry will be of benefit to the nation as a whole. If something of benefit to the nation as a whole were to be damaging to particular sections of our community protection should he given to them.
  The first thing to point out is that in the negotiations which have been carried on between this country and the Six no suggestion was made by either the previous or the present Government that among the exceptions and areas which ought to have special consideration the film industry should be included. If it is true, as the hon. Member for Putney suggested, that the film industry is in so dire a position that it will collapse—his phrases were as serious as that—it is surprising that, under the many objections which have been raised after the redisconversion of the Leader of the Opposition the one which has not been raised is the film industry. We heard about a whole range of other industries, but not the film industry. That seems surprising if the position is as serious as was suggested.
  Secondly, it seems surprising, if this suggestion is true, that there is still a French film industry. Why has that not been swamped by Italio-Spanish films produced with American money? I do not believe that this is a reasonable argument. It seems to be another scare tactic raised by the hon. Gentleman with the support of some elements in Equity in order to make people who might not in general be
  408
  opposed to entry to the Common Market opposed for specific and narrow reasons.
  In discussing the British film industry one must refer to the point mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, that the British film industry contributed greatly to the way that Britain after the war was able to gain dollars by manufacturing in this country very good quality spectacular films at cut prices. He said that this was the case. It is true that largely that was the case, but many of us would like to ask: why has the British film industry in many areas priced itself out of the market that it once had?
  Those who are concerned with the British film industry take the view that this may have something to do with the fact that many companies find it impossible to produce a film in Britain at a reasonable price because of the restrictive practices which are and have been the bane of our industry for a long time.
  I am in favour of protecting industries which are trying their best to compete properly on an international scale. I am one of those on this side of the House who are not ashamed to say that I believe in subsidising an industry when the subsidy will enable the industry to get over a bad patch, to meet unexpected competition, or to make itself efficient to enable it to meet such competition. However, I am not prepared to subsidise an industry when one of the reasons for its needing subsidising is that it has refused to compete internationally and has priced itself out of the international market because it is unwilling to meet its internal problems by dealing with the restrictive practices within the industry. For example, if a film crew is taken to make a film on location in Spain and it is necessary to put up one door during a fortnight's shooting, because of restrictive practices a carpenter must be taken for the fortnight as the company is not allowed to use local labour. That carpenter must then be on full pay for the fortnight, because that is one of the rules enforced on British film producers by the film industry trade unions.
  Therefore, we must ask whether the Committee is being asked to exclude from the provisions of the Bill and the agreements, with our entry into the European Economic Community, an industry

  409
  which, because of its nature, is unable to compete or has made itself uncompetitive for reasons which many might delienate as selfish. That question must be asked, and I do not believe that we have been given an answer. If there is an answer to that question, and if I have been unfair to the British film industry, I hope that that answer will be. given.
  The hon. Gentleman suggested that we were on the verge of entering the European Economic Community and that it was perfectly reasonable to accept that there were a number of regulations and directives which, under the terms of the Bill, would be effective in Britain, but that there was something about the film industry, irrespective of its costs, staffing, or anything else, which made it special. The hon. Gentleman suggested that if we had a European film industry the very high quality of British films would be excluded and overtaken by films which would consist of either Englebert Humperdinck ad nauseam, which is not very difficult, or gentlemen pushing large balls up hills in television programmes such as the inter-cities competition. I do not know whether he has seen any British films recently but "On the Buses ", which does not seem to be on the highest level—" Les Doubledeckers "as it is called in France—is sold throughout the Common Market countries.
  There is nothing innately beautiful or individual about the British film industry or innately nasty about the French, Dutch or Belgian film industries. That seems a curious, rather narrow and anti-foreign view similar to the suggestion that we should not have Australian or Canadian radio programmes when we discussed that particular matter. It seems the kind of narrow isolationism which we have heard so often from opponents of entry.
  Mr. Eric Deakins: Rubbish.
  Mr. Gummer: It is a rubbishy attitude to take, but it is one that has been taken throughout the debate.
  Mr. Deakins: Juvenile.
  Mr. Gummer: It may well be juvenile to put forward that proposition, but it has been put forward by the hon. Member for Putney and no doubt will be put
  410
  forward by the hon. Gentleman who made that comment when we discuss agriculture.
  The other countries of Europe are producing films of enormously high quality which we already have and welcome in this country. If anybody ought to be trying to get this kind of Amendment it should not be us on entry to the European Economic Community; it should be for the other countries on the mainland within the Community to make up their minds and say that they should have this protection against our film industry.
  We have the inestimable advantage of making films in English, so we are more likely to sell a film in its present language condition rather than a co-production or dubbed-on track because many more people speak English than Dutch or French.
  This is an extremely ill-advised proposal. It suggests that we should exclude from our arrangements the operation of certain parts of regulations and directives which no one taking any part in any negotiations has said we ought to protect ourselves against. They are a series of regulations which really cannot be objected to on the basis that there is anything about our film industry which puts it in a weaker position so that it needs the protection which is not afforded to the film industries of any of the Common Market countries.
  Mr. Phillip Whitehead: Would the hon. Gentleman care to comment on the position, which is very different by comparison with the French film industry, which has been discussed, with regard to the restrictive practices exercised by the monopoly distributors? It is their practices which aim precisely at the kind of lowest common denominator market that my hon. Friend was discussing.
  Mr. Gummer: I know that it is possible, and we could swap anecdotes about the standard of the films currently on show in both France and Great Britain. However, there is no value position which says that, in general, the films on general release in France are worse than the films on general release in England. I cannot see that that can be reasonably put forward

  411
  If it is suggested that the monopoly position of the distributors in France has so affected the standard of the French film industry that we shall find they are in a different position from us, I do not think that that could be seriously upheld. What can be seriously put forward is that British actors would find themselves in competition with continental actors because there would be free movement of labour. This is part of a much larger subject.
  If we are to have what has always been accepted—and not just by this side of the House but by the Labour Party when they were in power—the free movement of labour within the EEC as enlarged, then it must be absolutely accepted that British actors will have to compete in exactly the same way as the actors of any other member State of the EEC.
  British actors would find themselves much more able to compete than many others, first because the original version of the film would be in the English language and, secondly, because we have a reputation, and this would give British actors the opportunity to appear in continental films.
  Increasingly, international casts will be used for films produced in Europe. This British film industry should put itself into a proper position to compete with the American film industry, and it is much more likely to do that from a European base than if it believes that it is so weak, so poor and so unable to compete that it must have a special kind of protection which is denied to any other industry simply because it has put itself into that weak and poor position by its method of organisation and its refusal to compete on equal terms.
  4.30 p.m.
  The Lord Advocate (Mr. Norman Wylie): The hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) properly pointed out that a great deal of what he had to say bore more relevance to Clause 8 than to Clause 2(1). He has treated this debate as a preview of the discussion on the more significant provisions of Clause 8 which are directed specifically to the British film industry.
  Clause 2(1) is concerned with self-enacting Community law which for these
  412
  purposes means regulations and not directives. We are concerned, as the hon. Member for Putney emphasised, with regulation 1612 of 1968 and regulation 1251 of 1970. I think there is a misprint in the Amendment; it should be 1251 of 1970 and not 125. May I for the record point out that regulations 15 of 1961 and 38 of 1964 have been superseded by regulation 1612, so it is regulation 1612 about which we are concerned. Further for the record, may I mention that what the Amendment refers to as regulations 221 of 1964 and 360 of 1968 are directives and not regulations.
  The fundamental provision in the Amendment is regulation 1612, and the hon. Gentleman is seeking to protect the British film industry from the provisions of the EEC relating to the free movement of labour. The hon. Gentleman's difficulty is that it is an absolutely cardinal principle. There is no getting away from that. Not only is it embodied in the regulation referred to in the Amendment, but it is enshrined in Article 48 of the Treaty of Rome. I am afraid that any attempt by an Amendment to modify or exclude the operation of the principle of the free movement of labour within the Community is a non-starter.
  On the other hand, Community law already recognises that there is a desire within the member States of the EEC to protect their own film industries. Just as the British film industry has been protected by statute over the years—more recently by the 1960 to 1970 Film Acts —so within the EEC, Germany, France and, I think, Italy equally have had in the past a protective policy towards the film industry, and that has been recognised in Community regulations.
  No doubt the hon. Member for Putney appreciates this, but it is advisable to get it on the record. Regulation 1612 has a provision in Article 4(2) which invokes directive 607 of 1963. The effect of that directive is to permit a film industry within a nation State to reserve key posts to its own nationals. The kind of key posts I have in mind and which are spelled out in directive 607 are director, principal performer, producer, director of photography, senior engineer and editor. A whole list of key posts can be reserved for British nationals without offending the spirit or the letter of Community

  413
  law. To that extent the existing Community regulations, read along with the directive to which I have referred, go a long way to meet the point made by the hon. Member for Putney on the mobility of labour.
  Although the four film directives which are referred to at the end of the Amendment properly fall to, be considered in the context of Clause 8, perhaps to short-circuit the discussion on Clause 8 I might deal with them very shortly.
  Directive 607 has the important qualification to which I have just referred, and we certainly would not want to exclude it from operating in this country. Beyond that, 607 contains provisions for which there is no requirement for any amendment of our own law. For example, it deals among other things with the abolition of restrictions on the importation of films. We have no such restrictions. It deals with the definition of a film for the purposes of deciding what is a national film. Our existing legislation includes a definition which is broadly similar to that contained in 607. Again, there is no requirement to implement directive 607 by legislation in this country.
  The next directive to which the Amendment refers is 264 of 1965. That deals with the removal of any restrictions with regard to the opening of specialist cinemas intended exclusively for the exhibition of foreign films in the language of the country of origin, and provision for that in this country is being made in Clause 8(4). The directive deals also with restrictions on a member State assisting a specialist cinema in the territory of another State and with the screen quota. ' That is covered in subsections (1), (2) and (3) of Clause 8. So perhaps the attack on that aspect might properly be reserved for our discussion on Clause 8.
  The next directive to which the Amendment refers is 369 of 1968, which deals with freedom of establishment in respect of self-employed persons in film distribution. As there are no restrictions in this country in that connection there is no requirement to legislate on that directive.
  The last one, No. 451, is concerned with freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services in respect of self-employed persons in film production. Once again, there are no restrictions in our films legislation inhibiting nationals of other member States coming to this country to work in a self-employed capacity on film production. There is a technical qualification about being a British registered company that will not in future be required, but that is a very technical matter.
  In the light of the observations which I have made, especially those with regard to Regulation 1612, and having regard to the fact that the rest of the Amendment relates to directives with which Clause 2(1) is not concerned and which will be more properly raised in our discussions on Clause 8, I hope that the hon. Member for Putney will feel able to withdraw his Amendment.
  Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I regret that I am unable to do that. The hon. and learned Gentleman has failed to deal with the main point of the argument, which is that the British quota becomes a Community quota and that, owing to the interpretation of what is called in the French l' expression culturelle we are advised that this includes not only the white Commonwealth but India, Pakistan and also the United States of America. The hon. and learned Gentleman has not touched upon this point.
  We shall certainly be able to develop it more fully when we consider Clause 8. But in view of the fact that the consequence of what is being done is virtually the destruction of what the hon. and learned Gentleman admits to be the essential protection of the British film industry, I shall ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to press the Amendment to a Division.
  Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 255, Noes 269

  Division No. 161.]

  AYES

  [4.40 p.m.

  Allaun, Frank (Salford,E.)

  Atkinson, Norman

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Allen, Scholefield

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Archer, Peter (RowleyRegis)

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Biffen, John

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Ashley, Jack

  Bell, Ronald

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Ashton, Joe

  Benn. Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Boardman. H. (Leigh)

  Body, Richard

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Booth, Albert

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Padley,Walter

  Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Paget, R. T

  Bradley, Tom

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Palmer,Arthur

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

  Hughes,Roy (Newport)

  Pannell, Rt, Hn, Charles

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Hunter, Adam

  Parry,Robert(Liverpool,Exchange)

  Buchan, Norman

  Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)

  Pavitt, Laurie

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

  Janner, Greville

  Pendry, Tom

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Pentland, Norman

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Jeger, Mrs. Lena

  Perry, Ernest G

  Cant, R. B.

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Carter,Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Prentice,Rt.Hn..Reg.

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  John, Brynmor

  Prescott, John

  Clark, David(Colne Valley)

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

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

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Cohen, Stanley

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Probert, Arthur

  Concannon, J. D

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Rankin, John

  Conlan, Bernard

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Reed, D.(Sedgefield)

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

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

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Cronin, John

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Richard, Ivor

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Judd, Frank

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

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

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

  Kelley, Richard

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

  Dalyell, Tam

  Kerr, Russell

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  Kinnock,Neil

  Roper, John

  Davidson, Arthur

  Lamble, David Ross,

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Lamond, James

  Rowlands, Edward

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Latham, Arthur

  Sandelson, Neville

  Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Sheldon. Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Deakins, Eric

  Leonard, Dick

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Lestor, Miss Joan

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

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton.N.E.)

  Dempsey, James

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Doig, Peter

  Lewis, Ron(Carlisle)

  Silkin, Hn. S. C.(Dulwich)

  Dormand, J. D.

  Lipton, Marcus

  Sillars, James

  Douglas,Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Silverman, Julius

  Driberg, Tom

  Lyon, Alexander W.(York)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Duffy, A. E. P

  Lyons, Edward(Bradford, E.)

  Small, William

  Dunn, James A.

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Dunnett, Jack

  McBride, Neil

  Spearing, Nigel

  Eadie, Alex

  McCartney, Hugh

  Spriggs. Leslie

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  McElhone, Frank

  Stallard, A. W.

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  McGuire, Michael

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Ellis, Tom

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  English,Michael

  Mackie, John

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Evans, Fred

  Mackintosh, John P

  Strang, Gavin

  Ewing, Henry

  Maclennan, Robert

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R

  Faulds, Andrew

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Swain, Thomas

  Fisher.Mrs.DorisfB'ham.Ladywood)

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

  Taverne, Dick

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Marks. Kenneth

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

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Marquand, David

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

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Marsden, F.

  Tinn, James

  Foley, Maurice

  Marshall, Dr. Edmund

  Tomney, Frank

  Foot, Michael

  Marten, Neil

  Torney, Tom

  Ford, Ben

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Tuck, Raphael.

  Forrester, John

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

  Freeson,Reginald

  Meacher, Michael

  Urwin, T. W.

  Garrett, W. E.

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Varley, Eric G.

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Mendelson, John

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Golding, John

  Millan,Bruce

  Walker-Smith Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Miller, Dr. M. S

  Wallace, George

  Gourlay, Harry

  Milne, Edward

  Watkins, David

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

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

  Wellbeloved, James

  Grant, John D.(Islington, E.)

  Molloy,William

  White, James(Glassgow, Pollok)

  Molyneaux, James

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Whitlock. William

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Morris, Charles R.(Openshaw)

  Willey Rt Hn Frederick

  Hamling, William

  Moyle, Roland

  Williams Alan (Swansea, W)

  Hardy, Peter

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Harrison, Walter (Wakeffeid)

  Murray, Ronald King

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Ogden, Eric

  Wilson William(Coventry, S)

  Hattersley, Roy

  O'Halloran. Michael

  Woof, Robert

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  O'Malley, Brian

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Oram, Bert

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Horam, John

  Orbach, Maurice

  Mr. Joseph Harper and

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Orme, Stanley

  Mr Donald Coleman.

  416

  417

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Gorst, John

  Monro, Hector

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Gower, Raymond

  More, Jasper

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Morgan-Giles, Rear Adm.

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Gray, Hamish

  Morrison, Charles

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Green, Alan

  Mudd, David

  Astor, John

  Grieve, Percy

  Murton, Oscar

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Griffiths. Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

  Neave, Airey

  Balniel, Lord

  Grylls, Michael

  Normanton, Tom

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Nott, John

  Batsford, Brian

  Gurden, Harold

  Onslow, Cranley

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Osborn john

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Hall Davis, A G F

  Owen, Idris (stockport, N.)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Blaker, Peter

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Page, John(Crosby)

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Boscawen, Robert

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Pool John

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Percival Ian

  Bowden, Andrew

  Havers, Michael

  Peyton, Rt.Hn.John

  Braine, Bernard

  Hawkins, Paul

  Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

  Bray, Ronald

  Hay, John

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Pounder, Rafton

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Heseltine, Michael

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Hicks, Robert

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Bryan, Paul

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Quennell Miss J M

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

  Hiley, Joseph

  Raison, Timothy

  Buck, Antony

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

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Burden, F. A.

  Holland Philin

  Redmond, Roberty

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

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

  Hornby, Richard

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Carlisle, Mark

  Hornsby-Smith.Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Rhys Williams Sir Brandon

  Chapman, Sydney

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Churchill, W.S

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Hunt, John

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Clarke, Kenneth(Rushcliffe)

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Robert, Wyn (Conway)

  Clegg, Walter

  James, David

  Roberts Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Cockeram, Eric

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Cooke, Robert

  Jessel, Toby

  Rost, Peter

  Coombs, Derek

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Royle, Anthony

  Cooper, A. E.

  Cordle, John

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Kimball, Marcus

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Costain, A. P.

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

  Critchley, Julian

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Scott, Nicholas

  Crouch, David

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Crowder, F. P.

  Kirk, Peter

  Sharpies, Richard

  Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

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

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Knox, David

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

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

  Lambton, Lord

  Simeons, Charles

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Lane, David

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Skeet, T. K H.

  Dixon, Piers

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

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

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Le Merchant, Spencer

  Soref, Harold

  Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Speed, Keith

  Drayson, G. B.

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

  Spence, John

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Longden, Gilbert

  Sproat, lain

  Dykes, Hugh

  Loveridge, John

  Stainton, Keith

  Eden, Sir John

  Luce, R. N

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  MacArthur, Ian

  Steel, David

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

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

  McLaren, Martin

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Emery, Peter

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Eyre, Reginald

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Stokes, John

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Maddan, Martin

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Madel, David

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

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Mather, Carol

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Fortescue, Tim

  Maude, Angus

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Foster, Sir John

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Tebbit, Norman

  Fowler. Norman

  Mawby, Ray

  Temple, John M.

  Fry, Peter

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Gardner, Edward

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

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

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

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

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Tilney, John

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Money, Ernie

  Trew, Peter

  Goodhart. Philip

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  418

  419

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Warren, Kenneth

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Worsley, Marcus

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Wyie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Waddington, David

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Younger, Hn. George

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Wilkinson, John

  Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Wall, Patrick

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Mr. Victor Goodhew and Mr. Mr. Michael Jopling

  Walters, Dennis

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Amendment accordingly negatived
  [Mr. E. L. MALLALIEU in the Chair]
  Amendment proposed: No. 244 in, page 1 line 26, after ' Treaties ', insert:' described in Part I of Schedule 1 to this Act which were in force in the Communities on
  22nd January 1972 and which are listed in Schedule to this Act '.—[Mr. Michael Foot]
  Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 260, Noes 269.

  Division No. 162.]

  AYES

  [4.51 p.m.

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Kelley, Richard

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Ellis, Tom

  Kerr, Russell

  Ashley, Jack

  English, Michael

  Kinnock, Neil

  Ashton, Joe

  Evans, Fred

  Lambie, David

  Atkinson. Norman

  Ewing, Henry

  Lamond, James

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Faulds, Andrew

  Latham, Arthur

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)

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

  Leonard, Dick

  Baxter. William

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Bell, Ronald

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Foley Maurice

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Foot, Michael

  Lipton, Marcus

  Biffen, John

  Ford, Ben

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Bishop, E. S.

  Forrester, John

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Forrester, John

  Lyon, Alexander w. (York)

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Freeson, Reginald

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Body Richard

  Garrett, W. E

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Booth, Albert

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  McBride, Neil

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

  Golding, John

  McElhone, Frank

  Bradley, Tom

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C

  Mackenzie, Gregor

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

  Gourlay, Harry

  Mackie, John

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Buchan, Norman

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Maclennan, Robert

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

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Cant, R. B.

  Hamling, William

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

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Hardy, Peter

  Marks, Kenneth

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Harrison, Waller (Wakefield)

  Marquand, David

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Marsden, F.

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Hattersley, Roy

  Marshall, Dr. Edmund

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Marten, Neil

  Cohen, Stanley

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Concannon, J. D.

  Horam, John

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Conlan. Bernard

  Houghton, Rt Hn Douglas

  Meacher Michael

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Mellish, Rt, Hn. Robert

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Huckfield. Leslie

  Mendelson, John

  Cronin, john

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Miltan, Bruce

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

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N)

  Miller, Dr. M S

  Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Milne, Edward

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Hunter, Adam

  Mitchell, R C (S'hampton, Itche)

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  Hunter, Adam

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

  Davidson, Arthur

  Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)

  Moate, Roger

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Janner, Greville

  Molloy, William

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Molyneaux, James

  Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

  Jeger, Mrs. Lena

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Deakins, Eric

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  John, Brynmor

  Moyle, Roland

  Dempsey, James

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Doig, Peter

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

  Murray, Ronald King

  Dormand, J. D.

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Ogden, Eric

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Driberg, Tom

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Duffy, A. E. P

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

  Oram, Bert

  Dunn, James A

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Dunnett, Jack

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Orme, Stanley

  Eadie, Alex

  Judd, Frank

  Oswald, Thomas

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Tomney, Frank

  Padley, Walter

  Sandelson, Neville

  Torney, Tom

  Paget, R. T.

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Tuck, Raphael

  Palmer, Arthur

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

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

  Urwin, T. W.

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton.N.E.)

  Varley, Eric G.

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Pendry, Tom

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Pentland, Norman

  Sillars, James

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Silverman, Julius

  Wallace, George

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Skinner, Dennis

  Watkins, David

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Small, William

  Wellbeloved, James

  Prescott, John

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  White James (Glasgow Pollok)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Whitlock, William

  Probert, Arthur

  Stallard, A. W.

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Rankin, John

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Williams, Mrs Shirley (Hitchin)

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Williams, W T (Warrington)

  Rhodes Geoffrey

  Strang, Gavin

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Summerskill, Hn Dr Shirley

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

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

  Swain, Thomas

  Wool, Robert

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Taverne, Dick

  Roper, John

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Rowlands. Edward

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

  Mr. Joeseph Harper and Mr. Donald Coleman.

  Rose, Paul B.

  Tinn, James

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Allason. James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Dixon, Piers

  Heseltine, Michael

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Hicks, Robert

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn Sir Alec

  Higgins, Terence L

  Astor John

  Drayson, G.B

  Hiley, Joseph

  Atkins, Humphrey

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

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

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Balniel, Lord

  Eden, Sir John

  Holland, Philip

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Holt miss Mary

  Batsford, Brian

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Hornby, Richard

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

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

  Hornsby-Smith.Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Emery, Peter

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Eyre, Reginald

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Blaker, Peter

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Hunt, John

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Boscawen, Robert

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  James, David

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Bowden, Andrew

  Fortescue, Tim

  Jessel, Toby

  Braine, Bernard

  Foster, Sir John

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Bray, Ronald

  Fowler, Norman

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Fry, Peter

  Kimball, Marcus

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Gardner, Edward

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Bryan, Paul

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Kirk, Peter

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

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Buck, Antony

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Knox, David

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Goodhart, Philip

  Lambton,.Lord

  Burden, F. A.

  Gorst, John

  Lane, David

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Gower, Raymond

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

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

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Carlisle, Mark

  Gray, Hamish

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Carr, Rt Hn Robert

  Green, Alan

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Grieve, Percy

  Lloyd Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)

  Chichester-Clark, R

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Longden, Gilbert

  Churchill, W S

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J

  Loveridge, John

  Clark, William (Surrey, E)

  Grylls, Michael

  Luce, R N

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Gummer, Selwyn

  MacArthur, Ian

  Clegg, Walter

  Gurden, Harold

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Cockeram, Eric

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  McLaren, Martin

  Cooke, Robert

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Coombs, Derek

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Copper, A. E

  Cordle, John

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

  Costain, A. P.

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Maddan, Martin

  Critchley, Julian

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Madel, David

  Crouch, David

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Mather, Carol

  Crowder, F. P.

  Havers, Michael

  Maude, Angus

  Davies. Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

  Hawkins, Paul

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Hay, John

  Mawby, Ray

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

  422

  423

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Tebbit, Norman

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Temple, John M.

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

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Thomas, John Stradling(Monmouth)

  Money, Ernie

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

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

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Monro, Hector

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

  More, Jasper

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Tilney, John

  Morgan-Giles, Rear Ac...

  Rost, Peter

  Trew, Peter

  Morrison, Charles

  Role, Anthony

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Mudd, David

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Murton, Oscar

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Nabarro, Sir Geralo

  Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Neave, Airey

  Scott, Nicholas

  Waddington, David

  Normanton, Tom

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Nott, John

  Sharpies, Richard

  Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

  Onslow, Cranley

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

  Wall, Patrick

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Walters, Dennis

  Osborn, John

  Simeons, Charles

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Warren, Kenneth

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

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

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Soref, Harold

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Peel, John

  Speed, Keith

  Wilkinson, John

  Percival, Ian

  Spence, John

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Peyton, Rt. Hn. joh

  Sproat, lain

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Stainton, Keith

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Pounder, Rafton

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Steel, David

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Stewart-Smith, Geoflrey (Belper)

  Worsley, Marcus

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Stoddart, Anthony (Edinbugh, W.I

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Younger, Hn. George

  Raison. Timothy

  Stokes, John

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Tapsell, Peter

  Mr. Victor Goodhew and Mr. Michael Jopling.

  Redmond, Robert

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Amendment accordingly negatived
  Mr. Peter Shore: I beg to move Amendment No. 296, in clause 2, page 2, line 26, after ' Treaties ', insert: except such rights, powers, liabilities, and restrictions as may arise under Directive of the European Economic Community of 15th May 1960 as amended by Directive 63/21 /EEC of 18th December 1962 in respect of the movement of capital between Member States'.
  The Second Deputy Chairman: With this Amendment we can also discuss the following Amendments:
  No. 297, in line 26. after Treaties '. insert:
  ' except such rights, powers, liabilities, and restrictions as may arise under Directive 63/474/EEC of 30th July 1963 liberalising transfers in respect of invisible transactions '.
  No. 298, in line 26, after ' Treaties insert:
  ' except such rights, powers, liabilities, obligations and restrictions as may arise under Decisions 69/227/EEC and 71/4/EEC on the co-ordination of short term economic policy '.
  No. 301, in line 26, after ' Treaties insert:
  'except such rights, powers, liabilities and restrictions as may arise under Regulation
  424
  109/70 of the European Economic Community (19th December 1969) setting up a common system applicable to imports from State trading countries'.
  No. 302, in line 26, after ' Treaties '. insert:
  'except such rights, powers, liabilities, and restrictions as may arise under Regulation 1023/70 of the European Economic Community (25th May 1970) establishing a common administrative procedure for quantitative quotas'.
  No. 303, in line 26. after ' Treaties ', insert:
  ' except such rights, powers, liabilities and restrictions as may arise under the Decision of the Council of 21st April 1970 (OJ No. L94) concerning financial and budgetary forecasting '
  No. 304, in line 26, after ' Treaties ', insert:
  ' except such rights, powers, liabilities and restrictions as may arise under Regulation 2603/69 of the European Economic Community (20th December 1969) establishing a common system for exports'.
  No. 305, in line 26, after ' Treaties ', insert:
  ' except such rights, powers, liabilities, obligations and restrictions as arise under Regulation 1025/70 of the European Economic Community (25th May 1970) (as amended by Regulation 1429/71 of 2nd July 1971) establishing a

  425
  common system to be applied to imports from third countries'.
  No. 306, in line 26, after ' Treaties '. insert:
  'except such rights, powers, liabilities, obligations and restrictions as arise under the Decision of the European Economic Community of 25th December 1962 relating to a programme of action in matters of common commercial Policy '.
  No. 307, in line 26, after Treaties insert:
  ' except such rights, powers, liabilities, obligations and restrictions as arise under the Directives of the Council of the European Economic Community concerning the adoption of a common credit insurance policy for medium and long term operations including public buyers and private buyers, namely, Directive No. 70/509 (OJ No. L 254–23rd November 1970) and Directive No. 70/510 (OJ No. L 254–23rd November 1970)'.
  No. 308, in line 26, after ' Treaties ', insert:
  'except such rights, powers, liabilities, obligations, and restrictions as arise under the Decision of the Commission of the European Communities (71/202/EEC) authorising Member States to take protective interim measures with regard to certain imports'.
  No. 316, in line 26, after ' Treaties ', insert:
  'except such rights, powers, liabilities, obligations and restrictions as may arise from the Decision of the Council of 9th October 1961 on the standardisation of the duration of trade agreements with third countries '.
  No. 317, in line 26, after ' Treaties insert:
  ' except such rights, powers, liabilities, obligations and restrictions as may arise from the Decision 69/494 of 16th December 1969 of the Council on the progresive standardisation of agreements concerning commercial relations between member states and third countries and on the negotiation of Community agreements '.
  No. 318, in line 26, after ' Treaties insert:
  'except such rights, powers, liabilities and restrictions as may arise under Regulation (EEC) 459/68 of 5th April, 1968 of the Council regarding protection against dumping, premiums or subsidies practised by nonmember countries of the European Economic Community.'
  No. 319, in line 26, after ' Treaties insert:
  'except such rights, powers, liabilities and restrictions as may arise under Regulations (EEC) 2603/69 of 20th December, 1969 of the Council and (EEC) 2604/69 of 20th December, 1969 of the Council establishing a common system of exports'.
  No. 320, in line 26, after ' Treaties ', inesrt:
  ' except such rights, powers, liabilities, obligations and restrictions created or arising by or under Regulation 1471/70 (EEC) of 20th July, 1970 establishing a common practice for the autonomous increase of imports into the Community of products subject to measures of voluntary restraint by exporting countries'
  No. 321, in line 26, after ' Treaties ', insert:
  ' except such rights, powers, liabilities, obligations and restrictions as may arise under Regulation (EEC) 1429/71 of 2nd June, 1971 of the Council'
  No. 328, in line 29, after ' Kingdom ', insert:
  ' except such rights, powers, liabilities and restrictions as may arise under Decision 70/552 of 16th December, 1970 of the Council on the rules applicable, in the matter of export guarantees and finance, to certain subcontracts for supply from the member states of the European Communities'.
  No. 392, in line 29, after ' Kingdom ', insert:
  ' except such rights, powers, liabilities and restrictions, as may arise under Directive 71/86 of 1st February, 1971 of the Council concerning the harmonisation of essential provisions for the guaranteeing of short-term transactions (political risks) involving public buyers and private buyers'.
  No. 374, in line 33, at end insert:
  (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing subsection the said enforceable Community rights include those deriving from Articles 92 to 94 of the Treaty of Rome dealing with state aids and regional policy.
  Mr. Shore: May I first express my appreciation to you, Mr. Mallalieu, for enabling us to take Amendment No. 374 along with the others. We are living in the shadow of last night's guillotine Motion. One of the first effects of this is to force us into making decisions and choices which are bound to be wholly unsatisfactory and almost ludicrous. The Committee will be aware that the Chair has selected provisionally the Amendments listed here for discussion but these represent a tiny fraction of the Amendments which I am certain were in order but which have not been chosen because there was no point in choosing them. They dealt with matters of considerable importance.
  Nothing could be more absurd than for us to be faced with the fact that by the time we finish at 11 o'clock tonight

  427
  we shall have lost any opportunity we might have had of discussing the implications of no less than 1,200 regulations which are part of the self-enacting Community law which we have to import. That is the meaning of the guillotine Motion. That is how it affects us in our discussions. I make this preliminary remark to justify the rather wide-ranging debate which must inevitably be attached to this Amendment.
  Amendment No. 296 deals with one of the central features of the Common Market, the free movement of capital. Together with the associated provisions for the free movement of labour and establishments these constitute in terms of a market economy what might be described as the three freedoms. I put on one side the free movement of goods because that occurs in all arrangements for free trade in free trade areas which are not necessarily of the kind we are discussing here.
  Of the three freedoms there is no doubt but that the free movement of capital is the most important. It exercises a decisive and shaping influence over the other factors of production and over the whole development of the European Community. It is obviously important enough to have been the subject of separate and prolonged debates and I intend devoting most of my remarks to it. Given the restrictions upon us we have felt compelled to take the other Amendments with this one simply because we can see no other opportunity of discussing them in the allotted time programmed with such precision by the Leader of the House.
  Apart from Amendments 298 and 303 dealing with the Community's tentative exercises in economic forecasting, all the Amendments 301 to 308 and 316 to 321 are concerned with the commercial policy and practice of the Community and above all its relations with so-called third countries. This latter group of Amendments covers matters of particular interest to British exporters and importers. It includes such things as the common rules for exports, imports, quotas and dumping and credit insurance policies. These are matters of considerable interest and importance to British industry and I hope that others will have something to say.
  Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby: Does the right hon. Gentleman not intend to mention Amendment No. 297 dealing with invisible trade?
  Mr. Shore: Yes, certainly. The hon. Gentleman rightly rebukes me, but I think he will understand the difficulty. Even to describe the matters we are dealing with is difficult. Amendment 297 deals with the important matter of invisible transactions, embracing a large volume of regulations under Community law.
  I shall hinge most of my remarks to capital movement. I want to give it the stress that I do because it is immensely important in its own right and because of the consequences that the free movement of capital may be expected to have on other aspects of economic policy. It is important in its own right because without restrictions imposed by national governments, capital will, in a free market, flow into those industries, firms and areas where the opportunities for profit are greatest and where the returns are already highest. That has been the experience in our single United Kingdom capital market, which embraces not only the regions but the nations of Britain. It is precisely because, in recent decades, the opportunities for profit have been greater in the London and Midland areas that these areas have boomed and that other areas at the periphery of the United Kingdom, remote from our centres of population and the major consumer markets, have been increasingly deprived of money and investment.
  I am glad to see the Minister of State for the Treasury present. I welcome him to our debates. He knows a certain amount about this matter, because he has the great privilege of representing a constituency which lies at the furthermost south-west tip of these islands. It is a constituency which is very familiar with the problems to which I am about to allude.
  The same problems have been experienced in other nations in Europe and now, increasingly, in the Common Market as a whole. Some areas, Western Germany and parts of France and Northern Italy, have rapidly expanded over the years, while other areas have fallen into decay. Clearly the consequences of the movement of capital are felt most

  429
  keenly and sensitively by labour. People must work in order to live; at least, that is true of the great majority of mankind. If capital investment is located in the areas of prosperity, people are sucked in behind. One need only recall our experience in Britain, leading as it has to the swollen population of the South and all the problems that go with that, the social services and community services bursting at the seams, rising land prices, pressure on housing and so on. We are very famiiar with this. At the same time there are regional unemployment problemsf for a large part of the North. One has only to recall this to see how powerfully the free movement of capital and the freedom of location of industry can effect the lives of us all. In our nation this is mitigated by such strong, countering regional policies as we have been able to develop. I am not talking about the immediate situation, which is one in which the whole of the United Kingdom is virtually a depressed area. We hope that that will be, in spite of the folly and clumsiness of the Treasury Bench, something which even under their mismanagement will improve in the months and years ahead. Perhaps I am being optimistic, but I hope so.
  5.15 p.m.
  We have to contemplate the effect of free capital movement not just within Britain, no longer confined to Britain, but with Britain as part, certainly as the Treasury Bench see it, of an enlarged Community. We have had very scant information so far on this matter. But let us assume, for a moment at any rate, that the rate of growth at least for some years ahead remains somewhat higher in Western Europe than it has been in the United Kingdom. Let us assume, in other words, that the rate of return on capital will be higher on the Continent—as it has been—than it is in Britain.
  The question that comes to mind straightaway, if this is a reasonable picture of the future, is how Government policy will respond to it. It is a very important matter. In this country today one million are unemployed. That is an appallingly high number. There are some who are very optimistic. I recall the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. George Thomson) who thought that the very
  430
  fact that we had high unemployment might act as an attraction to European capital; that given the unused human resources in Britain and given a free capital market, capital would in a sense be attracted in to make full use of the skills and energies of these unemployed British people. My feeling about that is one of great scepticism. There has been nothing to prevent European capital coming into Britain for years past, when there has been nothing like that number of unemployed. But nevertheless, broadly speaking, there has been no difficulty about European capital coming into Britain. All that one can say, therefore, is that if it has not come in in any substantial amount in the past, presumably it is because there has been—
  Mr. Selwyn Gummer: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Shore: The hon. Gentleman has made many remarks already today. Let him wait for a moment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] I say straight away to the hon. Gentleman and to the Committee that my willingness to give way has changed somewhat since last night. I would have given way. It would not have occurred to me not to give way in any other circumstances. But when I have to weigh my words, when every word will come to an end at 11 p.m., the hon. Gentleman, with his pert and silly contributions—
  Mr. Gummer: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  The Deputy Chairman: Order.
  Mr. Gummer: That was a direct attack. If the right hon. Gentleman would address himself to the point, rather than spend 10 minutes explaining why he does not have time to say anything, perhaps he would be kind enough to explain this.
  Surely there is a fundamental difference between the attraction of capital to a country which is within the European Economic Community and the attraction of capital to a county which is outside that Community, whatever the situation regarding unemployment.
  Mr. Shore: That is not a good point. If the hon. Gentleman thinks about this hard enough, he may find that it may be the case—indeed, in principle it is more

  431
  likely to be the case—that if we were outside the European Community and if there were real tariff barriers between Britain and Europe, there would be a greater temptation to invest in Britain than would be so if no tariff obstacles existed any more. I did not bother to make the point, because it seems to me that the level of tariffs in most cases, since the Kennedy Round negotiations, has come to the point where it is no longer a major factor influencing decisions.
  If the attraction of a great number of skilled and unemployed people was strong, we should already have had—I do not see why we should, because we have lacked the evidence in the past—signs of a movement of capital into Britain. But I do not think that that is the case.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East was worrying about the wrong problem or, rather, thinking in terms of the least likely solution. For there is another solution to the problem, that the unemployed labour, which, I regret to say, undoubtedly exists, does not simply wait for the arrival of money, of firms and of new jobs. It loses its patience. The new jobs do not materialise, and people begin to move. This is the story of Scotland. It has been the story of Ireland. To some extent, although always directed in the past to the countries of the Commonwealth, it has been the story of England, too.
  But now we have to consider a somewhat different set of circumstances. How far do the Government see the problem of Britain's unemployment in future being solved not within the context of Britain's full employment policies but within the context of the Common Market as a whole?
  At once, an important problem is raised. The information which we have had so far on the movement of British workers into Europe has been quite unsatisfactory. Quite unsatisfactory also has been the information we have been given on what is proposed, on what administrative arrangements are now being started to attract so-called surplus steel workers from Wales and so-called surplus shipyard workers from Scotland and the North.
  432
  What are these arrangements? We have heard a bit about them, but they have been kept discreetly in the background. It is one of the major doctrines of the Common Market that there should be free of movement of labour. All very convenient—capital moves to the place where the returns are greatest. and labour follows. Is it not marvellous? But is it, in truth, the right solution?
  It might be the right solution if all we were considering was the best use of resources and the highest return on capital. But we are not. We are talking also, as we should, about human satisfaction, about where people want to work. I have no reason whatever to believe that the unemployed in Britain wish to find their solution outside this country. Indeed, most of them do not wish to find a solution to their job problems outside their own travel-to-work area, for reasons which we can all easily understand.
  Why have the Government not begun to produce information on this aspect of the matter? They say that they do not collect figures, but I can tell the House that the numbers have been steadily growing. From figures collected by various Community countries, it is clear that, over the last three or four years, the number of British workers working in Germany, Holland and Belgium have risen fairly considerably year by year; and I have every reason to believe, on present indications, that the number will rise quite substantially in the years ahead.
  There should be no misunderstanding about the movement of labour already taking place in the countries of the Six. About 1 million Italians have been unable to find work in Italy, in spite of the great movement from the south and the great expansion of Italian industry in the north, and they have gone to find jobs elsewhere in the Community, in France and in Germany. In addition, no fewer than 3 million foreign workers from outside the Community altogether, from Turkey, Yugoslavia, Greece, Spain and Morocco, have been sucked in to feed the great boom which has taken place.
  Mr. Michael Grylls: A sign of success.
  Mr. Shore: "A sign of success ", says the hon. Gentleman. Where there is a tremendous boom, outstripping one's human resources, vast numbers of people are moved in to meet the demand for labour. The fact that they form what everyone in Europe, other than the hon. Gentleman, describes as a sub-proletariat without rights, people without status or rights at all, is, apparently, of no concern to him. But it should be of concern to us, and it is.
  Mr. William Molloy: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Health and Social Questions Commission of the Council of Europe discussed this grave problem a fortnight ago, a problem which is causing great consternation not only to the unfortunates who are working in Germany, France, Belgium and Holland but also to the indigenous populations themselves? An answer to this massive problem is still being sought. The countries of the Six have not solved it They only created it.
  Mr. Shore: As my hon. Friend says, serious problems arise when large numbers of people are involved in relatively unplanned and unprovided for movements of labour to respond to purely economic forces. How do the Government now see the framework of their own economic and employment plans? Looking over the next four or five years, are they thinking in terms of the solution to Britain's unemployment problem, which in all conscience is big enough, through stimulation of the British economy, or are they thinking in terms of its being solved as part of the general employment policies of the Community, solved, that is, through a substantial movement of British people to the Continent of Europe—where jobs have in the past undoubtedly existed? That is one question we want answered tonight.
  Mr. Nicholas Ridley Mr. Nicholas Ridley (Cirencester and Tewkesbury)rose—
  An Hon. Member: Did he vote for the guillotine?
  Mr. Shore: A very good question. The hon. Gentleman voted for the guillotine last night, did he not? I am sorry. He has cut himself off. I should willingly give way to hon. Members opposite, those very hon. Members, who defied their
  434
  Whips, but not to those who followed mulishly behind into the Lobbies.
  Mr. David Steel: What about giving way to me, then?
  Mr. Shore: No. The hon. Member has no claim at all. We know his contributions.
  Obviously, questions of general employment policy are affected by the opening up of the free movement of capital, but, leaving that matter aside and the question whether our employment policy is to be settled in future within a national framework or the Community framework, I wish to turn now to the implications of free capital movement on our regional problems in Britain.
  The Committee is no stranger to this subject, but it is a regrettable fact that, although we have had occasional exchanges on the question of regional policy in past debates, we have not gone deeply into it. I want clear answers from Ministers to certain questions. There seem to me to be two problems in this connection to which we must address our minds.
  First, there is the effect which our joining the Community will have on our own ability to develop and follow an effective regional policy. Here, we face the familiar worry that much of our policy depends upon the industrial development certificate system and the bargaining power which the Government have vis-á-vis firms which wish to establish or to enlarge their businesses. The Government are able to say to a firm," We will not issue an IDC for the area where you at present wish to go "—often, in the Midlands or the South-East—" We will issue an IDC only if you go to an intermediate area—a development area, or a special development area, as the case may be ".
  That has been an important factor in the whole of our post-war regional development policy. It is not the only factor. In addition, as we know, one needs a substantial equipment of fiscal and direct encouragements to firms to go to development and other areas. However, the IDC system is very important.
  5.30 p.m.
  Clearly, if in the future a firm can tell the Government, "If you do not let us

  435
  establish our new plant in the area of our choice there is a very useful site across the Channel which we should like to move to ", a major bargaining counter that we have used for many years will be lost to the Government. The whole influence of the Government on the location of firms is bound to be very much weakened as a result.
  The second question about our policies is how far we shall still be masters in our own house in deciding measures for encouraging firms and stimulating them to locate themselves in development areas. We have had some very unsatisfactory replies on this. Ministers have tended to say on previous occasions, Don't worry. We have a veto on all major matters, and we shall use it to prevent any decision adverse to our regional policy being taken in the Council of Ministers ". That is an argument that many of us have not found very convincing. One reason is that under the Rome Treaty a great power over regional policy is vested not in the Council of Ministers but in the European Commission. This is one of the areas in which the Treaty gives a major role to the Comimssion. I refer in particular to Articles 92 and 93 of the Rome Treaty. Article 93 says that the Commission will look at the kind of State aid operated by member States, and goes on:
  " If. after giving notice to the parties concerned to submit their comments, the Commission finds that aid granted by a State or through State resources is not compatible with the common market having regard to Article 92. or that such aid is being misused, it shall decide that the State concerned shall abolish or alter such aid within a period of time to be determined by the Commission.
  If the State concerned does not comply with this decision within the prescribed time. the Commission or any other interested State may, in derogation from the provisions of Articles 169 and 170, refer the matter to the Court of Justice direct.
  On application by a Member State,"—
  an aggrieved member State that wants to do something that the Commission does not allow—
  " the Council may, acting unanimously,"—
  I emphasise that it must act unanimously—
  " decide that aid which that State is granting or intends to grant shall be considered to be compatible with the common market …".
  436
  Only by unanimity can the Council overthrow the Commission's recommendation that the State's aid is incompatible and that it should desist. That is a very serious point.
  The Minister of State, with his fresh and questioning mind, will not be satisfied, I hope, with the kind of roly-poly complacencies that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster usually delivers at this stage of the argument, when the right hon. and learned Gentleman puts to us that the way in which the Community works is quite different from what the Treaty says, that over a cup of coffee and a glass of cognac these provisions are somehow dissolved or melt away. That is not the case. If anyone thinks it is, he should look at The Guardian'sarticle on the matter only yesterday, which tells of the concrete case of the Belgian Government's operating State and regional aid in defiance of the views and wishes of the Commission. It says:
  " If the British Government wants to know how the Commission operates, it need only consult the Belgian Prime Minister, M. Eyskens, during his visit to London. In an unprecedented move last week, the Commission told the Belgian Government to change its regional aid law--the Economic Expansion Act which classified the whole country, with the exception of Brussels, its suburbs. and Antwerp. as eligible for a wide range of generous investment aids."
  Here we have a very serious point. A national Government, on a matter of major importance affecting the prosperity of the people in a large part of Belgium, regions of the country which no doubt in the view of that Government are exposed to great pressures of economic change and problems that threaten unemployment, are told by the Commission that they must stop their regional aid. They have two remedies. They can go to the European Court, which will interpret the Treaty—not the cognac and coffee, but the treaty and what is said in it—or they can appeal to the Council, which will, if it acts unanimously, overthrow the Commission's ruling. That is a matter on which we require a very specific reply at a later stage. Let us get it sewn up and made certain before we go any further.
  Mr. John Mendelson: The matter very much deserves a serious reply, but is it likely that there will be one in view of the absence of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and only the

  437
  presence of so many untried, new Ministers, who have just arrived on the Treasury Bench?
  Mr. Shore: I understand my hon. Friend's concern, but I must say, having had some of the senior Ministers present before in these debates, that I am very hopeful that the fresh talent on the Treasury Bench will prove more helpful than their more tired, more jaded col-leagues who occupy the senior positions.
  I put forward what I believe are serious concerns for the future which follow from, and are directly linked with, there relaxation of control over capital movements, the establishment of a free movement of capital between these islands and the Continent. They link up with a further development of even greater importance. We have on many occasions raised the implications of an economic and monetary union, the treaty which is in the wings in Brussels, the treaty which, if it is passed, will impose upon this country fixed parities and the general objective of achieving a common European currency by the end of the decade.
  I raise this matter for a reason which should be clear to all. I mention it now because the worries I have indicated about the effects of a free capital movement will be increased tenfold if we are locked into a permanent exchange rate. If, regardless of the differential rates of growth of the British economy and the countries of Western Europe, we could not adjust the situation by changing our parities, we should be ruined. We could be in the situation that Ireland was in, locked in with Britain as one single union, or as Scotland has been, locked in with Britain in the period of the Union, without anything like the massive regional policies which, because Scotland is part of Britain, we have attempted increasingly to organise from London in order to benefit that part of the United Kingdom. But there is no Community regional policy, even if one could imagine any regional policy of sufficient strength to counter-balance the inability to change our parities in the years ahead.
  This matter is of major importance. It is, in many ways, the most serious matter which the Common Market poses for this country. It would be helpful if we had a clear statement on how Mini-
  438
  sters visualise the obligations they have accepted in relation to an economic and monetary union. How far are they committed? We know that they are already beginning to narrow the margins in conformity with the first stage of the progress towards economic and monetary union. We want to know how they see the future and what guarantees and safeguards they have in mind to insist on for the benefit of this country.
  That is not the end of the matter. The free movement of capital exerts strong pressure, not only on the location of industry, the movement of labour and the regional prosperity of the country, but on our tax policies. The point was very well put in a Community document called "Tax Harmonisation ", one of the many Community documents explaining what it has in mind for the future. It makes this point:
  " Tax harmonisation is also important for the creation of a common capital market.
  … A free capital market means not only an end to discrimination against foreigners, but also free access to all sources of capital, freedom of investment and "—
  these are crucial words—
  " no distortion in these conditions established by the state for competition on the capital market ".
  The document goes on to say:
  " Harmonising taxes that affect the free movement of capital must therefore increase capital's freedom to move and promote more equal conditions of competition ".
  It was precisely this aim which the authors of the Treaty had in mind in framing the sections in the Treaty dealing with the free movement of capital. Clearly, they are right.
  In Britain, we control capital movements administratively. We have exchange controls and other means of controlling capital. But it is logical for those who believe in the unimpeded free movement of capital to say that to remove those restrictions is not enough and that if we want capital to move freely in the area of the Common Market we must ensure that a whole series of taxes are brought into line because if taxes discriminate against capital through the policies of one nation State we will Destroy—
  Mr. Harold Lever: Is my right hon. Friend saying that the description he has used of the

  439
  encouragement to free capital movement at any point gives the right to any other authority than the British Treasury to decide the rate of, for example, company taxation in the United Kingdom?
  Mr. Shore: My right hon. Friend, to whom I am always willing to give way, has anticipated my point. There is a great deal yet which we must explore concerning the meaning of free capital movements and the commitments which have gone into the Treaty and other agreements so to arrange tax policies that they do not interfere with those free movements.
  5.45 p.m.
  I come to some of the things we know and some we do not know. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that one of the reasons why he is adopting this year a system of corporation tax which favours distributed as opposed to retained profits is that this is the system being adopted in the European Communities. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) may be right in saying that there is no requirement concerning the rate, but the form of company tax or corporation tax is clearly already openly accepted as being influenced by the form of the tax in the Six.
  Mr. Wingfield Digby Mr. Wingfield Digby indicated dissent
  Mr. Shore: The argument may not be wholly convincing to the hon. Gentleman, but it is the argument put forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Mr. Wingfield Digby: Is the right hon. Gentleman unaware of the tremendous discrepancies in the taxation systems of the Six? He has quoted cne respect in which they are alike. There are many other ways in which they differ.
  Mr. Shore: There are great differences. The question is whether the trend and purpose is to eliminate the differences and to bring the taxation systems together. I should have thought that the point concerning corporation tax was obvious. It is obvious to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  This year we have had a Green Paper foreshadowing major changes in the pattern and weight of estate duty. Death duties in Britain are much higher than
  440
  they are in the Community. The Chancellor of the Exchequer clearly believes that it is his duty increasingly to harmonise with European countries. I wish to help the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) by quoting from the Green Paper" Taxation of Capital on Death: A possible Inheritance Tax in place of Estate Duty "dated March, 1972. Paragraph 29 reads:
  "There is at present no requirement to harmonise our death duties with those charged in the other countries of the EEC. But in evaluating the case for a change there is the consideration that as the years go by it will become increasingly difficult to subject a man who dies in the United Kingdom to a significantly different death duty regime from a man who dies in another EEC country ".
  Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Shore: I did not write that. I assume that it was written with the authority of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  The point is significant, because although we in this country tend to look on our death duties as a relatively light, almost voluntary, form of taxation, we tax people very much more heavily than do countries on the Continent.
  I give a figure which may encourage some hon. Members who are concerned only to lift the weight of death duties but which will not encourage anyone else who considers this matter. In 1965, the last year for which there are complete figures available, the amount paid in death duties in the countries of the Six put together amounted to two-thirds of that paid by people in Britain. This is significant. There will be great pressure for this country to harmonise with the taxes of the Six. I am surprised that during these debates over the past year no one has sought to draw attention to facts which are of obvious significance.
  We already know that the Government have claimed that they are introducing a major indirect tax, the value-added sales tax, as an act of free will, and perhaps they are. But whether they had chosen to do it or not, the value added tax is a requirement, a necessity, part of the price of entry into the European Communities. But even that does not end it.
  I turn to the current number of European Community, although I could

  441
  have quoted other documents. Under the heading:
  " Plans for common excise taxes."
  it says:
  "The Commission has approved a first series of proposals to harmonise excise duties. The move is part of the plan to create economic and monetary union. As the United Kingdom's duties on tobacco and spirits, in particular, are higher than the Community average, this could lead to a reduction of some United Kingdom duties."
  I agree, but it goes on:
  " Excise duties which would be harmonised at Community level by January 1, 1974 would he those on tobacco, petroleum products, wine, spirits and beer."
  I am not sure how much fiscal freedom would remain to the Chancellor of the Exchequer once he has harmonised over such a wide area of taxes—on capital and goods and direct taxes of all kinds, as is clearly envisaged in the arrangements that I have described.
  I hope to get Treasury Bench answers to one of two quite specific questions. As hon. Members can see, I am able to refer to matters which are published in all kinds of community documents, and I am able to draw on material which the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself has supplied to the House. I want to know simply what draft regulations and directives there are in the pipeline in Brussels affecting direct and indirect taxation in Britain. What do they cover? Should we not know before we go any further what new proposals affecting direct and indirect taxes and company and personal taxes in the Community are now in the pipeline, either with the Commission and approved by it, or gone as a first draft to the Council of Ministers, proposals which would affect us if we became part of the enlarged community?
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: Would my right hon. Friend go a step further and ask that hon. Members should have copies of these proposals?
  Mr, Shore: I entirely agree. My hon. Friend has frequently made this point with great force and with even more justice. It is astonishing that for the past six months directives and regulations and other laws have been made by the European Communities affecting this country and we have not been privileged even to see them. I do not make more of that now.
  442
  What I am coming to is the further outrage that the Government know, as they must know, that on many major matters affecting the people of this country there are laws in the making in Brussels, or with the Council of Ministers, which are being held back deliberately until it is thought that the critical stages of this debate are over. Let us hear all about them from the Treasury Bench.
  Finally, what about the draft regulations or directives by the Commission or Council of Ministers making further changes and further proposals concerning the movement of capital? We know about two directives already published, but I should like to know about the new directives and, further, any affecting the regional policies of this country and throughout the Community.
  I have taken some time. It was almost inevitable. How could it be otherwise when we are dealing with matters of such great importance? I hope that we shall have some answers, even though we cannot press the matter, as we should wish, beyond 11 o'clock.
  Mr. Neil Marten: My first and pleasant duty is to welcome on behalf of the Conservative non-keen Marketeers the new Ministers on the Front Bench to these debates.
  These Amendments are broad-ranging and I suppose that we could talk about almost anything, but I want shortly to discuss two matters. I am glad to see that a Treasury representative is present, because the first of these matters concerns the European Monetary Union.
  In recent days, we have heard that Britain has accepted the new 2¼ per cent. range. By doing so, we are penalising ourselves as against the 4½ per cent. range vis-à-vis the non-EEC countries. It is a mistaken course and it will cause unnecessary problems for this country. One has to look ahead and see what is likely to happen, because it seems to many commentators that next year our balance of payments could begin to deteriorate—although I hope that it does not happen—while at the same time the Deutschmark may begin to strengthen.
  In that situation it would be up to the United Kingdom to settle its debts with Germany in Deutschmarks—Germany would buy sterling and we should use

  443
  the Deutschmarks to pay Germany. If the situation were due to a weakening balance of payments, sterling would continue to weaken and Germany would not wish to go on buying sterling. Germany would presumably turn to us in this hypothetical situation and ask us to deflate our economy.
  It has always been one of my great objections to joining the EEC that those circumstances, when an increasing amount of money will have to be paid to the Community across the exchanges, will lead us to follow a deflationary policy. Under the European Monetary Union system, monthly bilateral settlements between central banks will have to be made in a mixture in the proportion in which we hold our reserve assets.
  If in my hypothetical case we could not settle with Germany, we should have to make borrowings from the IMF and we all recall how much we had to borrow from the IMF in recent years. We still recall the teams that came to this country to examine our economy quarterly and to tell us what to do and what not to do. I should have thought that one of the things that the IMF would demand we did if we borrowed from it would be to control the outflow of capital. a subject which the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) mentioned. If it did, and it is one thing it would be bound to do, that would be right against the spirit of the Treaty of Rome.
  I should like the benefit of Treasury advice on why we have accepted the 2¼ per cent. range when it would have been better to have stuck with the 4½ per cent. range which the rest of the non-EEC world has.
  Secondly, I should like to mention GATT. Many of the Amendments are concerned with tariffs and so on, but I should like to examine how far our entry into the Common Market is against GATT, or anyhow against its spirit. I believe that the implication of tying ourselves to the common agricultural policy itself is against the spirit of GATT.
  [Mr. JOHN BREWIS in the Chair]
  6.0 p.m.
  Already the CAP has created gross distortion in world trade in food. In other words, more trade is done within
  444
  the EEC and less with non-EEC countries. When, or if, the United Kingdom enters the Common Market this distortion of the world food trading pattern will increase, probably substantially.
  New Zealand produces food efficiently and cheaply. It was Mr. John Strachey, the then Minister of Food in the post-war Labour Government, who went to New Zealand specifically to ask that country to arrange its production so that it would become the home farm, as it were, of Britain, and we gave long-term guarantees to buy the products of New Zealand farmers.
  When I was in that country last year I was shown a copy of the letter which Mr. Strachey wrote giving that guarantee. I have no doubt that this is one of the major reasons why the New Zealanders developed their farming in the way they have.
  New Zealand has been on notice for the last 10 years that we might enter the EEC. In that time the New Zealanders have been trying to diversify their trade in lamb, butter and cheese, but without much success, primarily because the competition they meet from heavily subsidised Common Market surpluses makes it uneconomic for them to sell in new markets.
  It is clear that the CAP is putting at risk the livelihood of New Zealand farmers, many of whom left Britain to make a life for themselves in that country a generation or two ago. Our entry into the EEC will have a serious effect on the livelihood of people of British stock who for years have been providing us with good cheap food.
  Mr. Molloy: Often in times of great stress.
  Mr. Marten: And often under very strenuous circumstances.
  The Treaty of Accession contains a reference to the veto and renegotiations in connection with New Zealand in 1975. The question of the veto remains unclear and it seems that if agreement on the future of trade with New Zealand is not reached, all the arrangements we have made covering New Zealand will count for nothing and we will be thrown back completely on the CAP.
  My comments about New Zealand apply equally to Australia, where the fruit

  445
  and dairy farmers and the sugar producers of Queensland are being sacrificed on the altar of the Common Market.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: I hope the hon. Gentleman will make it clear that he is speaking of people who were our friends rather than our enemies in the last war.
  Mr. Marten: Yes, our friends and kinsmen, people with whom we have a common heritage. We do not have quite the same relationship with, for example, the Italians and others in the EEC. [Interruption] Some hon. Members may have a common heritage with certain Europeans, but my heritage lies more with those to whom I have been referring, even though I have French blood in my veins. Perhaps I can be said to have a common heritage with the French.
  I have said enough to show that our entry into the EEC could mean an even greater distortion in the pattern of world trade in food. If the EEC means anything—the Treaty of Rome brings this out clearly—it means the economic integration of its members, with each buying from the other and looking inwards. It is typical of Europeans to look at things in that way. We in Britain have always looked to the open seas and to our friends and relations across the seas in the Commonwealth.
  The net result of our joining the EEC will be a dramatic increase in agricultural trade between EEC countries and an equally dramatic decrease in imports from non-EEC nations. In other words, "I'm all right Jack" will sum up the position well, and there will be a sickening disregard for others.
  People may argue that the Common Market countries give more aid than we do. That is marginally true, but it is conscience money. In any event, what really matters is trade rather than aid. That is what the people who are being given this aid primarily require.
  I have a picture—having been to Brussels the picture is painted somewhat more vividly—of a rather large central European gentleman stuffing himself with rich food wondering how much better off he can get, giving little thought to those who live in Australia, New Zealand, Fiji and Mauritius. I have an awful fear that if we join the EEC we in Britain will start to take the same attitude; that
  446
  those in Government and elsewhere will think only of themselves and not of those who live in countries outside the United Kingdom.
  Price support as part of the CAP has created surpluses, which means that we shall be supporting inefficient producers against low-cost producers in other parts of the world. These surpluses are dumped on world markets, having been financed out of levies which in future will be paid for in part by the British housewife. In 1969 export subsidies in the EEC amounted to over 1 million dollars.
  It is a horrifying thought that if the Bill is passed we shall be tied to and helping to finance all this rubbish. "Rubbish" is the only word to use; there will be no change in the CAP. President Pompidou has reassured the people of France that he will not tolerate any change in the policy.
  This is where the question of unanimity comes in, for there is no question of our using the veto and therefore no help of changing the CAP. The simple fact is that if we do not take imports of food from, for example, Australia and New Zealand, they in turn will not be able to take manufactured goods from us.
  Hon. Members will recall that it was in the 1947 GATT negotiations that we recognised that this might happen. Indeed, GATT was designed to prevent it from happening. All that is now being conveniently forgotten. It is clear, therefore, that our entry into the EEC will be against the spirit of GATT, and blatantly so.
  The non-EEC countries will be entitled to assume, if we go in, that GATT has ceased to be effective as a protection for non-EEC members. Once that assumption is made there will be a danger of those countries putting up tariffs, and the world will again move towards the pre-1947 position.
  The approach of the EEC is backward-looking and thoroughly old-fashioned, because the tendency in economic development throughout the world today is towards free trade. The British Government should get with it and recognise these facts of life. I want them to tell the Committee clearly whether, in their view, our entry into the Common Market would or would not be against the spirit of GATT in the way I have described.
  Mr. Harold Lever: I hope I shall be forgiven if I do not cover every field which has been entered in this debate but try to keep myself to some general propositions which may be of assistance to the Committee.
  First of all let me concede to my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) that as long as we have bad government in this country we are likely to have bad effects on the economic life of this country, and, either in or out of the Common Market, inadequate regional policies are likely to produce hardship and loss to the people of this country. If my right hon. Friend will forgive me for saying so, his speech was based on the assumption that we shall always have bad Governments. We have had bad Governments in respect of capital movements for quite a time and I shall deal with that in a moment.
  Let us take the question of what the free movement of capital is about and how it relates to regional policies and to this country's prospects. First of all it has to be realised that the concept of free movement of capital in the Common Market was not invented to do injury to the people of Britain or indeed of any country of the Common Market. The concept of the free movement of capital was to produce the greatest wealth possible in the most intelligent way possible for those members of the grouping which hitherto has excluded ourselves but which, if the Government have their way, even on terms of which my party disapproves, will include us. The free movement of capital is certainly in itself acknowledged by everyone who thinks about this matter to be a desirable thing as long as we have any private enterprise sector at all, and if we have a public enterprise sector we need some equivalent to free movement to guide and steer capital in the best directions. Unless one commits oneself to the concept that Britain is not to have any private sector at all, as a general principle the free movement of capital is going to advantage her and the countries within which free movement occurs. Of course, there will be exceptions to this, with which I will deal in a moment, and there is the question of the regions with which I will also deal in a moment.
  Here, again, there is confusion. We must not look at the movement of
  448
  capital and say, "Oh, look, in the past the free movement of capital has resulted in disadvantage to some regions; therefore we will have no free movement of capital ". What one is entitled to say, as I would say, is that we cannot leave regional questions purely to free market forces. That does not mean maim and mutilate the free market forces which they operate. On the contrary, we have to work them with maximum efficiency so as to have the maximum resources to support regional policies. That is quite another matter, however, from seeking to maim movements of capital in the areas where it is desirable to have them in order to preserve the regions.
  It had been assumed, wrongly, that if we leave regional policy to the free market forces all will be well in the end. We say that that is not the case. I would like people to bear in mind, in relation to the movement of capital and to economic monetary union and things of that kind, and how that will bear on the regions, that regional policy still depends for its success on the amount of resources, the amount of brains, put into correcting the imbalances which have been brought about. The amount of resources available will depend on the overall prosperity of the country, and the opportunities for having effective regional policies grow as the non-regional areas prosper. It is almost impossible to have a successful regional policy in a country, for example, in its present state of depression in the non-regions. There is no inconsistency in pursuing the objective of prosperity in non-depressed regions. It is not at the expense of the regions but makes available resources to help them. If we had started with the regional problems in today's political and economic climate we would never have allowed a century or so of neglect to go untouched.
  A good deal of the anxiety which people feel about the Common Market and economic and monetary union is because they superimpose 19th century thinking on to 20th century situations; in other words, they are constantly going back to what happened in the past in many countries including our own. I think our own is the least likely to be the Northern Ireland of Europe, in any event. My right hon. Friend illustrated this misconception again today. It is inconceivable that such a partnership as

  449
  the EEC will commit the same error that we made in our country a century or so ago in relation to Ireland or Northern Ireland, the error of assuming that there was little which one could do about their problems and that if it were left to market forces all would be well.
  6.15 p.m.
  On the question of fixed parities, the narrowness or otherwise of the bands at the present moment is of little consequence. What is important is this fear of being locked in. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) is very good at these psychological considerations. I do not want to become involved in them, but there is a claustrophobic fear among many people, the idea of being locked in a parity from which they cannot escape and which will ruin us if we stay in it. I must tell my right hon. Friend with great bluntness—I hope he will forgive me—that it is a total fantasy, this idea that one can lock any sovereign nation into a parity and keep it there to its ruin. That is absolutely absurd. It cannot and will not happen. [Interruption] My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) says that I agreed to it as a member of the last Government. But I tell my hon. Friend this—and it goes back to the point I made at the beginning—that if we get bad Governments they can do all sorts of things—lock us into a ruinous parity, cause a million unemployed. They can do all sorts of things. We cannot give a guarantee that by entering the EEC we shall escape bad government. I hope that my hon. Friend and I will do our best to get good government. But let me destroy once and for all the fantasy of a locked in parity. We have not agreed to lock our parities permanently with one another in the EEC. In the EEC they have changed their parities several times—only very recently. Does the hon. Member wish to intervene?
  Mr. David Madel: I was just making the point that we might look at the turmoil which arose as a result of changes of parities in the Community.
  Mr. Lever: Look at the turmoil which happened in our own country when we changed parity because of inflation. Whatever academics say, I am a reluctant adjuster of parities. I do not say that
  450
  we ought never to adjust them, but we should not spring to adjust as though it were a thing we could do light-heartedly as a matter of no consequence.
  The objective of reducing the number of parity changes is in itself a very good one. Locking into unrealistic parities is not only a bad thing but can be ruinous. This cannot happen, except by the choice of silly Governments. We should realise that all attempts at economic monetary union and the reduction of the number of parity changes—the EEC hones for permanent avoidance of them in the end—are among the most progressive objectives. It may not be possible to achieve them, but they are progressive objectives, because a commitment to fixed parities is a commitment to finding preferable alternatives to parity changes, and that means, among other things, a commitment to regional policies on a scale never seen before. One could not think it conceivable for the parities of European countries to stay for a very long period without change unless there were regional policies on a scale never before envisaged.
  In fact the central problem of modern countries is that, whereas we have the talents, the techniques and the motivations which have led to remarkable changes of comparative productivity at unheard-of speed, we have not produced matching skills in restructuring industry to cope with the changes which the accelerated techniques of production within frontiers and across frontiers have brought about. That is what causes a great deal of the parity upset and the protectionist feeling that has been brought about in recent years by changes in comparative productivity within and across frontiers because of the lack of initiative and the skill required to do that restructuring and regional policy.
  Mr. Marten: Would the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Lever: I cannot give way. I want to get on. If we had unlimited time I would gladly give way frequently to anybody but I do want to cover some ground which I will not again have the opportunity to do. I put it to my hon. Friends particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney not to take a pessimistic view about the effect that the freedom of capital movement will have on

  451
  employment. The overall effect within the new Community will be beneficial. It is a reasonable inference that we shall be participating in that benefit.
  In anticipation of entry there was an exchange of visits between Munich and Manchester of the business men and civic authorities. About two business men went from Manchester to Munich and 40 highly intelligent German business men came to Manchester. I do not know whether it hurts anybody's national pride but I can tell the Committee about engineers and skilled men at Manchester who have been put out of work in the Wythenshawe and Trafford Park area. They want employment by intelligent employers who will give them good wages and employ them where they live at the factories in which they used to work. These 40 highly intelligent German business men came to explore these factories and to look for some means of harnessing this pool of unused skilled labour which they cannot find in their own country. Why does my right hon. Friend think that happened? He says they could always have brought their money. If my right hon. Friend will reflect on this there is a psychology involved in business investment which is very important. These 40 men did not come before the Common Market entry was under consideration or was thought to be imminent. They came because within the Common Market rules a Manchester factory will be as much part of their organisation and free to sell its products anywhere within Europe as their German factories.
  My right hon. Friend made a just case about tariffs but he ignored the psychological impetus entry gives to talented entrepreneurs who came over to this country. The whole point of freedom of choice of the entrepreneur is that looked at from the workman's point of view, he is not restricted to the often-lackadaisical management of the North-West. I do not say that it is all lackadaisical. He is getting the chance of employment and having his wages geared to the most keen and the highest bidder in Europe.
  Mr. Marten: What is wrong with Manchester?
  Mr. Lever: What the hon. Gentleman who intervened a moment ago and what
  452
  my hon. Friends ignored is that we are widening the market for the sale of the services of skilled and unskilled workers in our country and in our regions. They will have a wider choice of possible employers. I can assure the Committee that the response of the working people of Manchester is that they are eager to have this opportunity.
  Mr. Molloy: It is better than the dole.
  Mr. Lever: That is right. We have no interest to run our capital markets on European inefficiency and our work-people have no interest in that. They have the chance of getting the highest wage and the best entrepreneurial use of their labour if they have the most employers competing for their work. German employers are thirsting for skilled labour.
  Mr. Shore: Would my right hon. Friend think of the job opportunities available in this country. It is the net effect of capital movement which is important. It is possible that a number of European firms will invest more in Britain than they have done in the past, even though there has been nothing to stop them in years gone by. However, it will also be much easier for British firms to invest in Europe, and British firms have been restricted in the past. If my right hon. Friend would look at the figures for the last six years in terms of the direct investment by British firms in Europe, in the Six, and the investment of the Six in Britain, the ratio is three to one.
  Mr. Lever: That is right, but my right hon. Friend is not right when he suggests that they were free to come here and that we were not free to invest there. British firms were not able to use sterling exchange for this purpose but they were entirely free to invest, and they have invested. Certainly they will do so in due time if not immediately. I will come to the point about the exchanges in due course.
  This must not be looked at as a one-sided matter. I know of no economist of repute who could challenge the proposition that the free movement of capital maximises the opportunity of work creation within the area within which that free movement occurs. That is not to say that one can leave regional injury to free

  453
  market forces. I have made it plain that the great scar on the modern world is that our thinking has been too puny in the concept of restructuring and regional matters. The bigger one's resources in the non-depressed areas the better opportunity an intelligent Government has to help.
  On the question of exchanges it is true that we have had restrictions on the movement of currency into Europe although not into the sterling area. One of the things that has been missing ever since I can remember in Government policy in relation to balance of payments is an implicit strategy in which we are not told what is the test for our parity and what makes sense as parity, when it ought to be changed and when it ought to be financed through the ups and downs of trade. No Government has given us that. Again we come to our problem about good and bad Government. As long as one has Governments that allow our parity or our demand management to be shifted by capital movements, this country will have stop-go policies. One does not have to enter the Common Market to endure that. We have had stop-go policies for the last 20 years—brought about by reflex reactions of governments not to the current account on trade but to the sudden movement of capital mainly on short-term account which vastly exceed in their impact the longer-term effects of long-term direct capital investment. It is no good thinking that we shall get protection from the constraints on the balance of payments by staying outside the EEC. We are not going to get that either if we go into the EEC as long as the Government allow trade in this country to be constrained and affected by short-term monetary movements. That will happen whether we are in the EEC or not.
  What we need—I have not time to develop it now—is a strategy on the balance of payments. Without it we shall suffer the stop-go of the past whether we go in or not. We shall have more opportunities in the EEC, but even outside the EEC with a proper strategy of balance of payments we ought not to suffer stop-go. Therefore the question of free movement of capital or labour has nothing to do with this it is a question of the reaction of the government to capital
  454
  movement in relation to parity and demand management.
  6.30 p.m.
  Turning to the free movement of labour, it is wrong to talk about the sub-proletariat of Germany as the kind of thing with which we are threatened in some way either as importers or as exporters of a sub-proletariat. It is well to remember when we consider these matters that, however lamentable conditions may be in Germany—I have not studied them—it is the choice of the people concerned [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, their choice. I put it to my hon. Friends —[Interruption] I wish that my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) would listen and not interrupt until the sentence is completed before allowing his self-righteous indignation to burst forth. As between the lamentable conditions that they have at home and those in Germany, which I have not studied, they prefer those in Germany because they are better than the miserable poverty which is the alternative to going abroad. That may be shameful and—
  Mr. Wingfield Digby: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that workers from Morocco moving into Strasbourg are going straight into modern flats?
  Mr. Lever: It would reflect badly upon Britain if, taking advantage of the misery and poverty of people in other parts of the world, when we have a decent Government and we need labour to come to this country, we sought to seek economic advantage by exploiting the miseries of poor people who would be prepared to come here to any conditions rather than remain unemployed and poverty-stricken where they are. We should bear in mind that nobody is enslaved to go there. They go there because the conditions are better than they would otherwise get.
  No Englishman need leave England to take employment. My right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney said that our people want work in England. Of course they do. I should like non-gainful employment on a certain Committee. I should not be satisfied if Herr Brandt, assuming that he went into Opposition, invited me to take a place in his Shadow Cabinet. I should prefer to be at home, if this were possible. Other people may

  455
  prefer to make the journey across to Germany if they were unable to obtain that non-gainful employment in England.
  The same goes for gainful employment. It is a matter of choice. My right hon. Friend and I have no business to tell English people that they should not take advantage of opportunities abroad if they wish to do so. Therefore, our policy must be to seek to provide gainful opportunities at home so that they will have the free choice whether to work at home or, if they choose, abroad. Not everybody who goes abroad to work goes with a sense of some awful evil which has befallen him. Not everyone is driven abroad to work because he cannot make a good living at home. It may be that he can make an even better and more interesting living abroad.
  Finally, I turn to taxation. The taxation powers of the EEC do not extend to personal tax. All the usual fiscal blood sports will be open to us, as I have said on more than one occasion, and I shall support them because I believe in progressive taxation. As long as it is done intelligently and shrewdly, I shall support it.
  For example, it is ludicrous to have estate duty at its present level without matching it with a gift tax. It seems to me that a voluntary dispositions tax makes sense. Will the EEC stop it? No. What stops it is the present Government and the indolence of previous Governments, none of whom brought it in. I am in favour of it.
  Mr. Shore: I do not think that my right hon. Friend has taken the point. If there is free movement of capital and a particular form of capital taxation which is high in one part of the Community, it is natural and logical that capital will move to areas where it is lower. Surely my right hon. Friend should address himself to that question.
  Mr. Lever: Capital does not die; estate duty arises because individuals do. It is not the capital but the individual who moves to areas of lower estate duty. They do and are free to do so now. I hope that they always will be. None of the major countries outside the communist world stops its citizens emigrating if they desire to do so and, within a reasonable period, taking their
  456
  capital with them. We certainly allow considerable freedom of movement to all people if they wish to leave the country. The interesting point is that, though this freedom has been maintained, it is exceptional for people to move out of this country to escape estate duty and die somewhere else. It does happen. However, on the whole, most people accept the taxation, however high, rather than leave their native land.
  My right hon. Friend is mistaken if he supposes that more than a minor facilitation of capital movement will take place. It has not yet taken place. I believe that it will proceed with caution. We are not obliged to move too rapidly. It is the taxation of persons which is crucial.
  Mr. R. T. Paget: If a man wants to dodge British taxation today, he has to move his domicile. If free movement of capital means what I think it means, a man can move his capital to a place where taxation is light without having to go there himself.
  Mr. Lever: My hon. and learned Friend takes it to mean something wholly different from what it in fact does mean. The income on capital may be taxed more lightly in, say, France, Germany, or whatever it may be put, but when a man makes his tax return to Her Majesty's Inspector of Taxes he has to return the income, and his personal income will be taxed in accordance with British law at the rate decreed by a British Government. It does not matter whether the foreign country is kind enough to tax a man's capital at zero. It will not help him in terms of his total tax liability, because the Inspector of Taxes at this end gets the return of his income and taxes him on that basis.
  The EEC is concerned not with personal but with corporate taxation. In Britain the level of corporate taxation has been lower than in other countries partly because we have sought to attract a flow of inward investment.
  Countries of an advanced nature like our own should not compete with each other to drive down company taxation so as to attract capital. In fact, the harmonisation of corporate taxation brings an end to the downward competition on corporate taxes which exists as long as we are outside the EEC. If we wish to bring capital into Britain

  457
  there is a strong temptation to make our corporation tax lower than in other parts of the world. Harmonisation does not act one way to drive down company taxation. On the contrary, it would tend to be agreed that we all keep company taxation at an equal level. However, there is no harm in that. It depends what the level is. There is no restriction on the British Government fixing their own level if they are not satisfied with the EEC level.
  The free movement of capital should benefit all. The fact that other people will benefit should not make us think that it is at our expense. We have free movement of capital in Britain because overall we gain by it.
  Free market forces alone will not take care of regional imbalances. However, that is no reason for multilating the other areas. It is a reason for strengthening policy and widening our horizon in terms of the regions.
  There is no commitment to tie our parities for ever to Europe. Any such commitment would be meaningless and could not endure unless a preferable alternative to parity changes were made available if there were changes in comparative productivity. We should welcome the idea of advancing agreement in the area of both capital and labour movement provided that it is of free choice and there is no conscription, and the like. This will rebound to the advantage of the whole Community in which we, as a member, must be beneficiaries.
  Mr. J. C. Jennings: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down. Is he trying to tell business men in this country that corporate tax, as he describes it, will tend to rise as we develop our economy in the Common Market?
  Mr. Lever: That is a matter of free decision by a British Government.
  Mr. Percy Grieve: I first want to pay tribute to the cogent arguments just advanced by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever). Apart from a short passage on taxation, I found myself in almost complete agreement with everything he said, which shows the degree to which a recognition on both sides of the Committee of the advantages of adherence
  458
  to the EEC overrides all party considerations. In the speech of the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) I thought I detected that adherence and devotion to the doctrines of State Socialism which I suspect to be at the bottom of a great deal of the opposition to our joining the Community which one has seen and heard in our debates so far.
  To the extent that we may be influenced to modify the extremely penal levels of our estate duty, moderate its incidence and perhaps change from estate duty to inheritance tax by our adherence to the Community, I would welcome it. It has always seemed to me that the methods of imposing duties on inheritance which prevail, for instance, in France are very much more civilised and realistic than our own. In the recently published Green Paper those methods were canvassed as one of the alternatives where the rights of the widow, for instance, and the immediate children of the testator are recognised, as opposed to those of more remote kin and of those not related, and where the unity of the family and the obligation of a father to provide for his family are recognised. That, however, was merely one aspect of the matter.
  The right hon. Member for Cheetham pointed out just now that there would be very little difference from what already prevails here with regard to the emigration of individuals who seek to take their capital with them. They are already perfectly free to do so, their capital following them after a decent interval of about five years. I do not think that we shall see a great exodus from this country to the Community countries of people wanting to go out there for tax reasons. Those who wished to do so have already done so. They have gone to the sterling area countries—to Malta, for instance, where until recently they benefited from very considerable tax advantages, some of which, I am sorry to say in respect of those who I know have gone there under that illusion, are now being eroded by the present Government in the island. What we may see is a few more people going to live in Community countries, but if our taxation and estate duty are modified, as I believe they will be modified, that incentive to go will disappear altogether.
  What I suspect the right hon. Member for Stepney resents and regrets about the

  459
  freedom of capital movement is not what can happen and may happen in present circumstances but the power which he thinks a Socialist Government might lose to stop altogether the emigration of individuals and their taking their capital with them. That is what I suspect is implicit in his objections. The right hon. Member for Cheetham shakes his head. The right hon. Member for Stepney is not now in his place, and since I agree entirely with the right hon. Member for Cheetham that there may be no substantial change in present circumstances. I look for what the right hon. Member for Stepney really dislikes and resents here. He is far too intelligent not to appreciate what was said by the right hon. Member for Cheetham, so I suspect that what he resents is the possible loss of power to impose restrictions on the emigration of individuals and restrictions on the emigration of capital.
  6.45 p.m.
  There was implicit in the speech of the right hon. Member for Stepney the argument that by adhering to the Community we should stultify our own ability in an emergency to control capital movements. That has always been implicit in the arguments about capital movements when we join the Community, but the Treaty specifically provides for the right of members States of the Community to look after their own interests in an emergency.
  Mr. Marten: Temporarily.
  Mr. Grieve: My hon. Friend says" temporarily ", but one hopes that a member State would not be in such a position as to have to impose permanent controls. I hear my hon. Friend say, "Wait until the next Socialist Government comes along," but perhaps we should leave that eventuality to the electorate.
  I want to refer to Article 73 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, which specifically gives this freedom to member States, and then to refer to some of the uses to which this provision has been put and the reliance that has been placed on it during the course of the history of the Community. Article 73 states:
  " If movements of capital lead to disturbances in the functioning of the capital market
  460
  in any Member State, the Commission shall, after consulting the Monetary Committee, authorise that State to take protective measures in the field of capital movements, the conditions and details of which the Commission shall determine.
  The Council may, acting by a qualified majority, revoke this authorisation or amend the conditions or details thereof."
  I know that a number of hon. Members will say that that depends on the Commission, but paragraph 2 of the Article enables a State to act in an emergency on its own initiative. It reads:
  " A Member State which is in difficulties may, however, on grounds of secrecy or urgency, take the measures mentioned above, where this proves necessary, on its own initiative. The Commission and the other Member States shall be informed of such measures by the date of their entry into force at the latest. In this event the Commission may, after consulting the Monetary Committee, decide that the State concerned shall amend or abolish the measures."
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) says that that is just the point, but the fact is that if one pools one's resources and makes concessions for the purpose of very great advantages, one must make concessions in this regard as in other regards, because the ultimate gain to the State of adhering to the Community will be so great.
  Article 73 has been used since the Community came into existence. I speak from memory, and therefore speak subject to correction, but in 1968 it was in reliance of Article 73 and, in particular, paragraph 2, that France imposed stringent exchange controls after the events of May which upset the French economy in the autumn of that year. There is, therefore, specific provision in the Treaty for member States in an emergency to look after their own interests. It is quite true that afterwards, when the measures have been taken, States must consult their fellow members of the Community as to the continuance of those measures, but it seems to me that in a civilised organisation established for mutual wellbeing this is a sufficient safeguard of the interests of any European member State.
  Mr. Deakins: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman not aware that Article 73 merely gives legal protection against disturbances of the capital market? It says nothing about States having the right to

  461
  protect themselves against the social consequences of alterations in the movement of capital, which is what concerns us.
  Mr. Grieve: Social consequences are hardly likely to arise by way of an emergency. Social consequences are long term and are indicated by trends. There, the Ministers of each State are entitled to consult with their fellows on what changes should be made. Social consequences are long term, whereas what we and Article 73 are concerned with are short-term crises, and for short-term crises the interests of member States are protected.
  I agree completely with the right hon. Member for Cheetham that freedom of capital movement in the Community is one of the roots of its prosperity. For these reasons I oppose the Amendment.
  [Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]
  Mr. John Mendelson: The hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) four times in a relatively short speech declared his complete agreement with the contribution made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever). While I welcome and enjoy the speeches of my right hon. Friend, the hon. and learned Gentleman positively relies on my right hon. Friend. He would not have made a speech at all had he not been able to repeat and agree with what my right hon. Friend said. The hon. and learned Gentleman and others who share his view who rely wholly on my right hon. Friend should pay a small fee to him for providing a basis for their interventions.
  I will confine my speech to the single point of the policy on economic aid to the difficult regions. It is not enough merely to say that it depends on the policy of the Government at home whether there is either general prosperity or prosperity in the difficult regions. The failure of succeeding Governments in the last 20 years to have a positive policy of economic aid to the difficult regions is common ground. According to current reports of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, which has no political bias, this is agreed among all the economists.
  We must go further than that. We are concerned with the attitudes within the EEC. I therefore wish to read into the record a large part of an important and
  462
  revealing article that appeared in The Guardian yesterday morning. It deals not with the general propositions that have been debated in Committee but with concrete current evidence of the grave dangers facing the difficult regions if we join the Community under the present terms.
  In recent weeks when we have been disentangling the legislation before us we have been in danger of our debates not receiving sufficient attention in the country. That is because we have not produced the concrete facts that would wake up the people in the regions to a realisation of the danger they are facing.
  Mr. Richard Norton-Taylor tells us:
  "British Ministers and public officials do not miss any opportunity these days to point out both the need for, and Britain's own national interest in, an effective Common Market regional policy which concentrates on declining industrial areas rather than poor agricultural ones."
  That is what Ministers talk about but they do not report to the Committee or to the House of Commons what is going on in the EEC.
  "As everyone must now be well aware, during the first years after enlargement, Britain will be a net contributor to the Community budget and if the present structure of the budget does not change. Britain stands to be the largest single contributor in five years. Out of a total budget of close on £1,670 million, 88 per cent. goes on farm price support (a small fraction to help modernise farm holdings), £18'3 million goes on the ill-fated Euratom nuclear research organisation, and £375,000 goes to the European Social Fund to retrain Community workers. Community officials are beginning to wonder if Britain is going to place as much emphasis on the importance of a Community industrial and regional policy as France has (very effectively) put on the continuation of the present common agricultural policy."
  Here is the key section:
  "At last week's ministerial meeting the French Foreign Minister, M. Maurice Schumann, avoided all mention of regional policy, insisting instead that the issue of the economic and monetary union agenda must be kept strictly to the point."
  There are several current reports about what the Community should turn to next. We know that in the secret discussions between the Prime Minister and President Pompidou in Paris, when President Pompidou finally removed the French veto, certain guidelines were laid down. We also know that when President Pompidou was over here recently those guidelines were confirmed, but it is here

  463
  that the conflict arises. M. Schumann on behalf of President Pompidou does not wish discussion of the policies which would benefit British economic interests but insists on different issues being on the agenda.
  "Luxembourg rather haphazardly threw up a proposal for a Community ' regional solidarity fund ', although Italy, perhaps resigned after the Community Finance Ministers failure last month to agree to set up a European regional development fund, kept silent."
  We come to the part that deals with what is to happen in the immediate future:
  "The Commission has a job as adjudicator when it comes to regional State aids. For example, it will soon come out with guidelines for the shipbuilding and textile sectors and will, no doubt, look closely at the British Government's planned Industrial Development Bill. Some of the Commission members, notably Signor Spinelli in charge of industrial policy, and M. Borschette, responsible for regional and competition policies, have become well aware of the need for a sophisticated regional policy for industrial areas and, indeed, praised Britain's effort in this field. But some of the six member States have also shifted their attention to declining industrial regions and have a panoply of measures, including regulations along the lines"
  7.0 p.m.
  Mr. Paget: On a point of order, Sir Robert. Is it in order for an hon. Members to read a long article from The Guardian?
  The Chairman: If it is a quotation necessary for the making of the speech, it is usual to allow an hon. Member to read it.
  Mr. Paget: But it has been going on for about 10 minutes.
  Mr. Mendelson: I do not know what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) is worried about. I always listen with great patience to him, and when he produces examples of what we should do in Northern Ireland our patience is tried a good deal more than it is by having to listen to an article in The Guardian, but we still listen to my hon. and learned Friend's interventions.
  The article goes on:
  "Last week the Commission asked the Italian Government for periodic reports on the application of its recent law designed to help industries, such as textiles, to adapt to
  464
  new economic pressures by a means of temporary holdings by such semi-public organisations as the Institute of Industrial Reconstruction. The Brussels body has also said that Italy must limit credits to small and medium-sized industries to one year."
  What does that mean? It means that the Brussels Commission takes it upon itself now to dictate to the Government and Parliament of Italy the kind of industrial aid they are allowed to give anyone in Italy. We are facing very serious problems on this aspect of economic policy. We are awaiting eagerly a statement by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry about the future of the British steel industry. This is why I regretted the absence earlier on of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The statement is overdue and there are all sorts of rumours about how the Government have changed the plans that the British Steel Corporation had itself put forward originally about the future of the industry. I happen to represent a steel constituency, and I am greatly concerned with this aspect of our regional and economic policy.
  Mr. Grylls: The hon. Gentleman has referred to Italy. Does he not agree that the fact that the Italian Government insist that 40 per cent. of the investment of their nationalised industries should be channelled into the Mezzo Giorno proves that the Italian Government are allowed to pursue whatever policies they think fit for their regions?
  Mr. Mendelson: We are not dealing with generalisations of the kind that we have heard in debates in this House over the past 12 months. We are dealing with a concrete event which is occurring now—[Interruption.] It is no good the hon. and learned Member for Solihull laughing, because he does not know anything about economic matters. He blows into debates and repeats what my right hon. Friend the Member for Cheetham has said, pretending that he can take part in our debates. But he knows nothing about steel.
  We are here discussing a report based on current practice in the Community, however uncomfortable it may be for some who blindly voted for this legislation and the curtailment of debate without knowing anything about and without studying these important matters. They

  465
  voted for the curtailment of debate, and they make interventions now—
  Mr. Grieve: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will concede that I have been present throughout the debates on these matters and have been bored by a great number of the hon. Gentleman's speeches. That was a good reason for voting for the curtailment of debate.
  Mr. Mendelson: That proves that the hon. and learned Gentleman has not been present. I have not spoken in the Committee for a long time. He does not know that, because he has not been here.
  The Commission in Brussels is now telling the Government of Italy that large-scale industries in Italy may not be supported. We have a direct interest in seeing that in this country there should be an expansion of the steel industry in the future, with some large new works. It is highly likely that these new steel works will need a great deal of Government aid if they are to be built and made to work. Are we to accept the position where the Commission tells a future British Government that they cannot give such aid to the British Steel industry? Let us be told from the Treasury Bench whether right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are prepared to accept such interference.
  The article goes on:
  "Many of the aspects of the Community's embryonic regional policy are essentially negative, dealing more with control than pumping Community money into its poorer areas. That is still the responsibility of the national Governments. There is no doubt, in the view of Community officials here, that Britain will have to fight pretty hard if it wants to swing Community expenditure away from its present concentration on agriculture."
  That is of very great importance to this country, though apparently it is of little concern to some right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite—
  Mr. Arthur Lewes: And the Liberals.
  Mr. Mendelson: I am not worried about the Liberals. They do not count any more. It is of very little importance to Government supporters because they have no intention of supporting policies of the kind that we are worried about for the future.
  466
  A certain unreality has been creeping into these debates. From time to time this matter has appeared to be a nonparty one. Although a great deal of argument has been advanced from right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, I am convinced that it is precisely policies of a kind that a future Labour Government based upon the Socialist movement wanted to introduce that would be blocked by the arrangements and the philosophy inspiring the negative attitude of the Commission to the regions. Incidentally, the hon. and learned Member for Solihull does not frighten me by introducing the honourable term "Socialist". I look forward to a future Labour Government genuinely pursuing Socialist policies.
  The Brussels policy is not one which positively negatives expansion. It is one which negatively controls, and that is one of my basic objections to it.
  I look forward to a Labour Government forming the next Administration. The news is cheerful from Scotland. It will be equally cheerful when it comes in from English boroughs later this week. The present Government will not last very long, and obviously we have to think in terms of the next Government. which will be a Socialist Labour Government and will include all the talents cal these benches. That is when the expertise displayed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cheetham will be greatly needed. The obstacles will be far more serious for such a Government than for any Administration formed by right hon. and hon. Members opposite.
  There was nothing in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cheetham dealing with that problem. He made life easy for himself by concentrating only on some of the., points which have been made today. He did not address himself to what has become the kernel of these debates and explain how he would overcome the built-in anti-Socialist bias in the Commission's policy and its negative approach to the regions.
  We have at our disposal only a short time in which to discuss matters of the greatest importance to the people in regions of high unemployment. We are here agreeing willy-nilly to an interfering policy which will prevent us from pursuing the urgently-needed expansionist

  467
  economic policies which ought to be pursued in the interests of the people in the regions which are hard hit by unemployment.
  I warn the Committee that anybody who lightheartedly agrees to what the Government are putting forward without the most searching inquiry and without insisting on the most careful answers being given by the Government will fail the people in the regions. The Government have a duty to give detailed replies not only to the questions that have been asked about the terms of the treaty, but also to the questions that have been asked about their attitude to the policies that are referred to in this article which I have deliberately read into the record of the proceedings of the Committee.
  The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. John Nott):: It may help the Committee if I intervene now, but in doing so I do not wish in any way to bring the debate on the Amendment to a close.
  In the short time that is available—and I realise that there are other Amendments to debate tonight—perhaps I can try to answer a few of the points that have been raised by the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore), who I hope will shortly return to his place. In opening the, debate the right hon. Gentleman ranged extremely widely over many matters, and I think hon. Members will agree that, to a large extent, this has been a debate on general economic policy and on the principle of entry into the EEC. Nevertheless, I shall try to answer some of the points that have been made, but I think that it would be appropriate for me to address my remarks as far as possible to Clause 2(1), which is what we are debating.
  I should have liked to have made a personal comment to the right hon. Member for Stepney but, as he is not here, I shall leave it until he returns.
  The first matter on which I should comment is regional policy, to which the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) has addressed many of his comments, and about which the right hon. Member for Stepney was concerned. As the right hon. Gentleman knows—and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows it, too—the Community is still
  468
  working out a common regional policy where problems arise at Community level. When we become a full member of the Community at the beginning of next year we shall be full participants in all these discussions and we shall be able to help in steering the regional policies of the Community in a way that will be of advantage to this country.
  It is recognised that, basically, regional policy is the responsibility of member States, and I think that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) made this point on several occasions. I must say to the right hon. Member for Stepney, to the hon. Member for Penistone and to others who have spoken on this matter of regional policy that our system of regional aid, which is being substantially changed—our new policy was outlined in the recent White Paper on Industrial and Regional Development—and also our IDC system, are not contrary to the present ideas of the Community. Regional policy is the responsibility of member States and, as far as we are aware, it will remain so, but we shall be party to the discussions on a common regional policy, and surely that must be to the advantage of this country and to our regions.
  Mr. Shore: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for missing the first few moments of his speech. Have the Government had any serious discussions with the Commission about their existing regional policies? Have they had any discussions with the Commission about the development of the Commission's own policy between standard regions and others, which it put forward a few months ago?
  Mr. Nott: The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He is an opponent of our entry, and now he is concerned that we should be having continuing discussions with the Commission on this matter. The Commission is fully aware that we are about to introduce an industry Bill that will change our system of regional aids and development, and it has seen our White Paper as indeed has the right hon. Gentleman.
  7.15 p.m.
  Mr. Molloy: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that those who are opposed to the Bill should show no interest in what might

  469
  happen if the House passes it? That is a remarkable new philosophy, even in the British constitution.
  Mr. Nott: That is not what I was saying.
  Mr. Molloy: That is what the hon. Gentleman seemed to be saying.
  Mr. Nott: May I just deal with the subject-matter of the main Amendment.
  Mr. Powell: The Minister has just told the Committee that in the Community regional policy is the responsibility of the member countries. Would he relate that to what has happened about Belgium, which has been ordered by the Commission to discontinue a regional policy which it thought fit to adopt? Is that what the Minister means by member countries being responsible for their own regional policies?
  Mr. Nott: I was not going to mention the Belgian case because of the shortage of time but, as my right hon. Friend has raised it, I shall refer to the particular case that he raised.
  The Belgian economic expansion law is in no way comparable with our system of regional aids. The Belgian law provides for aid to be granted to almost the whole of Belgium, and the Commission has carried out its responsibilities under Article 93. For a long time the Commission discussed the application of this law with the Belgian Government, and it has now given its ruling that aid should be limited to a smaller number of areas where aid to expansion can be justified.
  The point that I wish to make in answer to my right hon. Friend is that this matter had been discussed between the Commission and the Belgian Government for a long time. So far as we are concerned, it must be to our advantage not to have a system of regional assistanch which covers the whole of a country.
  Mr. Douglas Jay: Does not the Minister agree that that case establishes the point that the Commission can give a ruling in these matters which national Governments, if they accept the Treaty of Rome, are then compelled to follow?
  Mr. Nott: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Community can survive only by a process of consultation, and
  470
  the suggestion that the Commission is in a position to order one of the member States to pursue a policy which is wholly contrary to the wishes of that State does not bear any practical relationship to what happens.
  Mr. John Mendelson Mr. John Mendelson rose—
  Mr. Nott: I shall not give way.
  Mr. Mendelson Mr. Mendelson rose—
  The Chairman: Order.
  Mr. John Mendelson: On a point of order, Sir Robert. The Minister in the earlier part of his speech referred to me on three occasions and attacked what I had said. Is it not the custom in Committee that having been done, for the Minister to give way to the hon. Member concerned?
  The Chairman: Customs are customs; order is order. What has happened is not out of order.
  Mr. Nott: I wish to continue with my speech because there are still many hon. Members who wish to take part in the debate.
  I propose to devote some remarks now to the main Amendment, No. 296, which concerns capital movements.
  Mr. John Mendelson Mr. John Mendelson rose—
  The Chairman: Order. Talking about customs, it is the custom of the House and, indeed, the rule, that if an hon. Member who has the Floor does not give way, an hon. Member who wishes to intervene must not persist in trying to make that hon. Member give way. The Minister has not given way, and however much the hon. Member wishes to intervene he may not do so until the Minister gives way. No one knows that better than does the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Shore: On a point of order. Sir Robert. This is a serious matter. I do not address this remark wholly at the Minister who is clearly doing his best, but we are in great difficulty. We are living under a guillotine discussion. We do not get replies to serious matters. We tried again and again to find out whether there is a power in the Commission to deal with or prevent national Government doing things in regional policy. Minister after Minister has avoided this.

  471
  Time is running out. Surely, when we have got to the heart of the matter and a particular case has been put to the Minister, we should be allowed to return to this and let the Minister give the best reply he can.
  Mr. John Mendelson: Further to that point of order—
  The Chairman: Order. I had not taken that to be a point of order. I took it that the Minister was giving way to the right hon. Gentleman and I think that now the Minister should be allowed to proceed and perhaps to answer the right hon. Gentleman's question if he wishes to do so.
  Mr. Mendelson: Further to that point of order, Sir Robert. At one point when the Minister looked in my direction I deliberately pointed to the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) because I thought that he wanted to give way to one hon. Member on each side. I raised the question of the Italian Government and the prohibition upon giving aid to large companies such as in the steel industry. I think that out of courtesy the Minister ought to allow me to put the same point to him now—
  The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a point of order.
  Mr. Nott: If I may I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen). I have given way several times to hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  Mr. John Biffen: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend. Perhaps he will accept that this is an intervention intended to be not entirely unhelpful. Would it be a fair summary of what he has said to suggest that the Government view regional policy as primarily a matter of national concern within the Community in the sense that the financing of it rests with national Governments other than as it may be vetoed by the Commission on account of certain finances being too generous?
  Mr. Nott: I must refer to what I said a moment ago. I said that it is recognised that, basically, regional policy is at present the responsibility of member
  472
  States. I cannot commit myself to what may happen over the years. My hon. Friend would not wish me to say how regional policy will develop in the Community over the coming years and it is not possible for me to do so. At present regional policy is primarily the responsibility of the member States and there is nothing in our existing regional policies which conflicts with what the Commission requires or desires.
  Mr. John Mendelson Mr. John Mendelson rose—
  Mr. Nott: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. I have given way to him several times. He has made a speech.
  Mr. Mendelson: On a point of order, Sir Robert. The hon. Gentleman has said that he has given way to me on several occasions. He has given way to me once.
  The Chairman: Well, he is not giving way to the hon. Gentleman now.
  Mr. Nott: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, and then we can get on.
  Mr. Mendelson: That is right. The Minister will recall that my example was not the Belgian example but was of the prohibition upon the Italian Government which meant that they must give economic aid only to small-scale firms. We are planning the expansion of the British steel industry. Will the Government accept the same prohibition for the United Kingdom?
  Mr. Nott: If the hon. Gentleman would like to give me the full details of this case I shall be delighted to give him an answer. I cannot give an exact answer now, in the middle of the debate, to a specific question that he raised a few minutes ago. If he will give me the details, I will give him a full written answer.
  I turn to Amendment No. 296—
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Sir Robert. We are operating under a guillotine and our debate is limited. Surely it is incumbent upon the Minister to come here prepared to answer all questions relevant to the debate? It is not his job to get up and waste the time of the Committee saying that he cannot answer the debate because he

  473
  has not had the details. My hon. Friend has given him the details and it is up to the Minister to see that he gets the answers.
  The Chairman: That is not a point of order. We want to get as much into the debate as possible and I hope that the Committee will allow the Minister to get on.
  Mr. Nott: I want to deal now with the wider question of the liberalisation of capital movement which was at the heart of the speech by the right hon. Member for Stepney. The EEC directives are not directly applicable in member States and while they would normally be implemented by whatever consequential legislation might be needed, here the question does not arise since all the relevant restrictions can be imposed or removed by powers which we already have under the Exchange Control Act, 1947. I mention that because I shall be advising my hon. and right hon. Friends to vote against the Amendment if it is pressed to a Division.
  I come to the substantive issues raised by the right hon. Gentleman. The whole question of capital movement has already been discussed exhaustively in the House. The right hon. Gentleman and the Committee know that freedom of capital flow is essential to the success of any common market. This principle has never been disputed as far as I am aware by the previous Administration of which the right hon. Member was a member. They were keen to have freedom of capital flow, subject to reasonable and adequate transitional arrangements.
  As the right hon. Member for Cheetham says, as a general principle the free movement of capital is highly desirable. We accept that in certain circumstances it can throw up particular difficulties. This is something we must bear in mind. I am sure that hon. Members recognise that in making the necessary adjustments to our exchange control arrangements we shall have important safeguards. These were refererd to by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten). We shall have the impact of any capital movement spread over the transitional period and we shalal have the provisions of the Treaty of Rome which allow member
  474
  countries to take special measures if they are faced with serious balance of payment difficulties.
  I should like to look at the positive side of the movement of labour and capital. Frankly, the right hon. Gentleman took a very negative and pessimistic attitude towards the whole subject. The freedom of capital movement can offer to our industry, and I believe it will, great opportunities for employment and incomes throughout the country.
  Mr. Deakins: How?
  Mr. Nott: I will show how. First of all our investment on the Continent is considerably greater than the investment of the Six in the United Kingdom. This was what the right hon. Gentleman was referring to in an earlier intervention. Moreover, the impending absence, as we move further, of tariff barriers will enable British factories to expand their facilities at home, thereby encouraging employment here which would otherwise, to overcome tariff barriers, necessarily have to be built abroad. I know of many examples—and I have been a member of the Government for only a few weeks—of this happening, the deferment of plans to build a plant on the Continent and the expansion of facilities within the United Kingdom because companies now know that they will not have to overcome a tariff barrier.
  The more likely eventuality, rather than an outflow of direct investment to the Community, is surely a strong upsurge of EEC investment here which would provide considerable benefit to our balance of payments, our employment and our incomes. In this respect we should not forget American investment, which should be attracted here by our common language, comparable capital markets and legal system. It has tended over the years to drift towards the Community, to the larger market of the Six. There is every reason to expect that when we enter the Community there will be a reversal of this trend. I need not remind hon. Gentlemen of the valuable contribution provided by foreign-owned companies in bringing new employment to assisted areas and providing up to one quarter of our current exports.

  475
  7.30 p.m.
  [Sir ALFRED BROUGHTON in the Chair]
  The right hon. Gentleman referred briefly to the plans for economic and monetary union. He has often previously referred to this matter in the Committee. I do not want to touch upon it now more than to say that he implied that in some way common currency and unified decision making were somehow just around the corner. But, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, economic and monetary union is an objective which the Government share with the previous Administration, of which he was a member, but it is not, on any reckoning, a near prospect. As has so often been repeated, we shall be full members of the Community and we shall be participating in all discussions and decisions on this issue.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury referred to the narrowing of exchange margins. I hope that in considering this matter my hon. Friend will bear in mind that before December of last year the maximum permissible margin under IMF rules was 1 per cent. each side of parity. compared with the 2¼per cent. each side of the central rate now. We still have a wider band than was the case before December last year.
  Mr. Marten: My point was that with the non-EEC countries vis-á-vis ourselves there is double that band, at 4½ per cent.
  Mr. Nott: Yes, that is quite correct. I must briefly refer to the right hon. Gentleman's comments about taxation. I refer first to corporation tax. At present only France and Germany have the system of corporation tax which we are introducing. The Community has a long way to go in the harmonisation of taxation in this field, but if it moves further in harmonising corporation taxes, surely that is desirable. If we can agree on a common system of corporation taxes in the Community, it will be to the great benefit of trade. Broadly speaking, the EEC Treaty is not concerned with the harmonisation of personal direct taxation and there are no current discussions taking place on this matter. Regarding indirect taxation, this brings us to the subject of value added tax. I can refer only briefly to this. and in doing so I think
  476
  that I can most appropriately set out the position on any future moves towards harmonisation by reference to the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Chief Secretary on Second Reading of the Finance Bill. First, under Article 99 of the Treaty of Rome decisions regarding the harmonisation of indirect tax must be unanimous, and so far no decision of any kind about coverage or about rates has been reached. Secondly, if any change is to take place in indirect tax, in our VAT, it will require further legislation in this House.
  Mr. Shore: Will the hon. Gentleman help us with any information in reply to the specific questions I put about whether there are regulations or draft directives affecting other indirect taxes which have gone to the Council of Ministers in draft form, and whether these can be made available to the Committee?
  Colonel Sir Tefton Beamish: The right hon. Gentleman ought to know.
  Mr. Nott: I cannot answer that question at present, but I will certainly look into it and make sure that the right hon. Gentleman gets a full answer.
  Mr. Powell: Perhaps the question I am asking is also one to which I ought to know the answer. I am sorry that I do not, and I hope that my hon. Friend will bear with me. He has pointed out that directives do not apply under Clause 2(1) but would fall to be implemented under Clause 2(2). In the other Amendments which are being discussed with this Amendment. there are references to regulations and decisions. I take it that the regulations fall to be implemented as self-enacting under Clause 2(1). Would my hon. Friend say what is the position regarding decisions? Do they fall to be implemented under Clause 2(1) or under Clause 2(2)?
  Mr. Nott: No, these are decisions which are directed towards member States. They fall under Clause 2(2). I think that is the answer to my right hon. Friend's inquiry.
  Mr. Powell: But if they are directed to individuals or corporations they fall under Clause 2(1)? Is that so?
  Mr. Nott: If they are directed to individuals, I think I am right in saying

  477
  that they are not directly applicable. But I will certainly check on this for my right hon. Friend and let him know. I am referring now to decisions directed to individuals. My understanding of the position is that these are not directly applicable without further action by member States.
  Mr. Powell: I am greatly obliged to my hon. Friend, and I hope that he is right, because the answer he has given me is opposite to an indication given by my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General. But it appears to me to be more in accordance with the Treaty.
  Mr. Nott: I must give a correction to my right hon. Friend. I understand that the answer I gave is possibly not correct. If that is so, I apologise to him. But I will give him a firm answer to this point as soon as the debate is finished.
  This has been a very wide-ranging debate which I must now draw to a close. Had the time been available, I should certainly have liked to refer more fully to the main Amendment, No. 296, but I have done my best in the short time available to cover as many of the points raised by the right hon. Member for Stepney as possible.
  Mr. Paget: I am afraid that the Minister of State has had rather a rough ride on his first visit to the Dispatch Box. It has been rough because he has had a very difficult proposition to deal with. He has been cross-examined about the regions. I am not quite certain whether or not he eventually admitted that regional policies, whilst they may be the responsibility of the regional governments, could be altered by direction of Brussels, and, indeed have been on two occasions. The hon. Gentleman said, "After all, this is a matter of negotiation at Brussels". That is not what the Belgians or the Italians thought when they were ordered to reverse their policies. This is ordering, not negotiation.
  The hon. Gentleman said further—I do not intend to go too far into this—that more American investment might come here if we were in the Market and they could serve the Market. I cannot quite see why the Americans should find Britain more attractive for serving the Market than its centre in the European industrial areas, particularly as they have
  478
  found their relations with European organised labour a great deal more peaceful than their relations here. My impression is that the Americans are here not because they particularly like trying to apply their methods to British labour but because whilst there is an EFTA market to be served, it can be served only from here, and they are most likely to prefer to serve a Community market, when that comes into being and the EFTA market goes, from areas where labour relations tend to be better.
  Mr. Harold Walker: Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?
  Mr. Paget: I am sorry, but I do not wish to give way, because other hon. Members wish to speak, and we have got the guillotine on us.
  The hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) said that our objections to this, on this side of the Committee, were perhaps based on our attachment to State Socialism. As to that, I should be disposed to plead guilty. I believe that a movement towards Socialism is one of the things that ought to be available to a democracy. To make Socialism a creed available only to revolutionaries would not be to the ultimate benefit of our country.
  A great deal of the argument in the book by the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) was based upon the proposition that our membership of the Community would preserve us from Socialism. I accept that as factually right, but I disagree with the premise that it is desirable. I put my attitude to Socialism somewhat in these terms. I regard Socialism as a movement in the direction of equality—not, of course, to equality, for no perfectly equal society would be tolerable anyway—but a movement in the direction of equality rather than away from it. I regard it also as a movement which pays greater regard to social and environmental considerations in the distribution of capital rather than to mere market considerations, although both have to come into it. I consider this question, therefore, from the standpoint of whether Socialism in that broad sense is available to us under these terms.
  First, as to equality. The capitalist free trading system which we have has

  479
  an enormous tendency towards accumulation. Mere possession leads to more possession. Never during the course of capitalist history, I suppose, have the rich become rich more quickly than they have in the period since the war, merely by the process of possession. Within this range, in spite of our death duties, our taxation and our social legislation, we have scarcely moved the pattern of possession at all. We still have virtually what we had in the earliest days of this century, with something under 5 per cent. of the population owning well over 50 per cent. of the nation. In Europe since the war, the pattern has not stood still. The proportion of possessors has become smaller, and the largeness of their share has increased.
  The Government themselves have said —I shall not go into too much argument with my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) on this—that there must be a movement towards the harmonisation of death duties, and they have already started that movement in the present Budget. It means that the effect of death duties, which were our most substantial method for combating the accumulation tendency of the system, is to be reduced.
  It is fairly generally acknowledged, I think, that free trade is an admirable method for making the rich richer and the poor poorer, and that this tendency —Karl Marx's principle of increasing misery whereby, as he put it, the workers would always he driven down to subsistence—has been resisted by social movement and political action impeding and reversing what would have been the natural economic rule.
  7.45 p.m.
  As regards income, certain spendable income, there has been a movement towards greater equalisation. But that has been as a result of direct taxation, what my right hon. Friend the Member for Cheetham called progressive taxation. I do not believe that we can continue in that direction within the Market. The whole direction in Europe is towards indirect taxes which are not progressive and away from direct taxation.
  That is the principle which the countries of the Six have adopted, and I do not for a moment believe that we
  480
  should be able to resist it, for what the Common Market does is to put the use of capital, which is production, in direct competition everywhere else. Capital will go where its use is most attractive to its possessor, in other words, where he will get the most money from his investment, namely, other things being equal, largely where he will pay the least taxation. Therefore, whether one wished to or not —and that is another matter—we could not increase our direct taxation or our company taxation without putting our production at a disadvantage vis-à-vis our competitors. Therefore, equalising taxation or redistributive taxation will just not be available to us.
  I turn now from the equalising aspect of Socialism to the other aspect which is based on the belief that there should be a social and, perhaps, an environmental preference in the use or direction of capital rather than a mere market search for its maximum utility. Neither of those preferences, it seems to me, would be available to us.
  We have had it said that unemployment may be attractive to capital, that capital may move towards areas of unemployment such as Scotland. But that goes contrary to all human experience. It has never been so. American industry did not move to Ireland. The emigrants move to America. When we united ourselves with Scotland, industry moved here from Scotland, and the population of Scotland was halved. Even in America one has seen the way the system works, with the impoverishment of the New England and southern States in favour of the centre to which capital has moved.
  This seems to be a tendency within the system which all history demonstrates, and I just do not see how a regional policy, limited as it would seem to be, would combat that natural movement towards the centre, towards the South-East of England, towards the Ruhr and the Rhine.
  We were told that 40 energetic Germans had gone to Manchester to see how they would get on employing Manchester workpeople. Fairly recently, a lot of Germans went to Ireland with the same sort of idea, and they made themselves so unpopular that the Irish Government had to throw them out. I suspect that we might well have the same kind

  481
  of reaction here. This may be a criticism of us rather than of the Germans, but the way in which the Germans, or the Japanese for that matter, organise and enthuse in their attitude to their work-people is a little surprising. Employers who are used to a bidability of that kind which is not available to them here will not be able to do those things.
  The price of land has rocketed since we passed our recent votes. I have seen the price of agricultural land—I own quite a bit of it—increase by over 25 per cent. in the past six months. That is the way it is going up. Why? Because the Germans are coming to buy it. What kind of trouble there will be in the countryside here, as in Ireland, when that begins to happen!
  It is said that they are not a sub-proletariat, the Turks and Yugoslays who come into Europe and are probably preferred, because they have fewer rights, to the unemployed in Europe and here. There are a good many such foreign workers. Groups of such people are being geared into the regions of other countries under the free movement of labour, but they constitute labour that does not acquire any political or social rights in the area to which it moves. Apart from anything else, is that kind of movement good for the security of the nations into which the labour moves? That is perhaps another aspect of the views on immigration of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). I do not think it is a matter of colour. Such movements can be very difficult for our security.
  However triumphant some Conservative Members may feel about having devised a system which excludes Socialism as a free choice, and thus confines it to a revolutionary party, to the Communist Party which has never previously been effective in this country, they should bear in mind that that is a deep risk to our social organisation.
  Mr. Grylls: This group of Amendments strikes at the very roots of the principle of joining the Community. It shows an outright opposition rather than an opposition in detail or a searching for detailed facts. The Community has achievements to its credit in producing and moving towards policies of capital movement, harmonisation of VAT and
  482
  harmonisation of general economic policy, to which it is openly committed, and anyone who wishes to join would like to see those policies develop. I believe that most people in this country, especially in view of the great problems we have to face today, would like to see a freer movement of capital in the Community as something that would be beneficial to all parts of the country. We should value a freer movement of capital from this country to countries overseas and of capital from abroad for investment here.
  Our great industries, our technology, our inventions that are made all the time, will benefit greatly from investment by European countries and investment from the United States using Britain as a jumping-off ground for Europe. We should be confident about our own skilled labour being attractive to foreign investment. It is simple common sense that once we are inside the enlarged Community of 250 million people it is likely that considerably more investment will come here. If he is sincere in wishing to solve the problems of our regions and the present unemployment, surely the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson). like so many of the rest of us, would believe that such investment would be helpful.
  There has been a great deal of discussion about the regions. We must all ask ourselves whether Britain as a country with regional problems, like other European countries, would be better able to solve those worrying problems if we were inside or if we remained outside in isolation. It is common sense that if we restricted ourselves to our home market of 60 million people we should have less chance of solving those problems, which are shared by members of the Community—the South-West of France, the Mezzogiorno in Italy, parts of the border districts of West Germany, and Alsace. The members of the Community are trying to solve those problems in their own way.
  It is true that the Community has not yet developed a sophisticated regional policy, but it would be unfair on the Community as a whole to say that it has done nothing and has stood back from the problem. The European Social Fund has contributed, for instance, to the training of 1,300,000 people in the existing

  483
  Community of the Six, and that is no mean feat. A total of 400,000 people in the Community have been redeployed from the coal and steel industry, particularly the coal mining industry in Northern France, which has been contracting over the past few years. They have been successfully retrained and redeployed into modern industries. The money that the Community has generated through the European Investment Bank—1,500 million dollars in loans to regions in the Community—is also something that it would be wrong and unfair of any hon. Member, whatever his view about the Community, to ignore or sneer at. It surprises me that nobody has mentioned that, for example, if new jobs are brought to farm workers leaving the land the firms concerned receive 1,500 dollars per person in grant.
  All those facts are proof enough that the Community is very conscious of the problems of the regions and wants to improve the lot of all those difficult areas. As I have said, it has not yet got a coherent policy, but my hon. Friend the Minister of State has said that when we are in the Community we can contribute to that and see that it is in the form we believe to be best for our own country. If we remained outside, we could see across the Channel a form of regional policy being established which would be very unattractive to this country and very disadvantageous to our own regions. With our experience of a very sophisticated regional policy, which the Government are improving along the lines of the White Paper that has just been issued, we shall have a great deal to contribute to seeing that the Community, when it has a whole, sophisticated regional policy, will be able to move along the right lines.
  I should like to end by reading a brief extract from a speech made in Bristol last September by the Commissioner mentioned by the hon. Member for Penistone, Mr. Borschette, the Commissioner charged with responsibility for the regions. He said:
  "In my view, it is only a question of time before we come to see Western Europe as a small continent, and that the development of Southern Italy or Norway or Scotland is just as logical and desirable as the development areas which have been more fortunate
  484
  hitherto. I hope that countries are more and more conscious of the inter-dependence of the economies of all of them and that there cannot be pockets of poverty in an integrated Community."
  I believe those words from the Commissioner responsible for Community regional policy are proof that the Community means business about having a real regional policy. I also believe there is a strong desire in the Community that when we join we shall play a very active part in moving that policy in the direction we believe is best for this country.
  8.0 p.m.
  Mr. Jay: We were very anxious to welcome a fresh Minister to these debates if only because we had never been able to get any satisfactory answers from the previous Ministers. But, unhappily, to the first question which we addressed to the Minister of State, namely, whether the Commission had the power to overrule the regional policy of national Governments, he gave no answer; and to the second question, about decisions as opposed to directives, he gave an answer which contradicted the answer we had last week from the Solicitor-General. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's start was not as good as we would have wished.
  The Minister went on to argue about the great benefits to this country of the free movement of capital. If all that he said was true, why have we maintained exchange control over the last 20 years? There has been nothing to prevent us, if we so wished, from permitting the free export of capital to any country in Western Europe or Eastern Europe, but we have refrained from permitting it. So the hon. Gentleman will not convince anyone by his argument.
  It is deplorable that we are compelled to discuss in three hours between 50 and 100 regulations, which are legislative acts of the Common Market. All we can reasonably do, as we have done, is to discuss some of the main themes. I should like, following the example of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), to say something about the social effects in terms of greater equality or inequality, not merely of capital, but of incomes in this country, of pursuing the economic policies we have been discussing.

  485
  One important effect of accepting these policies is bound to be a major redistribution of income in this country back from the poorer to the richer sections of the population due to the higher food prices and the methods of financing which will be forced on us by the continental policies. This would be the most reactionary social step taken in this country for a very long time.
  A recent expert recalculation of this shows how drastic the redistribution is likely to be. Calculations made by the statistician Mr. T. E. Josling, a pro-Marketeer I believe, in his book "Burdens and Benefits of Farm Support Policies", fully set out in the Financial Times of 13th April, give some idea of the effects. This analysis shows that the huge costs of the Common Market farm policy would be largely extracted from the poorer sections of the community in the United Kingdom. The Financial Times states:
  "The total extra cost for families with four children earning between £18 and £23 a week —a railwayman, for instance—would amount to £51 a year".
  That is about the same as the amount which the Chancellor of the Exchequer boasts so loudly he has given in his Budget to every working member of the community. We cannot expect, for instance, railwaymen to be moderate in their wage claims when the Government are gratuitously laying an extra burden on them to that extent. At the same time—and the Prime Minister will no doubt note what the Financial Times says here—
  "bachelors with middle or large incomes would not suffer or would even gain"
  from this redistribution. According to Mr. Josling, the cost of the switch from deficiency payments to the Common Market farm policy would amount, in the case of an old age pensioner couple, to between 50p and £1 a week—and those figures will not be found in the pamphlets which the Government published last summer, at public expense, about the effects of joining the Common Market.
  The Financial Times added:
  "The reason why this cost would in the absence of offsetting action fall so largely on the poor is because it would be felt largely through a rise in the price of food, which bulks particularly large in low income budgets".
  486
  Mr. Josling then makes the calculation that by the time that the EEC policy was in full operation there would be a net transfer of £500 million a year away from households earning less than £1,850 a year—that is, all the lower half of the working population. He says that about half this sum would go to what he calls European—he means Common Market—farmers and about half would be an internal transfer within this country. He says:
  "Most of the internal transfer would be to British farmers with above average incomes; and grain farming in particular would become highly profitable".
  One can understand why both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture are so keen on these policies.
  But hon. Members opposite do not care about redistribution socially within this country, and it is no good saying, in view of the position of the old age pensioners, that the matter will be put right by huge rises in social benefits. Nobody believes that we should get those from the type of Government we have now. But, more fundamentally, since if we joined the EEC on these terms the whole country will be impoverished by the switch to dearer sources of food supply, and since the balance of payments burden will probably force devaluation on us, meaning still higher food prices, the poorer section of the nation could not be compensated for these higher food prices without a drastic cut in the standards of the rest of the people, which it is not realistic to expect. The argument that this can be offset by higher social payments is hypocritical and unrealistic. The economic consequences of dearer food imports and a huge payments burden manifestly makes it harder, not easier, to compensate pensioners and the large families for the effects of food price increases.
  The other item we have discussed is the effect of the Commission's powers and the regional policies which we may be forced to follow. The fact which the Committee must face, and which the Minister failed to face in his perhaps understandably rather hurried remarks on this subject, is the effect of free capital movements out of this country on our own development areas and on the whole of the north and west of these islands. It is not facing the problem to talk about regional policies in the EEC and to

  487
  appoint a regional Minister here when, by accepting the free movement of capital, which is so beloved in the City, the Government are undermining the whole of our development area policy.
  The foundation of that policy has always been the industrial development certificate. Regional grants are useful frills, but they are only frills on top of that basic instrument. There are no industrial development certificates in the EEC, except in some rather small parts of France. At present, and ever since 1945, if the Board of Trade, or the Department of Trade and Industry, refused a firm an IDC in the South-East of England the firm could not, and cannot, threaten to expand in Holland or Belgium, or wherever it may be, because our capital controls would prevent it from exporting the financial capital necessary. This is the fundamental point which hon. Members opposite evade. But under Articles 3 and 67 to 73 and others of the Treaty, these regulations are bound to be swept away except in perhaps rare emergencies.
  If we join on those terms, any firm can say to the Government that unless it gets the industrial development certificate it wants where it wants it in the South-East of England it will put its expansion on the other side of the Channel, and it may very well mean it. We shall, thereby put Scotland, Wales, the North and South-West of England in an even weaker position for attracting new industry than Northern Ireland has been in over the last 25 years, because at least we have had an IDC system which has been of some help to Northern Ireland.
  Simultaneously, what will happen is that we will generate a pressure for both British and American firms to expand in what will be the new Midlands of the Common Market—Belgium, Holland and the whole of the lower Rhineland area—while striking out of the hands of the British Government their one instrument to restrain that pressure. At the same time, by steeply raising grain prices, we will be subsidising agriculture in East and South-East England and damaging the dairy and sheep farming, which uses feedingstuffs on a large scale, in the North-West.
  Indeed, it would be hard to imagine any group of policies more certain to
  488
  strike a blow at the expansion of employment in all the weakest regions of these islands. To imagine that these forces may be controlled by juggling with some small regional grants is simply to ignore all the experience of the last 25 years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) has pointed out, the latest experience within the EEC has been fiat opposition by the French Government to any extension, even of regional grants, at the expense of the agricultural policy, which is so much in the interests of the French Government and the French population. As a result of that, if we are to carry out all these policies and if we are to accept, as we are bound to accept, as one Minister has pointed out today, the free export of capital under the Treaty of Rome, we shall greatly and irretrievably undermine our development area policy.
  Many other economic policies are involved in the regulations, which we ought to be discussing in Parliament, but which we are prevented from discussing by the timetable Motion, but I hope that we shall return to some of them, and one to which we must return is the decision to have fixed exchange rates and fixed parities, which the acceptance of these policies is bound to inflict upon us. I should like to make one comment about that in reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever).
  He said that we need not worry and that we should be able to alter exchange rates and to devalue as we pleased even if we joined the EEC. What he forgot was that the EEC was not merely adopting a present policy of a narrow band of exchange rates, but moving towards monetary union and a common currency. We shall not be able to alter parities and exchange rates with a common currency, because there will not be any parities or exchange rates to alter. Yet the Government have accepted a common currency as an objective, and that to me is one of the most forbidding and alarming prospects even apart from regional policy to arise out of the regulations and economic policies which are being thrust on an unwilling country.
  Mr. Biffen: The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) concluded with some remarks about monetary union

  489
  and I should like to refer to that in a moment. However, as the debate has proceeded, what has been most arresting has been the discussion of regional policy, and I should therefore like to make one or two comments about that. Whatever our views about Community membership, one of the advantages of the Committee stage of the Bill—and this is why I personally regret that it should have been curtailed—is that as the debate has seriously continued, a number of considerations have emerged which initially were not held to be particularly important or relevant at this time or for the immediately foreseeable future.
  The arguments about Community regional policy underline the dilemma confronting the Committee. On the one hand, there is a strong disposition to argue that regional policy should be maintained as much as possible within the ambit of national government. I would say that that fairly represents the attitude of the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) and, I suspect, the attitude of many of my hon. Friends who voted for Community membership on 28th October. On the other hand, the consequence of that view is that the financing of regional policies will be left largely to national governments and they will merely submit to a rough and ready discipline, which will be exercised by the Commission just to see that there are not "over-generous" aids to regional policy by any member State.
  8.15 p.m.
  The argument of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) about the virtues of a harmonised corporation tax policy was that it would stop a bidding up of tax concessions to corporations to attract outside investment. The same logic would apply—that the Commission would be asked to stop individual countries from bidding up their regional policies to the disadvantage of other sister Community countries. My hunch is that that is what will happen, because I do not believe that the Community regional policy will proceed on the belief that sister European countries will make substantial budgetary contributions to us under the guise of a regional policy.
  Both in respect of regional policies and the development of advanced technology we might hope to persuade our sister
  490
  European countries that their taxpayers should make some compensating payment to enable us to be re-compensed for the levy system that operates to the disadvantage of British taxpayers and consumers and the advantage of Continental agriculture. But I doubt whether, with the veto arrangements, the French and Germans will feel so disposed. I think that we shall therefore be driven back to regional policies being largely the responsibility of national governments with the Commission in a watchdog rôle to see that there is no excessive over-bidding between various forms of national regional subvention.
  But that is not the main issue that I want to discuss in the few remarks I wish to make. I should like to concentrate on Amendment No. 296, which is concerned with the movement of capital between member States within the Community. Clearly, the free movement of capital is just one aspect of the wider issue of economic union the consequences of which are infinitely greater than anything that has happened hitherto in the evolution of the Community and considerably greater than anything considered by the business and financial communities in this country when they were addressing themselves to the great debate that supposedly took place before October.
  Today, in the Committee stage of the Bill in the House of Commons, we have to start looking over the brow of this hill, and it has been made topical by one Government decision even in the last few weeks. I do not think that one can think of an economic union merely in the terms of the free movement of capital. Quite properly, hon. Members have reflected upon the problems of fiscal harmonisation and the interlocking of exchange rates. I should like to discuss fiscal harmonisation.
  Hon. Membeds will see my broad-mindedness in approaching this subject when I say that I absolutely agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby). I do not know whether the OFFICIAL REPORT will record it, but I distinctly heard my hon. Friend point out—if he were in his place I am sure he would confirm this—the wide variation in the fiscal experience and practice of Continental European countries. I am speaking not of individual personal taxation but of excise

  491
  duties and indirect taxes of various sorts which bear on the corporate sector.
  It is clear that, having pointed out this wide variation, my hon. Friend thought that any realistic assessment suggested that these variations would persist.
  On Sunday we shall have the Italian general election in which there may be a shift to both extremes from the centre. I expect that, and I do not think I shall be called a wild and reckless forecaster if I say that the MSI will considerably strengthen its position while the rôle of the Communists is unlikely to be weakened. Thus, the Parliamentary situation in Italy will not improve from the point of view of stable government.
  Therefore, the early expectation of an Italian VAT is receding with time. This merely underlines the scepticism of my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West. The prospect we have is of a Europe in which there is little likelihood of a move towards fiscal harmonisation.
  The same cannot be said for the harmonisation of monetary policy, for the narrowing of exchange bands and for the eventual locking together of exchange rates. Indeed, this has been the case even these last 10 days. We have a situation in which we are developing community economic policy, in which monetary union will proceed, in which there will be the free movement of capital but in which there will be no corresponding harmonisation of domestic tax conditions.
  This halfway house arrangement is about the worst that one could conceive for an economic and monetary policy for the Community. To have committed ourselves in a supranational direction as far as monetary union is concerned, way in advance of anything that is likely to derive from the harmonisation of European fiscal arrangements, is to travel just about the most undesirable course.
  This is not the view of a perverse and last-ditch anti-Marketeer because even the Economist has upbraided the Government for narrowing exchange rates in relation to our sister European countries. No organ of the Press has been more spaniel-like in the cause of British membership.
  If we have the benefit of the dissent and scepticism of the Economist, the least we can do as a constructive gesture
  492
  is to pass Amendment No. 296 so that the Government may have a chance to reconsider the exact form in which they wish to move forward on the economic front with a view to harmonising and effecting full economic and monetary union, because the decision that will be taken as a result of policies in this sphere will far transcend any decision taken hitherto in the EEC.
  Mr. Molloy: I apologise to the Committee and the Minister for leaving the Chamber just before the right hon. Gentleman completed his remarks. I had to leave because I was being lobbied by a number of my constituents who are gravely apprehensive about the consequences of our joining the EEC. Like me, they are particularly concerned over the possibility that by adopting the 100-odd lines of this Clause, we shall be selling the sovereignty of this nation and placing our whole future in grave jeopardy.
  The hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) does not seem to understand the argument which is being adduced by hon. Members on both sides when apprehension is expressed about our joining the Community. As we have examined the Bill and relevant matters, we have been confirmed in our view that we should not join.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to think, as he chastised my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore), that my hon. Friends are concerned only because membership might strike a blow, as the hon. and learned Gentleman put it, against democratic socialism. If that were the case, I am sure that he would be sun ported in that view by, for example, his right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) and his hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen).
  That the hon. and learned Gentleman is wrong is clear from the fact that both his colleagues and many others support the case advanced against our membership by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney, simply because we want the right to argue our case to the British people and to allow them to decide the future of the nation.
  Much has been said about the regional policies and programmes of the Community. My hon. Friend the Member for

  493
  Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) made some interesting remarks from his deep experience of the coal and steel industries. I was born in an area that thrived on these industries, which declined only after a Tory Government failed to appreciate their importance and ran them down.
  The only contribution, an accidental one, that the Continent made to unemployment in South Wales was when it threw up that ugly phenomenon, Hitler. Suddenly all the craftsmen and workers of this area and of Britain generally who had not been wanted for a decade or more were badly needed.
  While I appreciate the importance of the coal and steel arguments adduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone, I assure the House that the same factors apply to my constituents in North Ealing. The area I represent contains a great many light engineering industries and these depend on the basic industries to which my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone referred. One can see that this is not merely a regional problem but rather a national problem.
  I support the poignant remarks which were made by the hon. Member for Banbury about New Zealand. This, too, has given me very much concern. I despise those who charge me with being emotional about the rôle which the New Zealanders and people from the other great Commonwealth countries filled when this country of ours required assistance in the very desperate times of the last war. That has to be said. The fact of the matter is that if it had not been for the activities of the British peoples of the Commonwealth, like the New Zealanders, we would not now be having an argument about the EEC because there would not be an EEC to argue about, and possibly there would not even he a House of Commons in which to argue about it. Let us have that clearly on the record.
  8.30 p.m.
  I come to the point which I made earlier in an intervention in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney. I know full well that the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will appreciate this. A fortnight ago in that committee of the Council of Europe concerned with health and social security
  494
  questions we were discussing a grave problem which afflicts the French, the Germans, the Italians and the Dutch. There is no need for anyone to show himself a genius by pointing out that their countries are all in the Common Market. They have immense bureaucratic difficulties. They are difficulties which confront non-indigenous workers in a country—workers who go to one country from another, when, for example, an Italian miner is working in the Ruhr, or a Dutch farm worker is working in Belgium. They suffer agonies when they suddenly discover that what the British people have been led to believe is the case is not the case at all, when they discover that the wonderful social benefits they thought they would get irrespective of which country they worked in and which country they went from. It simply is not true that those wonderful social benefits exist.
  They are there in theory, but by the time the bureaucratic machine grinds out what the worker and his family are entitled to have, they are lucky still to be alive. In that committee we discovered that there was not unanimity in practice. If, for example, one were an Italian artisan working in the Ruhr one would not get the same social services as one would if one were a German. There is a world of difference. There is even a world of difference brought about because of the part of Italy from which a worker goes. It is possible for an Italian worker working in one part of Germany, because he went from a certain part of Italy, and is working in a certain part of Germany, to have a different standard, a different form of application, and ultimately a different level of social security. This is because of the federal system in Germany.
  So it is quite wrong for people to advance the argument that Britain by joining the EEC would enter a wonderful world of social security where everything is easy and nationality is ignored, and so on.
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I should like the Committee to be clear about this point. There may well be—I am sure there is—some validity in all the points the hon. Member is making, but I should like to know in which direction, to what kind of

  495
  society and what kind of Europe he would have us move. Does he take the view that anything which contributes to greater mobility of the people of Europe within Europe is to be deplored as dangerous and unattractive, or will he join with us in trying to remove the obstacles of which he has been speaking and to move towards a more effective economic community?
  Mr. Molloy: I can give the answer to that quite easily. It is sheer hypocrisy for any Tory to come to that Box and talk of social security when the most wonderful piece of legislation placed on our Statute Book or the statute book of any country in the world, namely, that setting up the National Health Service, was opposed by the Tory Party. No Tory can talk to us on this side of the Committee about those sorts of things. I can tell the hon. and learned Gentleman what I want us to move towards.
  Mr. Thomas Swain: I agree with my hon. Friend's argument. He is following it very logically. In West Germany, of which I know something, there has been created, since the establishment of the Common Market, a ghetto system of foreign workers. Foreign workers are banded together in ghettos strictly in accordance with what part of a country they have come or the class of society from which they originated in that other country.
  Mr. Molloy: That is the point I was trying to make. Let me take it a little further to answer the hon. and learned Gentleman, and let me tell him this, that when the Labour Government between 1945 and 1950 established the National Health Service, we set an example to Europe, and for my part I wanted us all on the road to sanity. We wanted reciprocity between this country and those countries. We have seen some extension of reciprocity. The EEC certainly has based some of its ideals on that principle of reciprocity, but the ideal was born in this House of Commons, not in any Common Market. I applaud that ideal, and also the ideal of full opportunity for employment.
  However, the fact is that the standard of reciprocity in the Scandinavian countries which are not in the Common
  496
  Market is higher than that in the Common Market countries. These are facts which the British people ought to know. I appreciate that the Minister will not be able to give an immediate answer to my questions but it is right that this House and the people of this country should know the situation about some of the points I have been making in fairly challenging the social services in the Common Market countries.
  Under the Health and Social Questions Committee of the Council of Europe there is a sub-committee, of which I am the chairman, which is examining the code of social security standards. The Committee is looking at each of the European nations which will sign the social security code to see how much they have implemented it, and how much they are shy about implementing it. When we made this examination only a fortnight ago, the Scandinavian countries and the United Kingdom had the least amount of criticism. It is only when we came within the Common Market countries that we found that the code of social security had not been implemented to the full.
  These are matters which we should thoroughly examine so that the people can make up their minds. It is a great shame that we could not develop all these matters so that the people who have followed the arguments could make up their minds about who has the better argument on this issue and who has submitted the better case.
  We are still prepared to do that but the Government have funked the challenge by introducing the guillotine Motion. Hon. Gentlemen who support Britain's entry into the Common Market know in their hearts that, as on previous occasions, there has been no filibustering and no tedious repetition in debating the Clause and Amendments.
  Some of the facts of life that will become apparent when we join the Common Market will surprise even the Government. The British people will start to understand what a grave and damaging issue this can be for our country. But in spite of that, we have the guillotine Motion.
  I hope that the Government, even at this stage, will introduce another Measure, avoiding this wicked Motion which cuts down discussion on one of

  497
  the most serious issues this country has ever faced.
  Mr. Tom Normanton: Having sat in this Chamber and listened to the debate this afternoon for virtually five hours with but few interruptions, I confess to a deep sense of forboding and anxiety. It seems from a remark which was made by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) that he feared that a certain amount of unreality was creeping into this debate. If ever words needed underlining, those are the words. There is unreality and a total inability—I nearly said unwillingness—to understand what the entry of Britain into Europe means. It is not whether we are to accept the Treaty of Rome as a Bible and immediately to look up a book of rules and to make our judgment according to what the book says. It is surely a commitment to look in a certain direction and to influence our thinking in all aspects of our public life in a general direction, which I would question whether even the most bitter critics of our entry could condemn.
  We are debating one Amendment and referring to the freedom of movement— [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] We are debating whether the freedom of movement of capital should be included in or excluded from the Bill. But every Amendment which has so far been proposed, were it to be accepted, would in effect be a means not of making the Bill better, but of killing it. This is completely in contrast with the realities of the way in which the European Economic Community works.
  I will quote only one example, as I realise that time is advancing and views are sought from the Front Bench in summing up the debate, about which I can speak with first-hand knowledge and experience.
  The hon. Member for Penistone referred to the Spinelli document. He said that Signor Spinelli, one of the Commissioners, was in fact drafting and preparing policy decisions on certain areas of industry, one of which was textiles. The hon. Gentleman added that this would be the dictated policy to the whole of Europe. Nothing could be further from the truth. This again highlights the complete inability of right hon. and hon. Members to understand what and how things work in Brussels.
  Mr. John Mendelson: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman, if he looks at HANSARD tomorrow, will find that I said that this would then be dictated to the whole of Europe. I do not want to be aggressive towards him. However, he will find that I went on quoting from The Guardian. That particular comment is part of his own imagination.
  Mr. Normanton: The word "dictated" may not have been used, but there was no doubt in the minds of most hon. Members who heard the hon. Gentleman that the consequence of the formulation of the policy was that it would be directed towards and imposed on the whole of the industries of the Common Market, including textiles, to be accepted and implemented. That is certainly not so.
  The Commission works by having discussions with and taking soundings and seeking comments from all sectors of industry, commerce and finance. It does not make its decisions from ivory towers or political dogma. It makes them only after the most extensive, exhaustive and comprehensive soundings have been taken. It is also extremely important to recognise, when Britain is, so to speak, poised for entry into the Common Market, the extent to which Signor Spinelli and his officials are already taking most discreet, extremely cautious soundings from applicant countries. The Commission recognises that it cannot impose its decisions upon Germany, France, Italy or Britain; it can get its policies accepted only if, at the end of the day, the most exhaustive of inquiries and investigations have brought a consensus view applicable to the decision which it is considering. This applies as much to textiles as to many other sectors.
  We are already being consulted as individuals, not as Governments, on the kind of structure that different industries should have. The Commission has to be cautious, for the very good reason that it cannot logically presume, until the Bill is enacted, that we shall automatically become a member of the Common Market.
  There has been a concentrated effort this afternoon to deal with the financial aspects contained in the Amendment within the context of regional development and regional policies.

  499
  [Mr. E. L. MALLALIEU in the chair]
  8.45 p.m.
  Listening, as I am sure the House listened with considerable interest, to what the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) said on the subject, some of us might almost be forgiven were we to think that the regional policies of the last 10 or 20 years, when we were certainly not in the Common Market, produced the most magnificent, wonderful, halycon conditions in the development areas of Britain. It just is not true.
  It is also justifiable to read into eulogies of the systems and taxation techniques introduced by the previous Government and by the Conservative Government before them that those were the only techniques which will be successful for the future. They are not. The keynote for succesfully solving economic and monetary problems which are not peculiar to us were highlighted by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever), who said with profound wisdom and judgment that no problem can be solved in isolation, or other than in the context of the general level of economic prosperity. This view the House must accept, because the experience of the past has shown our growing inability to solve these problems in isolation from major policy decision taking inside Europe.
  I have only one brief comment to make on regional employment. If one were to listen to, and perhaps later read, the comments made about the system which is operating inside Europe, one might be forgiven for feeling depressed on leaving the Chamber, but the realities of what is happening in the context of regional policies are not in tune with what is being described by far too many hon. and right hon. Members.
  I go back to where I started by saying that we have been indulging, and continue to indulge, in a total inability to recognise the facts, the realities, which exist in Europe. Once we recognise them, I challenge anyone to deny that the Bill represents the way, and I think the only way, in which we can get the British economy as a whole on to the right lines.
  Mr. Shore: It would be no pleasure of mine in normal circumstances even to suggest that this very important debate on the regions and on capital movement
  500
  should be brought to an end, but clearly we are up against a very rigid time limit and there are many other matters to which sooner or later we must give some attention. It is also clear to me, at any rate, that we shall have no additions to the very inadequate replies we have so far had from the Treasury Bench. I suggest that we should now put the matter to the vote.
  Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
  The Second Deputy Chairman: Mr. Harold Walker.
  Mr. Harold Walker: I protest, Mr. Mallalieu. We have spent hundreds of hours on this extremely important issue of Britain's entry into Europe, and in that whole period I have not once been given an opportunity to speak. I protest if I am now to be gagged when I want to speak on behalf of constituents who will be immediately affected by the Government's decision on entry.
  Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
  The Second Deputy Chairman: Mr. Denzil Davies.
  Mr. Denzil Davies: Some of us have sat right through the debate, but not one hon. Member for Wales or Scotland has been called on the important subject of regional development.
  Several Hon.Several Hon. Members rose—
  The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I called on Mr. Harold Walker to make his speech, but he has not done so.
  Mr. Harold Walker: I beg your pardon, Mr. Mallalieu, I thought you were calling me to give me an opportunity to register my protest at not being called. I assure you, and my anxious Friends on the Front Bench, that I shall be very brief. I wish to make a brief contribution because my constituents are feeling the chill of the cold wind that will blow through the regions with even more severity than in recent years.
  The hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Normanton) said that sucecssive Governments had grappled with the problems of the regions for many years with varying degrees of unsuccess. He said that regional problems are by no means unique to this country, and with that I am in agreement. Our regional imbalance follows

  501
  the pattern of regional imbalance in European countries in that in the areas furthest away from the centre the conditions are worst—the higher the level of unemployment, and the lower the level of earnings. Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the development areas are the far flung areas. Nearer to the centre are the grey areas and in the centre prosperity is concentrated.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) spoke of the gravitational flow of investment into the centre, and said that the centre of gravity of EFTA is not the centre of gravity within the enlarged Community. He is absolutely right. We must recognise, as does the Commission, that the pattern of regional development in the Community reflects our own pattern. Prosperity is concentrated in the rich heartland while the areas on the periphery suffer from severe problems. We shall be on the geographic periphery of the enlarged Community.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) reflected the concern of his constituents, and I want to do the same. I hope that the Committee has noted the Motion No. 310 tabled by me and my hon. Friends which appeared on the Notice Paper today—I hope that some hon. Members will go further and append their names to it. It is concerned with my constituency and with the constituencies of my hon. Friends in which are located plants of the giant Ford Motor Co. The Motion refers to jobs being transferred from the Ford Motor Co. in this country to Germany and to the German Ford Motor Co. advertising for labour in precisely those categories that have been made redundant in this country.
  The Motion refers to the Ford tool factory at Doncaster being entirely closed down as a consequence of this transfer of work. Doncaster is an area where
  unemployment is currently running at 7 per cent. and male unemployment at 10 per cent. Only 12 months ago the company posted notices to the effect that it had undertaken to purchase 16 acres of land for a massive expansion in my constituency.
  What has happened in the meantime to cause this sudden reversal of policy? The answer is that this House has taken the decision to enter Europe, and the Ford Company is responding to the gravitational pull which was described so well by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton. The company sees now that its centre will not be, as hitherto, in the United Kingdom but in the geographical centre of the enlarged Community where it will have direct acccess to the markets of the Community Apparently, we are powerless to prevent that, despite the categorical assurances given by the company when control was shifting from the ownership vested in this country to the American parent company and, furthermore, the assurances given by the Government at the time.
  I think that I have an obligation to my constituents to draw attention to the immediate consequences, even before we have experienced this gravitational pull of investment towards the centre, which is the reverse of what was described by an hon. Member opposite. I believe that my constituents are beginning to feel the chill wind and that Ford workers throughout factories in Britain are beginning to sense this wind blowing in their direction. I believe that it will spread to other industries and that this is an example of a pattern which will become more widely established before we enter the Community and which will gain pace swiftly after we enter.
  Question put, That the Amendment be made: —
  The Committee divided: Ayes 265, Noes 269.

  Division No. 163.]

  AYES

  [8.56 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Bradley, Tom

  Allaun, Frank, (Salford, E.)

  Bennett, James (Glasgow,Bridgeton)

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

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Biffen, John

  Buchan, Norman

  Ashley, Jack

  Bishop, E. S.

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

  Ashton, Joe

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Atkinson, Norman

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Body, Richard

  Cant, R. B.

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Booth, Albert

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Baxter. William

  Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Irvine, Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)

  Padley, Walter

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Janner, Greville

  Paget, R. T.

  Cohen, Stanley

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Palmer, Arthur

  Coleman, Donald

  Jeger, Mrs. Lena

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Concannon, J. D.

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Conlan, Bernard

  John, Brynmor

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

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

  Pendry, Tom

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Pentland, Norman

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

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

  Jones,Rt.Hn.SirElwyn(W.Ham,S.)

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Prescott, John

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  Judd, Frank

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Probert, Arthur

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Kelley, Richard

  Rankin, John

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Kerr, Russell

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Kinnock, Neil

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

  Lambie, David

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Deakins, Eric

  Lamond, James

  Richard, Ivor

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Latham, Arthur

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Dempsey, James

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

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

  Doig, Peter

  Leonard, Dick

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Dormand, J. D.

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Roper, John

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Rose, Paul B.

  Driberg Tom

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Rowlands, Edward

  Dunn James A.

  Lipton, Marcus

  Sandelson, Neville

  Dunnett, Jack

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Eadie, Alex

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c1tle-u-Tyne)

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Mabon. Dr. J. Dickson

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)

  Ellis, Tom

  McBride, Neil

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  English, Michael

  McCartney, Hugh

  Sillars, James

  Evans, Fred

  McElhone, Frank

  Silverman, Julius

  Ewing, Harry

  McGuire, Michael

  Skinner, Dennis

  Faulds Andrew

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Small, William

  Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

  Mackie, John

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

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

  Mackintosh John P

  Spearing, Nigel

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  McMillan Tom (Glasgow, C)

  Stallard, A. W.

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Foley, Maurice

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Foot, Michael

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

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Ford, Ben

  Marquand, Davin

  Straues, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Forrester, John

  Marsden, F.

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Marshall, Dr. Edmund

  Swain, Thomas

  Freeson, Reginald

  Marten, Neil

  Taverne, Dick

  Garrett, W. E.

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

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

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Tinn, James

  Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)

  Meacher, Michael

  Tomney, Frank

  Golding, John

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Torney, Tom

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Mendelson, John

  Tuck, Raphael

  Gourlay, Harry

  Mikardo, Ian

  Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Millan, Bruce

  Urwin, T. W.

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Varley, Eric G.

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Milne, Edward

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

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

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Moate, Roger

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Hamling, William

  Molloy, William

  Wallace, George

  Hardy, Peter

  Molyneaux, James

  Watkins, David

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Hattersley, Roy

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Whitlock, William

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Moyle, Roland

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Horam, John

  Murray, Ronald King

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Oakes, Gordon

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Ogden, Eric

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Huckfield, Leslie

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Woof, Robert

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Oram, Bert

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Orbach, Maurice

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Orme, Stanley

  Mr. Joseph Harper and

  Hunter, Adam

  Oswald, Thomas

  Mr. James Wellbeloved.

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  504

  505

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Mawby, Ray

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Goodhart, Philip

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

  Astor, John

  Gorst, John

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Gower, Raymond

  Money, Ernie

  Awdry, Daniel

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Gray, Hamish

  Monro, Hector

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Green, Alan

  More, Jasper

  Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord

  Grieve, Percy

  Morrison, Charles

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Murton, Oscar

  Batstord, Brian

  Grylls, Michael

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Gummer, J. Selwyn

  Neave, Alrey

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Gurden, Harold

  Normanton, Tom

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Nott, John

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Oppenhelm, Mrs. Sally

  Blaker, Peter

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Osborn, John

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Boscawen, Robert

  Harrison Brian (Maldon)

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Bowden, Andrew

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Peel, John

  Bray, Ronald

  Hastings, Stephen

  Percival, Ian

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Havers, Michael

  Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Hay, John

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Pounder, Rafton

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Pounder, Rafton

  Bryan, Paul

  Heseltins, Terence L.

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

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

  Hicks, Robert

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Buck, Antony

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Hiley, Joseph

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Burden, F. A.

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

  Raison, Timothy

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

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Carlisle, Mark

  Holland, Philip

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Redmond, Robert

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hordern, Peter

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Hornby, Richard

  Rees, Peter(Dover)

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Hornsby-Smiih.Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigale)

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Clegg, Walter

  Hunt, John

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Cockeram, Eric

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Cooke, Robert

  Jamas, David

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Coombs, Derek

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Cooper, A. E.

  Jessel, Toby

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Cordle, John

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Jopling, Michael

  Rost, Peter

  Critchley, Julian

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Royle, Anthony

  Crouch, David

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Crowder, F. P.

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Scott, Nicholas

  Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutstord)

  Kimball, Marcus

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Sharpless, Richard

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

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

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

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Kirk, Peter

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Dixon, Piers

  Knox, David

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Lambton, Lord

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

  Drayson G B

  Lane, David

  Soref, Harold

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Speed, Keith

  Dykes, Hugh

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Spence, John

  Eden, Sir John

  Le Merchant, Spencer

  Sproat, Iain

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

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

  Stainton, Keith

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Longden, Sir Gilbert

  Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

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

  Loveridge, John

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburg, W.)

  Emery, Peter

  Luce, R. N.

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Eyre, Reginald

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Stokes, John

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  MacArthur, Ian

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (HampMead)

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Tapsell, Peter

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  McLaren, Martin

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Maclean, Sir Fltzroy

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

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Macmillan.Rt.Hn.Maurice (Farnham)

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Fortescue, Tim

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Foster, Sir John

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

  Tebbit, Norman

  Fowler, Norman

  Madden, Martin

  Temple, John M.

  Fox, Marcus

  Madel, David

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Fry, Peter

  Mather, Carol

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Maude, Angus

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

  Gardner, Edward

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Tilney, John.

  506

  507

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Walters, Dennis

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Trew, Peter

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Warren, Kenneth

  Worsley, Marcus

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Younger, Hn. George

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Waddington, David

  Wilkinson, John

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Mr. Victor Goodhew and

  Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Mr. Paul Hawkins

  Wall. Patrick

  Wood. Rt. Hn. Richard

  Amendment accordingly negatived.
  The Second Deputy Chairman: Mr. Shore, to move Amendment No. 357, in page 2, line 26, after 'Treaties', insert:
  'except such rights, powers, liabilities, obligations and restrictions as may arise under Directive 68/414/EEC and Decisions 68/416/ EEC and 3 /171/ECSC concerning energy Policy'.
  Mr. Shore: The figures we have seen in the last Division not only indicate the true feelings of the Committee on this matter but demonstrate the great value of our being able to continue the serious debates on these matters which are of great importance.
  The difficulty we are in is that the Chair has selected six separate debates for today. So far, at just after nine o'clock, we have been able to deal with
  only two. I now face the prospect of dealing with this important Amendment. It is under great protest and in the face of this savage guillotine that I am forced to say that I cannot move Amendment No. 357. We will seek to table it at a later stage when we hope to give it some consideration.
  Amendment proposed: No. 216, in page 2, line 29, after 'shall', insert:
  'provided that the first draft of each and every instrument introducing after the date of entry any rights, powers, liabilities, obligations, restrictions, remedies or procedures shall have been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament'.—[Mr. Michael Foot.]
  Question put, That the Amendment be made:
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 264, Noes, 270.

  Division No. 164.]

  AYES

  [9.8 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Garrett, W. E.

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Archar, Peter (Rowley Regis)

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

  Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

  Golding, John

  Ashley, Jack

  Dalyell, Tam

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Ashton, Joe

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  Gorlay, Harry

  Atkinson, Norman

  Davidson, Arthur

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Barneet, Joel (Heywood and Royton)

  Davis, Clinton, (Hackney, C.)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Baxter, William

  Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Deakins, Eric

  Hamling. William

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Hardy, Peter

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Biffen, John

  Dempsey, James

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Bishop, E. S.

  Doig, Peter

  Hattersley, Roy

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Dormand, J. D.

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Body, Richard

  Driberg, Tom

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Booth, Albert

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Horam John

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Dunn, James A.

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglass

  Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Howell, Denis (Small Health)

  Bradley, Tom

  Eadie, Alex

  Huckfield, Leslie

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

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Huges, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglessey)

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Buchan, Noman

  Ellis, Tom

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

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

  English, Michael

  Huges, Roy (Newport)

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Evans, Fred

  Hunter, Adam

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Ewing, Henry

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Cant, R. B.

  Faulds, Andrew

  Irvine, Rt. Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hlll)

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Fernhhough, Rt. Hn. E.

  Janner, Greville

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

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

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Jegger, Mrs. Lena

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  John, Brynmor

  Cohen, Stanley

  Foley, Maurice

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

  Coleman, Donald

  Foot, Michael

  Jhonson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Concannon, J. D.

  Ford, Ben

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Forrester, John

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Freeson, Reginald

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

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

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

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Moate, Roger

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Judd, Frank

  Molloy, William

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

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Molyneaux, James

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)

  Kelley, Richard

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Kerr, Russell

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Sillars, James

  Kinnock, Neil

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Silverman, Julius

  Lambie, David

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Lamond, James

  Moyle, Roland

  Small, William

  Latham, Arthur

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Murray, Ronald King

  Spearing, Nigel

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Oakes, Gordon

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Leonard, Dick

  Ogden, Eric

  Stallard, A. W.

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  O'Malley, Brian

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Oram, Bert

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Strang, Gavin

  Lipton, Marcus

  Orme, Stanley

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Oswald, Thomas

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Swain, Thomas

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Padley, Walter

  Taverne, Dick

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dlckson

  Paget, R. T.

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

  McBride, Neil

  Palmer, Arthur

  Tinn, James

  McCartney, Hugh

  Panell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Tomney, Frank

  McElhone, Frank

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Torney, Tom

  McGuire, Michael

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Tuck, Raphael

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Pendry, Tom

  Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

  Mackie, John

  Pentland, Norman

  Urwin, T. W.

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Varley, Eric G.

  Maclennan, Robert

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Wainwright, Edwin

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. flog

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  McNamara, J. Keith

  Prescott, John

  Walker-Smith, tot. Hn. Sir Derek

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Wallace, George

  Mallalieu, J. p. w. (Huddersfield. E.)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Watkins, David

  Marks, Kenneth

  Probert, Arthur

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Marquand, David

  Rankin, John

  White, James (Glasgow. Pollok)

  Marsden, F.

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Marshall, Dr. Edmund

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Whitlock, William

  Marten, Neil

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Richard, Ivor

  Williams, Alan (Swansea. W.)

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Meacher, Michael

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Mellish, Rt.. Hn. Robert

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

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Mendelson, John

  Rodgerts, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Roper, John

  Woof, Robert

  Millan, Bruce

  Rose, Paul B.

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Milne. Edward

  Rowlands, Edward

  Mr. Joseph Harper and

  Sandelson, Neville

  Mr. James Wellbeloved.

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

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

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Carlisle, Mark

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

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Emery, Peter

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Chapman, Sydney

  Eyre, Reginald

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Astor, John

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Finsberg. Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Churchill, W. S.

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Awdry, Daniel

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Clegg, Walter

  Fortescue, Tim

  Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord

  Cockeram, Eric

  Foster, Sir John

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Cooke, Robert

  Fowler, Norman

  Batsford, Brian

  Coombs, Derek

  Fox, Marcus

  Beamish. Col. Sir Tufton

  Cooper, A. E.

  Fry, Peter

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Cordle, John

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Bennett. Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Gardner, Edward

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Costain, A. P.

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Critchley, Julian

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Blaker, Peter

  Crouch, David

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Crowder, F. P.

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Boscawen. Robert

  Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

  Goodhart, Philip

  Bowden, Andrew

  d'Avlgdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Goodhew, Victor

  Bray, Ronald

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

  Gorst, John

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Gower, Raymond

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Digby, Simon Wingfleld

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Dixon, Piers

  Gray, Hamish

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Dodds-Parker. Douglas

  Green, Alan

  Bryan, Paul

  Drayson, G. B.

  Grieve, Percy

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

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Buck, Antony

  Dykes, Hugh

  Gryils, Michael

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Eden, Sir John

  Gummer, J. Selwyn

  Burden. F. A.

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Gurden, Harold

  510

  511

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Macmillan.Rt.Hn.Maurice (Farnham)

  Sharpies, Richard

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

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

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Maddan, Martin

  Simeons, Charles

  Hannam, Jonn (Exeter)

  Madel, David

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Mather, Carol

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Maude, Angus

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

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Soref, Harold

  Hastings, Stephen

  Mawby, Ray

  Speed, Keith

  Havers, Michael

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Spence, John

  Hay, John

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Sproat, Iain

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Stainton, Keith

  Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

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

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Heseltine, Michael

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Steel, David

  Hicks, Robert

  Money, Ernie

  Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

  Higgins, Terence L

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Hiley, Joseph

  Monro, Hector

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

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

  More, Jasper

  Stokes, John

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Morrison, Charles

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Tapsell, Peter

  Hordern, Peter

  Neave, Airey

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Hornby, Richard

  Normanton, Tom

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

  Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.DamePatricia

  Nott, John

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Selly

  Tebbit, Norman

  Howell Ralph (Norfolk N)

  Osborn John

  Temple, John M.

  Hunt, John

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

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

  James, David

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon. S.)

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Tilney, John

  Jessel, Toby

  Peel, John

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Percival, Ian

  Trew, Peter

  Jopling, Michael

  Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Pounder, Rafton

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Waddington, David

  Kimball, Marcus

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Quennell, Miss J M

  Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

  King. Tom (Bridgwater)

  Raison, Timothy

  Wall, Patrick

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Walters, Dennis

  Kirk, Peter

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Redmond, Robert

  Warren, Kenneth

  Knox, David

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Lambton, Lord

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Lane, David

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Langford-Holt Sir John

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Wilkinson, John

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

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

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Longden, Sir Gilbert

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Loveridge, John

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Worsley, Marcus

  Loveridge, John

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Luce, R. N.

  Rost, Peter

  Younger, Hn. George

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Royle, Anthony

  MacArthur, lan

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Scott, Nicholas

  Mr. Paul Hawkins and

  McLaren, Martin

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Mr Oscar Murton

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Mr. Michael Foot: On a point of order, Mr. Mallalieu. It is very rarely that the Prime Minister has dared to show his face during these debates. We issued invitations to the Prime Minister to come here earlier in our discussions, in particular on the guillotine Motion, but he ran away from that debate, and I presume that it is only by accident that he has dared to come here now. It would have been very strange—[Interruption.] We know that the Prime Minister becomes especially testy and incoherent when anybody—
  The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. Would the hon. Gentleman say that he is about to come to a point of order?
  Mr. Foot: I am on a point of order, Mr. Mallalieu. I will not be shouted down by a full-hearted Prime Minister who cannot even come here and defend his own position. If the Prime Minister wishes to intervene in my remarks, I am sure he will agree that he should have the courage to stand on his own feet. What I am asking is this: as the majorities in the last two Divisions of six and four—[An HON. MEMBER: "Perfectly adequate."]

  513
  —proved to the country that here is no true-hearted support for the Bill, would it not be in order to ask this singularly ill-tempered Prime Minister, who dare not state his case properly, to pluck up his courage, stand on his own two feet and say what the intentions of his Government are, as the Bill, even under a Guillotine, has no majority in the Committee?
  The Second Deputy Chairman: That is not a point of order.
  Mr. Harold Gurden Mr. Harold Gurden (Birmingham, Selly Oak) rose—
  Mr. Foot Mr. Foot rose—
  The Second Deputy Chairman: Is the hon. Gentleman raising another point of order?
  Mr. Foot: I am sure that the Prime Minister will recall—[Interruption.] My point of order is that, as I am sure the Prime Minister will recall, when there were very narrow Divisions on the Resale Prices Bill some years ago the right hon. Gentleman always had the courage to defend his Measure and to declare the Government's intentions. I submit that it is a normal point of order in the House of Commons that when a Government have been subjected to such a humiliating defeat as that to which this Government have been subjected, previous Prime Ministers have had the courageߞ
  The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. That is not a point of order.
  Mr. Eric S. Heller: On a point of order. I apologise for delaying the Committee, and I am sorry that the Prime Minister has left. On an earlier occasion Mr. Speaker had cause to inform me that it was not the practice for hon. Members to make injections from a seated position. Throughout the time that my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) was raising his point of order the Prime Minister sat in his seat bawling and shouting like someone on a street corner. Is there one rule for Prime Ministers, especially Tory Prime Ministers, and another rule for back bench Members on this side of the Committee? May we be assured that in future our proceedings will be conducted in an orderly fashion,
  514
  whether or not the Prime Minister or anybody else makes statements from a seated position?
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order. Is it in order for the Prime Minister to make "injections" at any time?
  The Second Deputy Chairman: The Chair has not heard a good deal of what has happened in the last few minutes. It is certainly to be deprecated when hon. Members make interjections in the debate from a seated position.
  Mr. Swain: Further to the point of order. Is it in order for the Prime Minister to make "injections" from the back or from the front?
  Mr. Gurden: On a point of order. Although it is for you, Mr. Mallalieu, to decide points of order, will you make it clear that it is obvious to many of us that hon. Members opposite are raising points of order which they know to be bogus and completely false? Would you, Sir, be kind enough to rule more clearly on what is or is not a point of order?
  The Second Deputy Chairman: It would be better if we got on with the business.
  Mr. Ronald King Murray: I beg to move Amendment No. 159, in page 2, line 30, leave out 'accordingly' and insert:
  'in each part of the United Kingdom in accordance with the law and practice of that part of the United Kingdom'.
  The Second Deputy Chairman: It will be convenient also to discuss the following Amendments:
  No. 4, page 2, line 26, after first 'and', insert:
  'subject to subsection (I A) following'.
  No. 252, page 2, line 26, after 'procedures', insert:
  'except such remedies or procedures as shall have any effect on the rights of a citizen of the United Kingdom to apply for a writ of habeas corpus or in Scotland for a petition for liberation'.
  No. 215, page 2, line 27, after 'Treaties', insert:
  'except for any provision creating any criminal offence'.
  No. 165, page 2, line 30, after 'accordingly', insert:
  'except that no alteration can he made to the provisions of Article XVIII of the Treaty of Union;'.
  No. 6, page 2, line 33, at end insert:
  (IA) Provided that no remedies or precedures mentioned in subsection (1) of this section shall preclude any person from enforcing under this Act in the courts of the United Kingdom and colonies all rights and remedies that he would have had but for any other provision of this Act.
  9.30 p.m.
  Mr. Murray: Amendment No. 159, the leading Amendment, seeks to ensure that enforceable rights brought within the portmanteau of Clause 2(1) shall be applied in each part of the United Kingdom in accordance with the domestic law and practice of that part of the United Kingdom. Amendment No. 4 is a paving Amendment for Amendment No. 6. Amendment No. 252 seeks to save the remedy of habeas corpus in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and the Scottish counterpart in Scotland.
  Amendment No. 215 seeks to exclude from the enforceable Community law package any provision creating a new criminal offence. Amendment No. 165 seeks to save the provisions of Article XVIII of the Treaty of Union between Scotland and England. Amendment No. 6, which is paved by No. 4, seeks to ensure the continuation of the individual's rights according to our law to seek remedies against any authority in our ordinary courts.
  Under the shadow of the guillotine, when dealing with this group of Amendments the Committee may seek to pursue only some of the profound implications of Clause 2(1) for our law and constitution. Some of these are less profound than the direct surrender of part of the substantial sovereignty of Parliament with which we have already been concerned while dealing with this subsection, but the matters with which the amendments deal are nevertheless far-reaching in implication.
  No. 159, for example, deals with the problem of properly articulating our domestic law to the bundle of rights, powers, liabilities, obligations, remedies and procedures which are mentioned at the outset of subsection (1). These are
  516
  rights and so on of directly applicable Community law which are applied in this subsection in a wild sweep of blind generalisation which is without precedence in our statute law. The guillotine forestalled us before we could unlock this sinister legal deed box which lurks in the recesses of this infamous package.
  For example, we do not know what specifically is meant by any of these terms—what is covered by "rights"; how they differ from "powers"; what is involved in "liabilities"; what are "obligations"; and what are the remedies which there are to be and what procedures we shall use to get them. Not only do we not know what is included under each heading, but one question immediately arises and it is where there is the normal companion of rights to which we are accustomed in this country—duties. What is meant by these terms? The guillotine has come before we could probe to find out.
  This is not a matter of moving destructive Amendments. I deprecate the remark of one hon. Member opposite who suggested in the last debate that our Amendments had been destructive. That is quite untrue. There are many constructive Amendments on the Order Paper, not the least of which has been that foreshadowed by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) dealing with whether "without further enactment" was a phrase which should be replaced by the phrase "directly applicable" reflecting the words of the treaty. We have not even had from the Government examples of legal procedures, legal rights and legal obligations under these heads. We have not been allowed to go beyond the limited licence which we enjoy, thanks to the Chair, of dealing with regulations —these obscene progeny of Article 189 of the Treaty. We have not been allowed to go beyond them to the fons et origo of Article 189 and the other articles of the Treaty of Rome which introduce themselves as self-enacting, self-executing Community law into this country.
  The Solicitor-General: I find it difficult to follow how the hon. and learned Member is speaking in a debate of this kind on this issue apparently on behalf of a party which still accepts the desirability of entry into the Community in principle and is challenging only the

  517
  terms, and how he can thus refer to regulations which flow from Article 189 of the Treaty of Rome, and have been known for years and years to flow from that Article, known throughout all the applications made by his Government. How can he, with responsibility or sanity, refer to such things, inevitable parts of the application made by his Government, as obscene progeny? Is not that a demonstration of the irresponsibility to which the Opposition have now sunk?
  Mr. Murray: I appreciate that the Solicitor-General is not himself tonight, with the narrow majorities the Government are having in Divisions. If he reads what I said he will realise that I am directing my attention entirely and exclusively to the provisions of the Bill and its implications.
  I may have used a colourful phrase and perhaps I should withdraw it—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—but I had in mind the vast volumes which we have not been allowed to touch. With desperate guile and stratagem we have had limited debates on the contents of the regulations, and it was in this sense that I used that phrase. Nevertheless, the point will stand even if the word "obscene" should perhaps appropriately be withdrawn.
  Mr. Powell: Was the hon. and learned Gentleman perhaps bearing in mind the fact that the Prime Minister on Second Reading expressly held out the alternative that all this law might be embodied in a different way from the Bill in the law of this country?
  Mr. Murray: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention. Any obscenity that might lie here is in the Bill and the methods the Government have adopted for trying to forge the link between this country and Europe.
  We have been precluded from examining in detail the incoherencies and conflicts between domestic and Community law which will certainly be the legitimate progeny of the shotgun marriage being arranged in Clause 2(1). Even if we do not know what they are, perhaps we can discover how they will work. This is surely a modest request to make.
  Are these directly enforceable Community rights to arrive in this country
  518
  fully garbed in the shining armour of the jurisprudence of Brussels, fully armed and ready to do instant, directly applicable legal battle, or will they arrive in civilian clothes as peaceful traders and workers bringing gifts of European good will and ready to use the speech and idiom of our law to translate their trading purposes into a joint enterprise with us?
  Are our courts to use their own legal idiom—English, Scottish or Northern Irish—to interpret and complement these legal packages, or are these alien packages to bring translations of their own with them? If there is to be a translation, when will it arrive? When shall we be allowed to see it?
  We get no guidance on all these matters from the Bill, though this is a matter with which we can deal when we come to Clause 3. There is minimal guidance to the courts; just that they are to apply European jurisprudence in certain fields, whatever that may mean. We have no guidance from the Bill, none from the Treaty of Accession and very little from the Treaty of Rome. The only mention of guidance in this context is in Article 192, which dealing with decisions of the Council or Commission in imposing enforceable pecuniary obligations, states:
  "Enforcement shall be governed by the rules of civil procedure in force in the State in the territory of which it is carried out."
  Obviously the word "of" is a mistake. I imagine that the passage is meant to read "in which it is carried out". Here we have an authentic text of the Treaty of Rome. It is not good English and it therefore does not bode well for the idiomatic connection between Community law and the law of England and Scotland.
  The civil procedure does not carry one far. Even in civil procedure here we have many differences between the law of England, Scotland and Northern Ireland and there are differences of substantive law. How will European jurisprudence assimilate these? How are we to interpret European concepts for these separate jurisdictions in this country? How, for example, will European jurisprudence start to apprehend the unusual and unique standing of the Scottish legal jurisdiction? Here is a jurisdiction complete in itself, but with no Parliament because Parliament in Westminster deals with Scottish matters equally with matters relating to England and Wales.

  519
  I should have thought that the Lord Advocate and his colleagues in the Government would have already come up against substantial difficulties at Brussels in trying to explain to the Europeans, with their clear civil law concepts, how one can have a single Parliament and a single Executive and yet two totally separate judicatures and two totally separate legal jurisdictions.
  Mr. William Baxter: May I draw my hon. and learned Friend's attention to one aspect of this matter? It is not in the Amendment but it is, I think, very important. It is in Article 19 of the Treaty of Union. It lays down specifically certain rights concerning the Judiciary and the laws appertaining to the Kingdom of Scotland and the maintenance of its laws. It seems to me that, reading that in conjunction with the proposed new legal system, the enforcement of certain of these regulations is bound to be difficult, and that they differ from this part of the Act of Union.
  Mr. Murray: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. I hope to touch for a moment or two on the Treaty of Union and perhaps I may give an answer to him at that point.
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: Will my hon. and learned Friend allow me to intervene very briefly? He has made much of the difficulty of interpreting the rules of the Community in our own courts, as I understand it, but would he not agree that within our own domestic legal system it is necessary in the whole field of private international law to interpret and to apply foreign rules of law and that this is a matter which happens regularly and daily in the courts of our country in which he himself has practised?
  Mr. Murray: My hon. Friend has certainly raised a point from which I would not dissent. I agree with him that the courts do from time to time at the moment interpret and construe conflicts of national law and that they do it successfully. The point I am getting at and the point which I want to stress is the problem of articulating these alien concepts—domesticating them, if I may put it that way—to our law. That is an
  520
  entirely different question. It is a question of a unique kind which the courts have never had to face, and they have got no guidance from this Bill. The criticism which I level at the Government is that they get no guidance from the Bill how to do it.
  I shall give only one illustration, because under the guillotine one illustration is all that I can make. My complaint is that we have not got the material, that we have not had access to the material, that we have not had opportunity to delve into the possibilities and difficulties of this package. In the time available I can give only one illustration showing how one problem could emerge from Article 189 of the Treaty of Rome. It provides that
  "In order to carry out their task and in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty, the Council and the Commission shall make regulations and issue directives, take decisions, make recommendations or give opinions."
  Now, it is not without interest to look through some of the vast and continually proliferating mass of regulations which are the progeny of Article 189. It is not without interest to do so, and when one does so, one finds that many of these regulations are attributed to the Commission, many of them are attributed to the Council of Ministers. Here at once I should have thought that a British lawyer, whatever his jurisdiction, is faced with a difficulty of interpretation, and this difficulty arises out of the words used in the opening part of Article 189:
  "In order to carry out their task…the Council and the Commission shall make regulations".
  I do not think that any lawyer in this Committee would dissent from the view that according to our law there is a distinction between "and" and "or". If these words appeared in a British Statute we should understand that in order to make these regulations the Council and the Commission together had to operate and that they together had to enact these regulations. When one looks through the regulations one sees that we have had no apology or explanation about this from the Government. We have asked them repeated and probing questions, which are still outstanding, on the meaning of Article 189, and what decisions made by the Commission are directly binding upon or applicable to people including legal persons in this jurisdiction.

  521
  9.45 p.m.
  I press the point. According to our rules of statutory interpretation, which I should have thought would go without challenge in Committee and which a court of this country would apply and follow, where the words of the enactment provide that to carry out their task the Council and the Commission shall make regulations, then neither alone can make regulations.
  It may be said in reply that there are provisions in the treaty—for example, in Articles 43, 49, 87 and 94—where a form of words is used which reflects this concept. The formula that is there used is that the Council may, on a proposal from the Commission, make regulations. That could be regarded as an instance in which the Council and the Commission together make regulations.
  It seems clear on such perusal of these regulations as I have been able to make —I do not claim to have made an exhaustive perusal—that many of them are attributed to the Commission on its own and others are attributed to the Council of Ministers on its own.
  I use that illustration not to bash the treaties but to illustrate a genuine point of difficulty which will be faced by our courts: namely, how to construe directly enforceable legislation from the Community if they are given no guidance by the Bill and if it is in conflict with our own rules of statutory interpretation?
  Mr. Deakins: Is there not another possible conflict of interpretation? Article 189 provides that regulations shall be directly enforceable in all member States. It is a matter of fact that some of the 1,200 regulations are not directly applicable in all member States because they allow derogations to particular countries and areas. Could not the validity of the regulations, even under Article 189, be challenged in our courts and be a source of inconvenience and embarrassment?
  Mr. Murray: My hon. Friend has raised an important point. I do not want to follow it as I cannot give an answer off the cuff.
  As the debate is in some sense the swan song of British sovereignty because the guillotine decapitates our further discussion on Clause 2(1), may I make
  522
  some remarks about the Treaty of Union which is the subject of Amendment No. 165 standing in the name of some of my hon. Friends? I have resisted the temptation offered to me by earlier invitations to comment on this provision. Without particularly committing the Opposition to support Amendment No. 165, perhaps I might indicate the ambit of the Article. It raises some points of some quite general and significant importance going far beyond the limited safeguard which is written into the Treaty for the benefit of the people of Scotland. Article 18 falls into three parts. The first provides:
  "That the laws concerning regulation of trade customs and such excises…be the same in Scotland from and after the union as in England".
  That assimilated the trade and customs laws of the two countries. It is significant that it did not do it by self-enacting superior law, but by means of the statutory law of this country which continues in many cases to be enacted separately for the two countries. Sometimes it is done by a British Act. At other times it is done by a Scottish Act with a separate Act for England and Wales.
  The second part of Article 18 of the Treaty of Union provides:
  "that all other laws"—
  other than those creating the British Common Market—
  "in use within the kingdom of Scotland do after the union and notwithstanding thereof remain in the same force as before…but alterable by the Parliament of Great Britain".
  That has resulted in a situation which we still have today: that in some sense the Kingdom of Scotland and its counterpart, the Kingdom of England, still subsist because the public law of the two countries has not been wholly assimilated. It depends on legislation by the Parliament of Great Britain whether alterations or assimilation may be made.
  I do not want to come down on one side or the other, but there is no doubt that if one says in an Article of constitutional importance, of constitutional safeguard, specifically that public law is alterable by the Parliament of Great Britain and in no other way, this seems repugnant to the suggestion that public

  523
  law could be altered by Brussels, which plainly is not the Parliament of Great Britain. That is one side of the question.
  The other side of the question—no doubt the side which would attract the Government more—is the concept which has repeatedly been put forward from the Treasury Bench: that the formal legal sovereignty of Parliament is not sacrificed and, therefore, all that is done in the Community, with the various links which are being forged through the Bill, is done in the name of the Parliament of Great Britain.
  Whether that is a satisfactory answer or not, the fact remains that this type of difficulty is not unique to this country. Similar difficulties of repugnancy between constitutional guarantees and the directly applicable law of the Community have arisen, for example, in the Netherlands, which changed its constitution to avoid such repugnancy on entering the Community, and in Luxembourg which adopted the same course.
  The same difficulty arose with Article 24 of the Bonn Constitution, the Constitution of West Germany. That particular repugnance is still unresolved because, under Article 24 of the Bonn Constitution, basic rights are written into the basic law. There can be no executive authority in West Germany except under the limitations of the basic law. On the face of it, that is repugnant to the concept that the executive at Brussels can have direct rights and authority in Germany not limited by the basic law. If the basic law is a limitation upon the authority and executive power of Brussels, that is inconsistent with the directly enforceable, directly applicable, self-executing provisions of the Treaty of Rome.
  Mr. Ian MacArthur: I have been following the point made by the hon. and learned Gentleman. I hope that he is not tacitly or indirectly giving support to any argument that the Bill is contrary to the Act of Union with Scotland? It certainly is not in terms of Article 18 of the Act of Union. That Article clearly sets out that law can be alterable by the Parliament of Great Britain. It further states that alterations in laws which concern private rights may be changed by the
  524
  Parliament of Great Britain where that change is for the
  "evident utility of the subjects within Scotland."
  No doubt the hon. and learned Gentleman will accept that many hon. Members on this side and I suggest on the other side of the Committee believe that this change in the law is for the evident utility of the people of Scotland.
  Mr. Murray: With respect, the hon. Gentleman did not pick up what I was saying. I was endeavouring to draw attention to the fact that the constitutional guarantee of Article 18 of the Treaty of Union does not stand on its own. It can be paralleled by corresponding difficulties which have been overcome in the Netherlands and Luxembourg, but not in West Germany. I do not say that it is a catastrophic state of affairs, but simply point to the paradox. We have here an opportunity to resolve such paradox but it is an opportunity which so far the Government decline—
  Mr. Dick Douglas: Can my hon. and learned Friend tell me how we, on this side, when we were the Government and anxious to enter the Community, given acceptable terms, would have resolved the conflict he hypothetically raises, given that we do not have a written constitution?
  Mr. Murray: My hon. Friend is entitled to an answer, and my answer is to refer him to the White Paper published by the Labour Government in 1967 on the legal and constitutional effects of entry. He will find there a very detailed and careful examination of the problems. It does not deal specifically with this problem, but foreshadows the sort of careful legislative process which the Labour Government had in mind. That White Paper has been mentioned from both sides of the Committee, and it is a matter of regret that we have not had occasion on which more time could have been spent on that very valuable White Paper.
  The Lord Advocate: The hon. and learned Gentleman must be aware, although he was not here at that time, that the Secretary of State for Scotland in the last Administration made it perfectly clear on more than one occasion, in response to questions put by the then

  525
  Opposition, that in his view, and on the advice of the Scottish Law Officers, there was no conflict between an Act of Accession and the Treaty of Union.
  Mr. Murray: That is an expression of opinion, and the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate would put it no further. All I say is that the facts and documents speak for themselves. We are, after all, joining a Community wider than just these islands. This is not a unique problem, but a problem which has been faced and resolved by the Netherlands and by Luxembourg, which still remains unresolved by West Germany, and which will have to be faced and resolved by at least one candidate country, Eire, which may be required to change its constitution. One opinion has been expressed, I am not taking a view on either side, but it is right that both views should be expressed, understood and entertained. They are there, and we must take our choice.
  The third aspect of Article 18 is reflected in Amendment No. 165. Having dealt with public law and said that that can be made the same by the Parliament of Great Britain, the Article goes on:
  "…with this difference betwixt the laws concerning publick right/policy and civil government and those which concern private right [that the laws which concern publick right]…may be made the same throughout the whole United Kingdom But that no alteration be made in laws which concern private right except for evident utility of the subjects within Scotland."
  That statement clearly guarantees that the domestic law of Scotland will not be altered for any other purpose except the evident utility of the subjects within Scotland. Time prevents me from following this line of thought as far as I would wish, but there can be no doubt that many provisions of the Articles of the Treaty—for instance, Articles 85 and 86, which deal with competition—are bound to encroach on matters such as freedom of contract which would in 1707 have been—and, would be, indeed, today—regarded as matters of private rather than of public law.
  Therefore, there again appears to he a repugnance between the provisions of the Treaty of Rome and the provisions of that earlier common market treaty, the Treaty of Union of 1707. We may agree, I hope, that two Common Markets are set up under these two Treaties and
  526
  there is no particular reason, on the face of it, why one should have superiority over the other.
  It may well be that the Lord Advocate will tell us that nothing in the provision need be encroached upon by the Treaty of Rome. He would be wrong to say that, but I hope that the Government will at least undertake to give anxious attention to this guarantee and not write it off, as they have written off so many of the forms and procedures of this Parliament by virtue of the Bill. I hope at least they will agree that it is a living guarantee to the people of Scotland and that they will honour it as well as they can if and when this country enters the Community.
  10.0 p.m.
  In their handling of this guillotined Bill the Government stand convicted of attempting to bundle Parliament into the Community without ceremony, blindfold, bound and gagged. That is incontrovertible as the debate on the guillotine Motion yesterday made clear. Not only have they shown a fatal constitutional insensitivity in framing the Bill—it may indeed be better to put it more bluntly and say that what they have done is a fraud upon the British constitution—they have abandoned without apparently any pang of conscience part of the substantial sovereignty of Parliament. The substance of that sovereignty is that it is the sole and ultimate safeguard of the constitutional liberties of the British people. The Government have thrown out the substance and have not even bothered to conserve the forms—which might have been thought to be dear to Conservative hearts.
  The Government have resisted every constructive Amendment. I appeal to them to accept the modest Amendment No. 159. At worst, the Government might say that it is unnecessary, but if they reject it we shall want to know why. Perhaps they will reject it through fear, as fear must have prevented them from considering any of the constructive Amendments. Perhaps they are afraid that their chosen European vessel is so unseaworthy that any shifting of the cargo may capsize it.
  [Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]
  Mr. Powell: We shall be obliged in less than an hour to take our final leave of Clause 2(1), a provision entirely novel

  527
  and unique in the law of this country. I wish briefly to record that we are doing so in circumstances wholly unsatisfactory, because no sufficient justification for it has been offered to the Committee in the course of these proceedings.
  The ground upon which we are asked to agree to the subsection is that it is alleged to be imperatively required by the Treaty of Rome, and in particular by Article 189 of the Treaty of Rome. Yet upon that assertion there is open disagreement amongst the members of the Government. It is not disputed—it is repeatedly on the record—that both the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—presumably, the two people who should know best what is or is not required under the Treaty—have openly stated that there are alternative ways, not—at least formally—inconsistent with our methods of legislation, by which effect could be given to Article 189.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy conceded this when he said that Clause 2(1) was the best way of giving effect to it, and he repeated that several times: that he did so was admitted by my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in a long passage in winding up on the Second Reading of the Bill, discussed an alternative to Clause 2(1), perfectly explicitly. Therefore there is disagreement On the Treasury Bench as to whether we are or are not obliged to do this.
  The more time we have to consider, in the light of Clause 2(1), the articles of the treaty which are said to be involved, the more doubt arises. The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray) has drawn attention to some of the unsatisfactory aspects of the drafting of these articles from the point of view of the methods of interpretation to which we are used. I direct attention to one which is directly significant for the major point at issue. Article 191 says:
  "Directives and decisions shall be notified to those to whom they are addressed "—
  and then follow the words—
  "and shall take effect upon such notification."
  Now, it is admitted that directives are to be implemented by the national Parliaments. That is what Clause 2(2) of the
  528
  Bill does. Therefore it follows that a directive cannot take effect in the law of this country unless and until the procedure laid down in Clause 2(2) has been gone through to give effect to the directive. Yet the treaty says that
  "directives…shall take effect upon notification…to those to whom they are addressed."
  There is no doubt what the treaty is stating: when a directive is addressed to a member State, then, according to the wording of the treaty, it "takes effect upon notification", whereas the Bill says that directives are to be given effect in the law of this country by the procedure under Clause 2(2). It may be that the regulations, etcetera, will be retrospective as to the date of operation of their requirements. But clearly this treaty speaks of Community law "taking effect" in circumstances in which the Bill says that it is only to do so by way of legislation in this country.
  It seems to me that we are bound to take that into account in construing the expression in regard to regulations:
  "A regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all member States."
  Upon those words alone, occurring in this, to us, so loosely drafted part of the Treaty of Rome, is based, by one of the two divided counsels of the Government, the sole case for the constitutionally unique innovation in Clause 2(1). Therefore there is no sufficient reason as yet before the Committee why we should assent to Clause 2(1). Let that be on the record before we are forced to assent to it unwillingly, without even the possibility of a Division on the Question, That subsection (1) stand part of the Bill.
  I shall take the time of the Committee only for a few moments more to refer to the Act of Union with Scotland, for I submit that an English Member has a good a right to do so as a Scottish Member, since presumably the honour of England is at least equally involved with the traditions and the rights of Scotland.
  It seems to me that in two respects at least this unnecessary Clause 2(1) breaches that Treaty. I cannot believe that, upon any reasonable interpretation, an alteration in the law of Scotland effected by directly applicable Community law under the provisions of Clause 2(1) can be regarded as made "by the Parliament of Great Britain", in the sense

  529
  in which that was meant by those who passed that Act and signed that Treaty.
  There is a simple test. Let us suppose that in 1707 those who made the treaty, the Commissioners, had been asked whether they meant to include the making of law by the European Commission in Brussels through regulations which would be self-enacting in the United Kingdom. That is the question which is before the Committee. Let us suppose that they had been asked "Is that what you mean by enactment ' by the Parliament of Great Britain? ' "Of course they would have rejected any such proposition as ludicrous. Therefore, if we allow this to happen, we are knowingly breaking both the letter and certainly the spirit of an Act of Parliament which enshrined a freely made treaty.
  The second breach—and here I come to the point that was taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur)—is the alteration of the laws in Scotland which "concern private right". The treaty and the Act lay down that that can be done only "for the evident utility of the subjects within Scotland". My hon. Friend, in all good faith, said that, as he sincerely and conscientiously believes that the Community regulations will be beneficial to the inhabitants of Scotland amongst others, therefore subsection (1) is not in breach of the treaty.
  I ask my hon. Friend, and I ask the Committee, to look at that provision of the Act in its context. In its context it is perfectly clear that the expression "the evident utility of the subjects within Scotland" is opposed to "the United Kingdom of Great Britain as a whole". That is the only sense which those words have in the context. It does not say For the evident utility of the subjects ". After all, those making the treaty and passing the Act were not so silly as to
  530
  say that laws shall not be made which are not for the evident utility of the subjects to whom they are to apply. They were not wasting words. They meant, and clearly meant, by that provision something by which the people in Scotland especially would benefit, and in a way separate from the inhabitants of the rest of the United Kingdom, not to mention from the rest of the inhabitants of the EEC.
  It was in short—and this is the logic of it—only for the sake of the people of Scotland that their enjoyment of the law of private right which they had in 1707 was to be altered. Therefore, unless a regulation which is self-enacting under subsection (1) is specifically and specially beneficial to Scotland in its alteration of private law, I claim that it, too, is a breach of the treaty and is, in effect, a repeal of the Act.
  That brings me to my last point, because we are here dealing with an Act of Parliament which implements a treaty—with precisely such a Bill as we have before us, a Bill as to which we have been solemnly told, both from the Chair and from the Front Bench, that we may do nothing in it which interferes with the treaty.
  My right hon. Friend and the Government are trapped by their own reasoning. The Act of Union which gave effect in the law of Great Britain to a Treaty is sacrosanct in the same way as it is claimed that an Act of Parliament, when it is passed to give effect to this treaty, is sacrosanct. We ought, therefore, to realise that by subsection (1) not only are we doing something which is unparelleled in our legislative history, something which it is not necessary for us to do in order to carry out the treaty, but that we are doing it in such a way that we unnecessarily breach the solemn compact upon which this United Kingdom itself is founded.
  10.15 p.m.
  Mr. James Sillars: I want to refer briefly to Amendment No. 165 and then to deal at some length with Amendment No. 159. I am concerned with a technical point on a question of law, and here I must confess to being only a layman. Therefore, my questions to the Lord Advocate will be on the basis of a simpleton's approach to the law contained within Article 18 of the treaty.
  When I look at the time and appreciate that the guillotine will fall at eleven o'clock, it seems that what should be a major constitutional debate has been reduced to the status—I do not mean this in a derogatory way—of an Adjournment debate. We may at eleven o'clock be forced to ask in a polite way whether the Lord Advocate will answer our questions by writing to us—the traditional way in which Ministers deal with problems which they cannot cover in the 10 minutes allocated to them in an Adjournment debate.
  Is it true that some of the laws that we shall have to accept affect what Article 18 describes as "private right"? How many of the laws that we shall have to accept will affect it, and what are the qualitative changes to be effected in Scots law by the importation of certain Community laws? This needs to be answered in some detail. Again on a simpleton's approach, I find that the wording of Article 18 leaves no room for doubt about the legal position. One important condition has to be satisfied if changes are to be made in Scots law as it affects private right without breaching the obligations of the treaty, and that important condition is that a change in private right law must be conclusively proved to be for the evident utility of the subjects within Scotland.
  I read "evident utility" to mean the obvious utility of the people in Scotland. It seems that each change must be examined on its merits and that the changes cannot be taken as a whole. I address this remark particularly to the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur), because we are talking about not the law but several laws as they apply in this sector of the application of general law. A decision to impose a
  532
  new law on any sector within the Scots context of private right must be consciously made in each specific case by the British Parliament. If this is not done there is a clear breach of the obligations placed upon this Parliament under Article 18 of the Treaty of Union.
  It is true that this country has only certain moral obligations to countries such as New Zealand and Australia and the sugar-producing areas but it has definite constitutional and legal obligations to the people within Scotland through Article 18, and the Lord Advocate should give us detailed replies to our questions.
  I turn now to deal with the opportunity presented by Amendment No. 159 to have a general discussion on the problems facing Scotland and the future of Scotland's relations with the rest of the United Kingdom. It is a tragedy that we have to do this within a period of 45 minutes. The time may come when people in all quarters of the Committee, especially those who voted for the guillotine, will very much regret that we did not take time to examine what will be, whether it takes 10 or 15 years to manifest itself, an acute problem for all the people of the United Kingdom.
  I am reminded of a speech in the early stages of this Parliament by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), who warned the Government that the course of their policies would have serious effects on the constitutional unity of the United Kingdom insofar as the people of Scotland and Wales reacted to them. It is helpful to recall how the United Kingdom came into being. England sought unity for political and military reasons; then, as now, somewhat concerned about France. Scotland sought unity in the Union for economic and trading reasons. It would he wonderful to be able to say, looking back after 265 years, that the Union was formed because of great feelings of brotherly love and feelings about human brotherhood affecting all men. But it would be false to say that because that was not so.
  In a very recently published book by Charles Hendry Dand, "The Mighty Affair—how Scotland lost her Parliament", the author is very sympathetic to

  533
  the whole question of Union in the first place. Chapter 11 is headed "A Successful Experiment". But he says:
  "The men who united the kingdoms and the parliaments have remained unhonoured and unsung&The explanation is obvious from the story here told. The circumstances of the birth of the United Kingdom were shabby."
  That could be said about the circumstances of the birth of the enlarged Community as well.
  "Louis XIV forced the wedding and the couple had no joy in each other or in the child."
  That is an objective comment from someone sympathetic to the Union.
  I notice the laughter—it could properly be described as derisive laughter—by my hon. Friend the Member for East Stirling-shire (Mr. Douglas). But I have to say to him that in all the books written about the Union of the United Kingdom, no one has ever suggested that it was not done for the reasons I have just outlined, or those described by Charles Hendry Dand in his book.
  We were drawn together because of geography and political need and the need for England to safeguard her military back, and for the Scots to extricate themselves from an economic dilemma. As I look around the Chamber, I notice a few wry smiles, but I hope to wipe them away as I proceed with my argument.
  All the factors combined to join us reluctantly together. Ever since 1707 there has been an unease deep in Scottish bones about the Union. It should be recorded that the decision about union was taken not by my ancestors but by the forebears of the present Conservatives in Scotland. Indeed, the mob—that was my people they were talking about; they were referred to as "the mob"—was vehemently opposed to the Union. There was an attempt at repeal in 1713, which failed. But it did not extinguish the desire among all Scotsmen for a distinct Scottish expression. It has never been submerged at any time.
  An Hon. Member: It never will be.
  Mr. Sillars: It lay dormant for a long time and then began to manifest itself. In 1885 a Scottish Secretary was appointed, that post being converted to
  534
  Secretary of State in 1926. In 1886 the Scottish Home Rule Association was formed. A Scottish Nationalist Party, or Scottish National Party, whatever it called itself, was formed in 1928. The Scottish Office was moved progressively to Edinburgh between 1928 and 1939. A Scottish Grand Committee was established. A Scottish Convention arose in 1947.
  Then we went through the latest period of this feeling of unease, in the Winnie Ewing period during the Hamilton by-election and the immediate situation thereafter, which so drove the Prime Minister to panic that he made a promise at Perth from which his hon. Friends in the Scottish Tory Party have been trying to retreat ever since. I shall not suggest that the latest phase that we have seen, the post-Hamilton period, has passed. I am well aware that we are speaking within 24 hours of one of the most wonderful municipal election victories ever scored by the Labour Party in Scotland, and after witnessing the annihilation of the Scottish National Party—no friends of mine, I may say.
  But we should make a grave mistake if we thought that the annihilation of the Scottish National Party meant the elimination of nationalism as a significant force in Scotland. The SNP relies entirely on nationalism for its existence, but nationalism does not rely upon the SNP for its existence. We should mislead ourselves if we thought that we had seen an end to the problems which beset us in the period 1968–72.
  The demise of the Nationalists can be traced to several factors. One was that they made a fundamental error in trying to convert a mass movement based on one large concept into a political party in pursuit of political power. They fell prey to the ambition to which most politicians fall prey, seeking the levers of powers. That brought them down into municipal politics, and, with the best will in the world, one cannot relate nationalism to sewers and drainage and make it meaningful to ordinary people.
  Lack of calibre, misjudgment and an inability to understand the nature of politics led the Nationalists astray, and finally led them to effective annihilation last night in the municipal elections.

  535
  But what concerns me is that, in my view—it is only my view—nationalism in Scotland—with a small "n"—is a much more mature and potent force today than ever it was in 1968. Then, I believe, the bubble was fairly easy to burst, although some of my hon. Friends did not think so at that time.
  In the hysterical period of "Nationalism" I once had to make a speech at the Scottish Labour Party Conference, the only speech I have ever made at the Scottish Labour Party Conference—though whether that is lucky or unlucky, and for whom, I do not know. I described the situation facing Scotland at that time as one in which we had to make a decision about whether the bonds which unite us to the rest of the United Kingdom are more significant than the things which divide us from the rest of the United Kingdom.
  Within that phrase there is clear recognition of the difference between the Scots and the other peoples in the United Kingdom. There is no shame in saying that. Englishmen are proud of English things and of the English way of life. Welshmen feel the same about their homeland, and quite right, too. Scots feel the same. In parenthesis, I should say that I do not regret that we have had the Union. We have had a mixture of Scotsmen, Welshmen and Englishmen in the Labour movement. I have always thought that it would have been a great tragedy if the wonderful genius of Aneurin Bevan had been locked up, as it were, in a tiny separate Wales, and we had never had the benefit of his views and his philosophy in the mainstream of the British Socialist movement.
  Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: What about Willie Ross?
  Mr. Sillars: I can tell the right hon. Gentleman—
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: Just popped in.
  Mr. Sillars: —who has just come in; this is the first time I have seen him here today—that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) is held in the highest esteem in every part of Scotland, and the Liberal Party is held in total odium for its support of the Government and their retention in power.
  I have been sidetracked rather easily, and I am trying to be serious about a
  536
  serious subject. I was about to say that the decision on the bonds which unite us and the things which divide us is one which we have constantly to make in changing circumstances. There is no evading that problem.
  10.30 p.m.
  One of the changing circumstances that we must take into account is the immense feeling now abroad in Scotland about Scottish nationhood. Many people may regret this, and I know that some do. But people will ignore it at their political peril. In the changing circumstances of today and tomorrow it will become much more difficult than it has ever been to hold the Union together. When Great Britain had an empire it was easy to divert national consciousness. After all, we were taking part in the conquering and management of an empire. I recall how difficult it was when I joined the Labour Party at the very end of the empire period, and was doing political canvassing, to get ordinary people on the doorstep to talk about domestic issues, such as pensions, poverty and housing. They wanted to talk about Archbishop Makarios and Cyprus and Malaysia or other foreign affairs. There has been a complete transformation of the situation, and there is now a tremendous concentration on domestic issues. The whole of Britain has turned in upon itself for an intense internal examination. That creates problems for us.
  Another problem which cannot be evaded is that Scotland has in the past expressed, and will most certainly express in the future, a very distinct left-wing pro-Labour point of view. It will keep voting Labour. Let us think for a moment about what happens when a minority group in a large group continues to express a distinctive political point of view time after time and finds itself in the power of a minority Government. That is the position we are in now. Scotsmen can express as many political points of view as they like, but neither the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) nor the Secretary of State for Scotland will pay any attention to them. They will continue as though they had a mandate to rule in Scotland. That creates distinct problems, and anyone who evades them is a fool.
  I think the situation can be contained. It is one that calls for great delicacy, tact.

  537
  understanding and ability to compromise with people within a large Union. This understanding and tact are not the qualities of the present Prime Minister. We are likely to see the intensification of the tensions now existing between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. They will increase when we are taken into the Common Market against the wishes of the majority of the Scottish people. It is wrong to think that we shall come through this trauma of being dragged into Europe with things remaining exactly as they were before in a constitutional sense. We are living in a time when there is an explosion of expectation among ordinary people, a desire for job opportunity, a better standard of life. We are living in a period of diminishing opportunity, with unemployment rising, technology advancing and job opportunities diminishing rapidly.
  Previously when we had high unemployment in Scotland there was a safety valve in emigration to England, Australia, Canada or New Zealand. One by one those safety valves are being not closed but turned down. When Birmingham has high unemployment, there are no jobs for Scotsmen to come to. As Australia, New Zealand and Canada experience employment problems, the avenues of escape for the Scottish unemployed are cut off. The "right to work" slogan born in the yards of the Upper Clyde Shipbuilders reflects the desperation felt by many Scottish working people north of the border. It is a period of great stress during which many people will have to make a fundamental reassessment of the position.
  The Treaty of Union was made from the Scottish point of view, for economic reasons. The reason why we are here at Westminster is that this is where the major economic decisions are taken on the English economy which ultimately affects the Scottish economy, and the crafty Scotsman says to himself "If that is where the decisions are to be taken, that is where we shall locate ourselves." That is why we have a Secretary of State in the Cabinet. There is logic about the arguments concerning representation in the Cabinet. But if the European Communities pursue the Werner plan for economic and monetary union, the logic which brings us to Westminster may take
  538
  us to Brussels, because certain Scottish interests which would be termed regional interests in the context of the United Kingdom would be converted to distinct national interests if Scotland were represented in Brussels.
  Paragraph 29 of the White Paper, "The United Kingdom and the European Communities ", says:
  "On a question where a government considers that vital national interests are involved, it is established that the decision should be unanimous".
  If we think about the implications of that and of a shift of the decision-making centre from Westminster to Brussels, we realise that there is some validity in the argument about some direct representation from the northern part of Britain. It may be to our distinct advantage. It is for the Government to prove that it is not.
  I am well aware that some of the things I am saying could put a Nationalist tab right between my shoulder blades. This is not the easiest speech for me to make, and whether the Scottish National Party or anyone else pats me on the back is neither here nor there to me. I have certain responsibilities for Scottish people in the constituency which I represent, and, irrespective of my prejudices or attitudes in the past, if I have to fulfil my responsibilities by advocating a certain course of action I shall not hesitate for one moment in advocating it.
  We speak about what unemployment does to people, and how it erodes their personality. We have all paid lip service to that. But what does it do to a nation to be permanently saddled with 150,000 unemployed with little prospect of full employment for them? Scottish people are sick to the teeth of being told that if unemployment can be reduced to 3·5 per cent. they should dance with glee in the streets of Glasgow. Those days are gone. We demand full employment, and if we can achieve full employment only by certain courses of action we have no alternative but to take them. As I have said, this is not the easiest speech that I have made or will ever make. Jimmy Gordon of Scottish Television has dubbed me "the hammer of the Scottish 'Nats'." It will be extremely surprising to someone who has given me that title to read what I have said this evening.

  539
  I wish to address my last remarks to hon. Members on this side of the Committee. Some of the difficulties I have tried to identify will not arise tomorrow morning, next week, next month or next year. They will arise when the next General Election is held. If the Conservative Party wins the next General Election, and if Scotland goes even more solidly Labour than before, we shall have a constitutional problem.
  Mr. MacArthur: No.
  Mr. Sillars: It is no good the hon. Gentleman saying "No". Four losses for the Tories in Perth last night should make even him feel shaky. If the Tories win the next General Election in Britain, having lost it in Scotland, there will be problems for all of us to face.
  If the Labour Party wins the next General Election, as I think it will—[Laughter.] The laughter shows that hon. Members opposite think that there is a division within the Parliamentary Labour Party and that it is so significant that the people will not feel able to vote for the Labour Party when the General Election comes. They pay more attention—
  Mr. W. Baxter: On a point of order, Sir Robert. While I appreciate that my hon. Friend's speech is interesting, a guillotine is in operation and it is only right that there should be some curtailment of speeches so that other hon. Members have a chance to express their view.
  The Chairman: I sometimes wish that the Chair had that power, but, unfortunately, it has not.
  Mr. Sillars: There is one thing that you must admit, Sir Robert, and the Whips of the Labour Party will confirm it. It is that during consideration of the Industrial Relations Act and on other occasions I have co-operated completely when the Chair has suggested speeches of five or seven minutes when guillotines have been operating or when voluntary timetables have been observed. But this is a debate on the Floor of the House of Commons, and I feel deeply enough about the subject which I have been discussing to speak at greater length than is my custom. I must apologise to my hon. Friends who are desperate to get into the debate, for I have encroached on
  540
  their time. But they should remember that if an hon. Member opposite were to start speaking now, he would continue until 11 o'clock. [Interruption.] I shall finish what I intended to say no matter what the interruptions.
  Hon. Members opposite believe that what motivates the leader writers of The Guardian and The Times are the divisions in the Parliamentary Labour Party, as a result of which, they believe, the party will not win the next General Election. But that is not the issue on which the people will decide. The issues on which the next General Election will be decided are a million unemployed, rents going up to a totally unacceptable level, prices increasing and trade unionists being held down, and on those issues the Government will be found guilty.
  But the difficulty will arise immediately afterwards, because the Labour Party will have to deliver the goods north of the border next time. There can be no second chance after the next General Election. If we do not deliver the goods north of the border, the people of Scotland will not turn to the Tory Party and I do not think that they will turn to the Scottish Nationalist Party as we know it. But they may turn to some other form of political expression which is repugnant to every quarter of the House. With those words, on an indeterminate note, I end my remarks.
  The Lord Advocate: I am sorry that I have had to get up at this stage, for I know that some hon. Members opposite wish to speak.
  Mr. Alex Eadie: There is no need to speak.
  The Lord Advocate: I am genuinely sorry that I have had to get up now when other hon. Members wish to speak. However, there is a series of Amendment calling for a Government reply.
  Mr. Eadie: On a point of order, Sir Robert. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has no need to get up and apologise to the Committee in this fashion.
  The Chairman: Order. That is not a point of order and the hon. Member knows that it is not. I must ask him not to raise such matters as points of order.
  Mr. Eadie: May I put the point, Sir Robert, because I think that it is a point of order? It is that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has come to the Treasury Bench to apologise when he should be apologising to the Committee not for rising when there is a guillotine on the debate, but—
  The Chairman: Order. That is not a point of order. It is exactly the point that the hon. Member was putting before. It is not a point of order and he knows perfectly well that it is not.
  10.45 p.m.
  The Lord Advocate: This group of Amendments calls for a Government answer and I confess that I should have liked an opportunity to hear what several other hon. Gentlemen opposite, including the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) had to say.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: That is a lie.
  The Lord Advocate: I ignore the intemperate remarks from a seated position of the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis).
  The Chairman: Order. I thought I heard the hon. Gentleman say that what the Lord Advocate had said was a lie. If so, I must ask him to withdraw the remark.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: The right hon. and learned Gentleman said he would have liked time to hear and reply to further speeches. He would have had that time if he had not voted for the guillotine, so that that was a lie; but if you wish me to withdraw it, I willingly do so.
  The Chairman: It is not in order for one hon. Member to accuse another of telling lies, and that is why I hoped the hon. Gentleman would withdraw it.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: Perhaps you did not hear me, Sir Robert. I said that the right hon. and learned Gentleman have had ample time if he had not voted for the guillotine. I went on to say that although, therefore, it was a lie to say that the Lord Advocate could not have sufficient time, I would, at your request, withdraw my use of the word.
  Mr. Tom Driberg: On a point of order. My hon. Friend need
  542
  not have withdrawn. There are ample precedents of the upper Chair allowing the use of the word "lie", but not of the word "liar".
  The Chairman: It depends on how the Chair interprets the use of the word at the time, and hon. Members have always given the Chair the right to decide whether or not a borderline case is such that there should be a withdrawal. The hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) has courteously, as is his custom always, withdrawn, and I hope that the Lord Advocate may now continue.
  The Lord Advocate: I did not take the hon. Gentleman's observation personally.
  The reason why I am sorry that I have had to interrupt the debate at this stage is that several hon. Members still wish to contribute. If the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) had spoken at a little less length, it might have been possible for others to have taken part.
  This is a significant group of Amendments and, speaking for myself, I am grateful that they were tabled—
  Sir Elwyn Jones: But not debated.
  The Lord Advocate: —and debated, because it enables a Government spokesman to comment on them.
  Sir Elwyn Jones: Really!
  The Lord Advocate: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has not been here for much of the debate on these essentially Scottish Amendments. They have been fully debated.
  Sir Elwyn Jones Sir Elwyn Jones rose—
  The Lord Advocate: I have very little time in which to reply. I will not give way.
  Hon. Members: Give way.
  Sir Elwyn Jones: The right hon. and learned Gentelman knows perfectly well that we have not had an adequate debate of many of the Amendments in this group. It is a disgrace that important matters of this kind should be debated in this way.
  The Lord Advocate: We have had an interesting debate, but I confess that

  543
  it has not taken quite the course I had anticipated. As I read the Amendments I felt the genuine concern that exists—this is particularly true of Amendments Nos. 252 and 159—over our accession to the EEC from the point of view of the application of Community law to our traditional forms and processes and to the rights and privileges which the British people enjoy. The main question has been: are they liable to be prejudiced? In so far as this sort of concern lies behind the Amendments, I welcome this opportunity to dispel it.
  During the earlier discussion on the EEC most hon. Members received, as I did, many letters from their constituents expressing real concern that the presumption of innocence and matters of fundamental importance to the ordinary British citizen might be prejudiced by British accession to the EEC, and Amendment No. 252, although it has not been spoken to—
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: How could it be?
  Sir Elwyn Jones: There was not time.
  The Lord Advocate: There was quite a lot of time to deal with it if hon. Members had confined themselves more strictly to the Amendments to which they were speaking. [Interruption.]
  Be that as it may, there never has been any doubt in the mind of successive Administrations who have been concerned with the application to enter the EEC that those basic liberties, and particularly those relating to the criminal law and the administration of justice, would not be prejudiced in any material sense. This was stated in this Government's White Paper, Cmnd. 4715, last year where it said—and I want to emphasise this—
  "All the essential features of our law will remain, including the safeguards for individual freedom such as trial by jury and habeas corpus and the principle that a man is innocent until proved guilty…"
  That, of course, echoed the expression of view in the previous Administration's White Paper of 1967, where it said:
  "There is no reason to think that the impact of Community law would weaken or destroy any of the basic rights and liberties of individuals under the law of the United Kingdom."
  This is important. One cannot now go into instances in which basic constitu-
  544
  tional principles of this kind might be prejudiced, but it is important that this should be put on record, and, if I may, I would repeat what the Leader of the Opposition said on this matter on 8th May, 1967. I know that parts of that passage have been quoted before, and I was going to omit those quoted before. Part of that passage connected with the effect on our law of our entry into the European Economic Community was:
  "The constitutional rights and liberties of the individual such as habeas corpus and the presumption of innocence will, of course, not be affected, nor in any material sense will our criminal law."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th May, 1967, Vol. 746, c. 1088.]
  That is the view which this Administration take, the view which the previous Administration took, and the reason for it is, of course, that the field of law with which the European Economic Community is concerned does not impinge upon the criminal law to any material extent. The Community has never sought to create criminal offences by directly applicable Community provisions, and it is exceedingly doubtful, in my view. whether there would be power under the treaties to do so.
  Mr. W. Baxter: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognise the fact that Article 19 of the Treaty of Union does not specifically state that it is only criminal law which should not be altered in Scotland, which is under the jurisdiction of the Scottish courts, and that it also embraces company law, and that by the Treaty of Rome the Commission has a right to come into Scotland or into England and enforce rules and regulations of the Commission under the law of the Community?
  The Lord Advocate: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, I was not dealing specially with the Scottish point. Most of the Scottish argument tonight has turned on Amendment No. 165 dealing with the Scottish point. I can well understand those who have elaborated that at some length. There are several Amendments of some importance and I wanted to explain and place on record that in no material sense will Community law affect our criminal law, affect our judicial procedure, or affect this basic principle which the British people in all parts of the United Kingdom have come to take for granted over a period of several

  545
  hundreds of years. I will give way, but I have little time.
  Sir Elwyn Jones: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman not agree that the provisions of this subsection deal not only with the present law of the Community but with future Community law, and would it not be an elementary protection of the liberties of our people to provide, if only as a matter of abundant caution, that there should be no interference with fundamental principles like habeas corpus and that there should be no right to make changes in our criminal law without Parliament taking a hand in it?
  The Lord Advocate: That is anticipating that something would happen in the European Economic Community, of which we would be a part, which has never been anticipated so far, which is quite alien to the whole tradition of the Community.
  Let us not forget that, with the exception of France, all the countries in the Common Market and those which are about to join are signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights. Habeas corpus is enshrined as part of that treaty provision no less effectively than it is enshrined in our law.
  I should like now to refer to the arguments which have been adduced on the Treaty of Union with Scotland. I said to the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray), whose contributions to this and other debates we always enjoy, that the previous Administration made it clear that there was no doubt in their mind that there was nothing inconsistent between accession to Europe and the Act of Union of 1707.
  On 21st June, 1967, the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. William Ross), who was then Secretary of State for Scotland, was asked by Mr. James Davidson, the then Liberal Member for Aberdeenshire, West:
  "Has the right hon. Gentleman examined the implications of Great Britain's proposed entry into the European Economic Community in relation to the Treaty of Union of 1707?"
  The right hon. Gentleman replied:
  "Yes, and I see no bar."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st June, 1967; Vol. 748, c. 1717.]
  On another occasion—
  Mr. Norman Buchan Mr. Norman Buchan (Renfew, West) rose—
  The Lord Advocate: I will give way later, if there is time.
  On another occasion the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock was asked by Mrs. Ewing, the then Member for Hamilton, to whom reference has been made,
  "if, in view of the separate system of law applicable in Scotland, he will issue a White Paper on the legal aspects of Great Britain's application to join the European Economic Community in so far as the application affects Scots law and the rights of Scots citizens flowing therefrom."
  The right hon. Gentleman replied:
  "No. The White Paper on the Legal and Constitutional Implications of United Kingdom Membership of the European Communities, which was presented to Parliament last May, was prepared in full consultation with the Scottish Law Officers."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th January, 1968; Vol. 756, cc. 655–6]
  The previous Administration, rightly, in my view, saw nothing inconsistent between Britain's accession to the European Economic Community and the provisions of the Act of Union.
  Mr. Michael Foot: Were not all those statements which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has quoted made to the House before the subsection, on which we are about to vote, had been devised? Why does he not apply his mind to the arguments which have been put forward on this subsection.
  The Lord Advocate: I appreciate that there has been a long and detailed discussion about the effect of Clause 2 (1); but the argument which has been adduced in the context with which I am concerned, namely, its relationship to the Treaty of Union, is that we cannot do anything in this country, that we cannot —
  Mr. W. Baxter: On a point of order. I am sorry to interrupt, but the debate cannot be justified if matters of great moment and importance are not being settled. The question is whether the Treaty of Union denies the right of this Parliament to commit Scotland to going into Europe or any other commitment which has not the full-hearted support of the people of Scotland. On that aspect of the question, I want to point out—
  The Chairman: Order.
  Mr. Baxter: I want to point out—
  The Chairman: Order. I have got precisely the hon. Gentleman's point of order. There is no point of order of substance for me to consider. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow the Lord Advocate, in the few moments which are left, to terminate his speech.
  The Lord Advocate The Lord Advocate rose—
  Mr. Baxter: On a point of order. I want to finish my point of order.
  The Chairman: Order.
  The Lord Advocate: This will be a British Act of Parliament, and it is not inconsistent—
  Mr. Baxter: On a point of order.
  The Lord Advocate: —with the Act of Union. As Lord Advocate I advise the Committee that there is nothing inconsistent between the Act of Union and British accession to the European Economic Community.
  Mr. Baxter: On a point of order.
  The Chairman: Order.
  Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 265, Noes 273.

  Division No. 165.]

  AYES

  [10.59 p.m.

  Abae, Leo

  Doig, Peter

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Dormand, J. D.

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  John, Brynmor

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Driberg, Tom

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

  Ashley, Jack

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Ashton, Joe

  Dunn, James A.

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Atkinson, Norman

  Dunnett, Jack

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Bagier Gordon A T.

  Eadie, Alex

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

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Barneet, Joel (Heywood and Royton)

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Baxter, William

  Ellis, Tom

  Judd, Frank

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  English, Michael

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Evans, Fred

  Kelley, Richard

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Ewing, Harry

  Kerr, Russell

  Biffen, John

  Faulds, Andrew

  Kinnock Neil

  Bishop, E. S.

  Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

  Lambie, David

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

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

  Lamond, James

  Boardman H. (Leigh)

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Latham, Arthur

  Body, Richard

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Booth, Albert

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Foley, Maurice

  Leonard, Dick

  Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

  Foot, Michael

  Lestor Miss Joan

  Bradley, Tom

  Ford, Ben

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

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

  Forrester, John

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Brown Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Buchan, Norman

  Freeson, Reginald

  Lipton, Marcus

  Buchanan, Richard (G gow, Sp'burn)

  Garrett, W. E.

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Cant, R. B.

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Gourlay, Harry

  McBride, Neil

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Grant. John D. (Islington, E.)

  McElhone, Frank

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  McGuire, Michael

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Cohen, Stanley

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Mackie, John

  Coleman, Donald

  Hamling. William

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Concannon, J. D.

  Hardy, Peter

  Maclennan, Robert

  Conlan, Bernard

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Kart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Hattersley, Roy

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Cronin, John

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

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

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Marks, Kenneth

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Marquand, David

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

  Horam, John

  Marsden, F.

  Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Marshall, Dr. Edmund

  Dalyell, Tam

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Marten, Neil

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Davidson, Arthur

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Davies, Denzil (Lianelly)

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Meacher, Michael

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Mendelson, John

  Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

  Hunter, Adam

  Mikardo, Ian

  Deakins, Eric

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Millan, Bruce

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Janner, Greville

  Milne, Edward

  Dempsey, James

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

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

  Jeger, Mrs. Lena

  Moate, Roger

  Molloy, William

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Taverne, Dick

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Richard, Ivor

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

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

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

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Tinn, James

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

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

  Tomney, Frank

  Moyle, Roland

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Torney, Tom

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Roper, John

  Tuck, Raphael

  Murray, Ronald King

  Rose, Paul B.

  Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

  Oakes, Gordon

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Urwin, T. W.

  Ogden, Eric

  Rowlands, Edward

  Varley, Eric G.

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Sandelson, Neville

  Wainwright, Edwin

  O'Malley, Brian

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Oram, Bert

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Orbach, Maurice

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

  Wallace, George

  Orme, Stanley

  Short, Mrs. Rénee (W'hampton, N.E.)

  Watkins, David

  Oswald, Thomas

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Wellbeloved, James

  Owen Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Wells William (Walsall, N)

  Padley, Walter

  Sillars, James

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Paget, R. T.

  Silverman, Julius

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Palmer, Arthur

  Skinner, Dennis

  Whitlock, William

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Small, William

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Pendry, Tom

  Spearing, Nigel

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Pentland, Norman

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Stallard, A. W.

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Woof, Robert

  Prescott, John

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Strang, Gavin

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Mr. Joseph Harper and

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Mr John Golding

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Swain, Thomas

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Critchley, Julian

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Crouch, David

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Aliason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Crowder, F. P.

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Astor, John

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

  Hastings, Stephen

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Havers, Michael

  Awdry, Daniel

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Hawkins, Paul

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Dixon, Piers

  Hay, John

  Baker W. H. K. (Banff)

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Bainiel, Lord

  Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

  Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anothony

  Drayson, G. B.

  Heseltine, Michael

  Batsford, Brian

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tuffon

  Dykes, Hugh

  Hiley, Joseph

  Bennett Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Eden, Sir John

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

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Holland, Phillip

  Biggs-Davison, John

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

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Blaker Peter

  Emery, Peter

  Horden, Peter

  Boardman Tom (Leicester S W)

  Eyre, Reginald

  Hornby, Richard

  Boscawen, Hn. Robert

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Particia

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Relgate)

  Bowden, Andrew

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Bray, Ronald

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Hont, John

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Foster, Sir John

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Fowler, Norman

  James, David

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Fox, Marcus

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Bryan, Paul

  Fry, Peter

  Jessel, Toby

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

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Johnson, Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Buck, Antony

  Gardner, Edward

  Jopling, Michael

  Burden, F. A.

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Carlisle, Mark

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife. E.)

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Chapman, Sydney

  Goodhart, Philip

  Kimball, Marcus

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Goodhew, Victor

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Gorst, John

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Churchill, W. S.

  Gower, Raymond

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Kirk, Peter

  Clegg, Walter

  Gray, Hamish

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Cockeram, Eric

  Green, Alan

  Knox, David

  Cooke, Robert

  Grieve, Percy

  Lambton, Lord

  Coombs, Derek

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Lane, David

  Cooper, A. E.

  Gryils, Michael

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Cordle, John

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Gurden, Harold

  Le Merchant, Spencer

  Costain. A. P.

  Hall, Miss Joan (Kelghley)

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  550

  551

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

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Stokes, John

  Longden, Sir Gilbert

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Loveridge, John

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Tapsell, Peter

  Luce, R. N.

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  MacArthur, Ian

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Raison, Timothy

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  McLaren, Martin

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Tebbit, Norman

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Temple, John M.

  Macmillion.Rt.Hn.Maurice (Farnham)

  Redmond, Robert

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

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

  Maddan, Martin

  Rees-Davis, W. R.

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Madel, David

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Tilney, John

  Mather, Carol

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Maude, Angus

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Trew Peter

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Mawby, Ray

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Vickers Dame Joan

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Rost, Peter

  Waddington, David

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Royle, Anthony

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

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

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

  Wall, Patrick

  Money, Ernie

  Scott-Nicholas

  Walters, Dennis

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Monro, Hector

  Sharples, Richard

  Warren, Kenneth

  More, Jasper

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

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Shelton William (Clapham)

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Morrison, Charles

  Simeons, Charles

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Murton, Oscar

  Sinclair Sir George

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Skeet T. H. H.

  Wilkinson, John

  Neave, Airey

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

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Normanton, Tom

  Soref, Harold

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Nott, John

  Speed, Keith

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Onslow, Cranley

  Spence, John

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Sproat, Iain

  Worsley, Marcus

  Osborn, John

  Stainton, Keith

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Younger, Hn. George

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Steel, David

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Mr. Tim Fortescue and

  Peel, John

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke.

  Percival, Ian

  Peyton. Rt. Hn. John

  Question accordingly negatived.
  It being after Eleven o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress, and ask leave to sit again, pursuant the Order yesterday.
  Committee report Progress to sit again tomorrow.

  RACE RELATIONS AND IMMIGRATION
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Marcus Fox be discharged from the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration and that Mr. John Wilkinson be added to the Committee.— [Mr. Rossi.]

  NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Peter Emery be discharged from the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries and that Mr. Robert Redmond be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Rossi.]
  ADJOURNMENT
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Rossi.]

  MALAYSIA (EXPATRIATE PENSIONS)
  11.12 p.m.
  Mr. John Peel: On 14th February last my right hon. Friend told the House, in answer to certain questions that I put to him, that there was no shortfall "in the sterling value" of pensions paid by the Government of Malaysia in Singapore to retired expatriate officers recruited by the British Government for service on Malayan establishments, and no shortfall "in the sterling value" of pensions paid by the Singapore Government outside Singapore to the widows of such officers. He also said that anyone living in Malaysia or Britain received a pension "in the same sterling terms" after the devaluation of sterling as before.
  I have the greatest respect for my right hon. Friend's complete integrity and sense of fair play, and it is because my belief in those qualities remains unshaken that I must tell him that what he said does not accord with the facts. I must, therefore, set out the facts in rather

  553
  greater detail and more precisely, as the true position cannot easily be described in a short question and answer exchange.
  In the inter-war years the British Government recruited British men—and women—to serve on what was designated the "Malayan establishment" in the countries now known as Malaysia and Singapore. These people were appointed, together with nationals of those countries, to career services known as the Malayan Civil Service, the Malayan Medical Service, the Police, the Public Works, Customs and other services.
  They could be posted from time to time to any of the countries comprising the former Straits Settlements, the federated Malay States and un-federated Malay States. These countries all had ex common interchangeable currency, the Straits or Malayan dollar, and the currencies of Malaya and Singapore are still interchangeable. In the terms of service of these officers and in the regulations governing their pensions and those of their widows, their salaries, pensions and other emoluments were expressed in the Straits or Malayan dollar and not in sterling.
  Following the war with Japan, when many of these men and their families perished or were in enemy hands, a series of constitutional changes resulted in the Settlement of Singapore emerging as a separate independent State and the former Settlements of Penang, Malacca and Lubua being absorbed together with the Malay States other than the State of Brunei into what is now the independent Federation of Malaysia. In connection with some of these changes the British Government in 1959 and 1963 concluded what are called public officers agreements with the Governments of Malaya and Singapore.
  It is these agreements and not the devaluation of sterling which have caused this injustice. Let me explain why. The agreements included the extraordinary provision that pensions paid by the Malayan and the Singapore Governments outside their respective territories should be paid in sterling and calculated as if the dollar were worth 2s. 4d. in the old currency, nothwithstanding any variation in that rate. These agreements with retrospective effect introduced into the pension terms of these officers and their dependants whose pensions prior to the
  554
  agreements were payable in Malayan or Straits dollars, a risk which was previously not there, namely a risk that if at any time the value of the Malayan or Singapore dollar in terms of sterling should exceed 2s. 4d. then their pensions, if paid by Malaysia outside the former Federation of Malaya, which is now West Malaysia, or by Singapore outside Singapore, would be reduced. When sterling was devalued in November, 1967, this is just what happened, because the sterling value of the Malaysian and Singapore dollar became 2s. 8d.
  It was a few months before the Governments of Malaysia and Singapore decided to take advantage of the agreements and reduce pensions paid outside their territories while maintaining the value of those paid inside their own countries. They did so about a year later, towards the end of 1968. They claimed refunds from pensioners by instalments but the British Government, recognising the inequity of what was happening, stepped in and paid the refunds. But the British Government did no more, and these pensioners have since been paid reduced pensions.
  Let me give examples of what is now happening. A pensioner who retired from Malaysia with a pension of 1,000 dollars a month and is receiving his pension in Kuala Lumpur is receiving 1,000 dollars a month, the sterling value of which, at the current rate of exchange, is £1,620 per annum. This is as it should be. But his unlucky colleague who also retired from Malaysia with a pension of the same amount but who asked the Malaysian Government to pay it to him in the United Kingdom is, owing to the public officers agreement between the British Government and the Government of Malaysia, having his 1,000 dollars a month pension converted to sterling at only 2s. 4d. so that he is receiving a pension of only £1,400 a year, that is a shortfall of £220 a year in the sterling value of the pension he receives compared with that of the pension he actually earned which was 1,000 dollars a month.
  In these circumstances, how can my right hon. Friend tell us as he did on 14th February that, as there is no shortfall in the sterling value of these pensions, the question of the Government making compensatory payments does not arise? There is a shortfall, and the question does arise.

  555
  But for some pensioners injustice does not end even there. I explain why, as briefly as I can. It was compulsory that an officer on the Malayan establishment should contribute throughout his service 4 per cent. of his pensionable emoluments to the widows and orphans pensions scheme of the particular country in which he happened to be serving when he completed his probationary period and was placed on the pensionable establishment. After retirement officers could, if they wished, continue to contribute, for up to a total of 35 years, so as to secure higher benefits under the schemes for their widows and children in the event of their own deaths.
  Let us now look at what has happened to the pensioner who served for 25 years or more both in Singapore and Malayasia, who had to contribute throughout that period to the Straits Settlements widows and orphans pensions scheme, who, in order to obtain maximum benefits for his widow and children, opted to continue contributing 4 per cent. of his salary prior to retirement to what is now the Singapore widows and orphans pension scheme, who retired from Malaysia with a pension of 1,000 dollars a month and who asked to have his pension paid in Singapore to facilitate deductions from it as contributions to the scheme.
  To start with, he is hit by the United Kingdom/Malaysia public officers agreement of 1959, because his pension of 1,000 dollars a month is to be paid in Singapore, which is not in Malayasia. Accordingly, although the Singapore and Malaysian dollars have exactly the same value and are in fact interchangeable, his 1,000 dollars is notionally converted from Malaysian dollars into sterling at 2s. 4d. and re-converted back into Singapore dollars at 2s. 8d. Thus he is paid in Singapore a pension of 847 dollars instead of 1,000 dollars a month to which he was entitled.
  From this reduced pension he makes his contributions to the Singapore widows and orphans pensions scheme in Singapore dollars currently worth 2s. 8d. In the event of his death, though, his widow will be hit by the United Kingdom/Singapore public officers agreement of 1963. If she is paid her pension in the
  556
  United Kingdom or elsewhere outside Singapore, it will be converted into sterling as if the Singapore dollar were worth only 2s. 4d. although her husband had been contributing dollars worth 2s. 8d. to the scheme.
  It is hard to imagine any Government countenancing pensions arrangements so fraudulent and actuarially crazy. Nor have I thought up a freak possibility. I know a pensioner whose circumstances are almost exactly as in this example.
  One might ask why, in order to stop their pensions being paid at reduced rates, these pensioners do not cancel the requests they made years ago for payment of their pensions outside Malayasia or Singapore, as the case may be, and request payment in Kuala Lumpur or Singapore. The answer discloses yet another inequity in these public officers agreements. Under the agreement with Malaysia, a pensioner who asked to have his pension paid outside Malayasia cannot later ask to have it paid inside unless he first becomes resident in West Malaysia. Under the agreement with Singapore, however, he is free to switch the place of payment to Singapore. Perhaps the Minister can say why the two agreements differ in this respect.
  I should, perhaps, add that all pensioners in receipt of pensions from Malaysia outside the country have to pay 40 per cent. tax on them to the Malaysian Government.
  I apologise for this tedious but necessary exposition of what I can only describe as these appalling public officers agreements with Malaysia and Singapore. They seem to have been designed not to protect pensioners but, rather, to ensure that if the Malayan or Singapore dollar were devalued, the British Government could avoid the liability of making good the sterling value of expatriate pensions. It was a dishonourable exercise which has, in the event, enabled the Malaysian and Singapore Governments, with the agreement of Her Majesty's Government, to reduce their pensions liabilities solely at the expense of expatriate pensioners.
  In his Written Answer to my Question on 14th February, my right hon. Friend said that he first received representations about the pensions of these officers and their dependants in September, 1970. In fact, formal representations we made to his predecessor in August, 1969, but

  557
  he did not reply. It was not until further representations were made in September, 1970, that a reply was given stating that immediate representations were being made to the Malaysian authorities.
  I hope that I have shown that both the Malaysian and Singapore Governments are involved in this matter, but the responsibility for the present injustice rests, it seems to me, with Her Majesty's Government for unwittingly signing away these pensioners' rights.
  The public officers agreements should have provided that Malaysia and Singapore would pay pensions in their own currency, and, in the event of the Malaysian or Singapore dollar being devalued to less than 2s. 4d. sterling, Her Majesty's Government should have guaranteed to pay the amount by which the sterling value of the pension fell short of its value calculated at a dollar worth 2s. 4d. As it was, the Government imposed as a condition of independence on the Malaysian and Singapore Governments an obligation to pay expatriate pensions in sterling at 2s. 4d. to the dollar. It is quite unreasonable to expect a country to meet its pension obligations in foreign currency, and the pensioners are now paying for Her Majesty's Government's unreasonable requirement.
  I submit, therefore, that the only just remedy is for Her Majesty's Government to pay to the pensioners concerned the amount by which their pensions have since 1968 fallen short of those they earned, and to pay to their widows and children pensions which reflect the value of the husbands' contributions to the widows and orphans pension scheme.
  11.27 p.m.
  The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Richard Wood): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South-East (Mr. Peel) for raising this matter. I know his strength of feeling about it, since he has raised it on a number of occasions at Question Time. But I think he will agree that, while he feels strongly about it, it is a most complicated and difficult subject.
  My hon. Friend has been speaking on behalf of a particular group of Malaysian pensioners, but there are, as he knows, pensioners of other Governments who face similar problems. I wish, therefore, to
  558
  begin what I have to say with some general remarks about overseas pensions in general before coming to the particular question which my hon. Friend has raised.
  The overseas public service officers who served in former dependent territories were employed not by the British Government but by the Governments of the countries in which they served. Their entitlement to pensions, therefore, derived from legislation of the particular country, not of Britain. The pensions we are talking about were awarded under that legislation and held to be paid by the Government concerned from the local revenues. When a country achieved independence, the Government which succeeded the colonial Government assumed all the assets and liabilities of the former Administration, including responsibility for paying public service pensions.
  My hon. Friend mentioned the public officers' agreements which the British Government—this Government and their predecessors—have negotiated with newly independent Governments. These agreements did various things. First, they aimed, contrary to what my hon. Friend suggested, at safeguarding the pensions and other benefits for which the overseas expatriate officers and their dependants may be eligible. They also gave pensioners the choice as to where their pensions should be paid. Some of the, agreements allow the pensioner to change the choice which he first made. Under other agreements the pensioner who chooses to be paid outside the country which is awarding the pension can change his place of payment only by first taking up residence in the country where he wants to be paid.
  A large majority of the overseas pensioners we are discussing live in this country, and one of the important objectives of the public officers agreements has always been to safeguard the pensioner living in this country against the effects of a devaluation taking place in the overseas country where he served. These agreements therefore include a provision under which pensions which are paid externally are tied to the rate of exchange with sterling which is prevailing at a specific date, normally the date at which the country achieved independence.

  559
  The public officers agreements lay down certain minimum requirements. There is obviously nothing to prevent the overseas Governments from paying their external pensions at a rate above the guaranteed level. Some of the countries obviously did not devalue when Britain devalued in 1967, and these countries are paying pensions at the current rate of exchange to the benefit of the pensioners concerned. But most countries are applying the exchange rate provisions contained in the public officers' agreements.
  In order to corroborate the answer which I gave my hon. Friend on 14th February, I must point out that the sterling value of pensions paid outside the awarding country has not been diminished in these cases by sterling devaluation. But unfortunately—I think this is the nub of my hon. Friend's case —the pensions of a number of people living in a third country which did not devalue in line with Britain in 1967, or later, have been reduced in value in cash terms in the third country because of the way they are linked together with sterling under the public officers agreement. But neither the present Government nor their predecessors have accepted the obligation—nor can they—to protect every pensioner from currency changes that might adversely affect the value of his pension irrespective of where that pension was paid.
  I want to turn now to the specific problem raised by my hon. Friend, the position of the Malaysian pensioners. Their pensions are governed by Malaysian pensions legislation and by the Constitution. They are earned in local currency, but Malaysian law confers no entitlement to their being paid outside Malaysia, and the right of a pensioner to draw his pension outside that country derives only from the public officers agreement. This position is similar to that in many other overseas countries. The Malaysian Government have chosen to make their external pension payments not at the current rate of exchange but at the sterling level provided in the public officers agreement. In deciding this, they are entirely within their legal rights. Singapore is now outside Malaysia and is, therefore, regarded rightly by the Malaysian Government as being an external payment area. Therefore, Malaysian pensioners who live in Singapore and
  560
  draw their pensions there have suffered a loss on their pension income in terms of Singapore dollars.
  I am naturally sorry, with my hon. Friend, that they have suffered this loss, but they are no worse off than other former colleagues of theirs who are paid outside Malaysia in other countries which also did not devalue. Their position is in no way more difficult than that of many expatriate pensioners of other overseas Governments who are living in third countries and to whose pensions the exchange rate provisions of the public officers agreement are being applied. There are a number of British pensioners living abroad who have found their sterling pensions reduced in terms of local currency.
  My hon. Friend drew attention to the provision in the public officers agreement between Britain and Malaysia for external pension payments to be made in sterling and to the right of Singapore pensioners covered by the public officers agreement between Britain and Singapore to receive their money in the currency of the country in which payment is made. I admit that there are differences in the wording of the agreements with the various overseas countries, but, regardless of the differences the effect of the exchange rate provisions on external pensions is essentially the same because all pensions of this kind are converted either to sterling or, through the intermediary of sterling, to the currency in which they are paid.
  There are also differences in the various agreements in their provisions about the choice of the place of payment. All of them allow pensioners the initial choice whether to be paid inside or outside the awarding country. The Malaysian agreement requires that pensioners who have chosen to be paid outside Malaysia can change to be paid in Malaysia only by first taking up residence in that country. There are some other agreements which have similar provisions.
  I have considered the position of the Malaysian pensioners to which my hon. Friend drew attention, who, until 1954 belonged to what was known as the joint Malayan establishment and were liable for service not only in certain Malay States which now form part of

  561
  Malaysia but also in Singapore. Some of these arranged for their pension to be paid in Singapore, although only a few are now living there. As I told my hon. Friend, I asked the Malaysian Government whether they would look particularly at the position of these pensioners, but I had to tell him, on 14th February, that the Malaysian Government had said that they were not prepared to change the arrangements regarding these pensioners.
  That is a decision which my hon. Friend may find unfortunate, but it is a decision which the Malaysian Government had a perfect right to take. Therefore, it is suggested by him and by others that Her Majesty's Government should make good the difference between the cash these pensioners receive and what they would get if they were paid at the current rate of exchange between Malaysian and Singapore dollars. It is fair to point out—and my hon. Friend will take the point—that since the date of the public officers agreement any Malaysian pensioner who chose to be paid in Singapore implicitly accepted that his pension was linked to sterling.
  My hon. Friend mentioned the position of the Singapore widows and orphans. There is the question which he has raised before of dependants' benefits secured by contributions which certain former officers of the Malayan establishment are still making to the
  562
  Singapore widows' and orphans' pensions scheme. I assure him that there seems to me no problem about getting payment in Singapore dollars if that is what the widow would like to have. The Singapore Public Officers Agreement entitles her to be paid in Singapore if she wants to be, and the pension award would then be paid at the full dollar value.
  I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this matter and for giving me the opportunity of explaining at rather greater length what I believe to be a very complicated matter perhaps more easily in an Adjournment debate than is possible at Question Time and of explaining the difficulty, as I see it, of treating these pensioners differently from other categories who have also suffered loss from similar causes.
  It is perfectly natural that my hon. Friend should feel sympathetic towards these pensioners. We all respect that sympathy and the active discussion which he has arranged on their behalf. Many of us share that sympathy. But I hope that I have been able to make it clear that I do not believe that it would be right for the Government to take special action to protect a particular group who have undoubtedly suffered from devaluation but no more severely than many others.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes to Twelve o'clock.

SCOTLAND
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Fire Prevention
  Fire Prevention
  Secretary of State's Staff
  Secretary of State's Staff
  Improvement Grants
  Improvement Grants
  prisoners (Work)
  prisoners (Work)
  Government Policy (Ministerial Broadcast)
  Government Policy (Ministerial Broadcast)
  Mentally Handicapped Children (Lanarkshire)
  Mentally Handicapped Children (Lanarkshire)
  Council Houses
  Council Houses
  Domestic and Industrial Waste
  Domestic and Industrial Waste
  Central Government Functions (Devolution)
  Central Government Functions (Devolution)
  Special Hospital Units
  Special Hospital Units
  Housing (Elderly Persons)
  Housing (Elderly Persons)
  Criminal Charges (Defence Costs)
  Criminal Charges (Defence Costs)
  Sub-standard Accommodation
  Sub-standard Accommodation
  Rents
  Rents
  Privately-rented Houses
  Privately-rented Houses
  Private Hospital Patients
  Private Hospital Patients
  Corsbie Hall School
  Corsbie Hall School
  Land Prices
  Land Prices
  Edinburgh (Scottish Development Area)
  Edinburgh (Scottish Development Area)
  Housing Expenditure Subsidy (Glasgow)
  Housing Expenditure Subsidy (Glasgow)
  Health Centre, Glasgow
  Health Centre, Glasgow
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
CIVIL SERVICE
  Civil Servants (Public Criticism)
  Civil Servants (Public Criticism)
  Temporary Civil Servants (London)
  Temporary Civil Servants (London)
  Widows
  Widows
  Earnings
  Earnings
  Minister's Staff
  Minister's Staff
  Heads of Departments
  Heads of Departments
  Regional Establishments (Costs)
  Regional Establishments (Costs)
  Location (Review)
  Location (Review)
POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
  General Goods and Merchandise Traffics (Capital Expenditure)
  General Goods and Merchandise Traffics (Capital Expenditure)
  Mail Delays (Railway Dispute)
  Mail Delays (Railway Dispute)
  Piped Television
  Piped Television
  Telecommunications Equipment (Development Area Policy)
  Telecommunications Equipment (Development Area Policy)
ENVIRONMENT
  Improvement Grants
  Improvement Grants
  Vehicles (Certificates of Insurance)
  Vehicles (Certificates of Insurance)
  Motorway Maintenance
  Motorway Maintenance
  Coalite Plant (Rossington)
  Coalite Plant (Rossington)
  Cemeteries (London Boroughs)
  Cemeteries (London Boroughs)
  Metropolitan Districts
  Metropolitan Districts
  Superannuation Act, 1972
  Superannuation Act, 1972
  Sporting Organisations (Capital Grants)
  Sporting Organisations (Capital Grants)
  Canals and Waterways
  Canals and Waterways
  Big Ben
  Big Ben
  Road Accidents
  Road Accidents
  Dangerous Chemicals (Monitoring)
  Dangerous Chemicals (Monitoring)
  Alkali Inspections
  Alkali Inspections
  Heavy Vehicles (Weight)
  Heavy Vehicles (Weight)
  Water Resources Board
  Water Resources Board
  Special Environmental Grant (North-West)
  Special Environmental Grant (North-West)
  House of Commons (Staff)
  House of Commons (Staff)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Dunbartonshire (Grants)
  Dunbartonshire (Grants)
  Commercial Information (Leakage)
  Commercial Information (Leakage)
  Halifax
  Halifax
  Emergency and Rescue Service
  Emergency and Rescue Service
  Small Business Enterprise (Venture Capital)
  Small Business Enterprise (Venture Capital)
  Telecommunications Equipment (Exports)
  Telecommunications Equipment (Exports)
  Footwear Industry
  Footwear Industry
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Civil Aviation (Security)
  Civil Aviation (Security)
  Steel
  Steel
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Children (Accidents)
  Children (Accidents)
  Mr. Godfrey Mkushi
  Mr. Godfrey Mkushi
  Trials, Wales (Costs)
  Trials, Wales (Costs)
  Lotteries (Review)
  Lotteries (Review)
  Civil Servants (Salmon Committee Recommendations)
  Civil Servants (Salmon Committee Recommendations)
  United Kingdom Passports (Indian Residents)
  United Kingdom Passports (Indian Residents)
  Wheatley Report (Football Grounds)
  Wheatley Report (Football Grounds)
EMPLOYMENT
  Industrial Relations Act, 1971
  Industrial Relations Act, 1971
  Industrial Safety Clothing and Equipment
  Industrial Safety Clothing and Equipment
  Vouchers
  Vouchers
  LORD PRESIDENT'S DEPARTMENT (STAFF)
  LORD PRESIDENT'S DEPARTMENT (STAFF)
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Milk Marketing Board
  Milk Marketing Board
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Coinage
  Coinage
  Nationalised Industries (Borrowings)
  Nationalised Industries (Borrowings)
  Tax Reduction
  Tax Reduction
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Watch Tower, Londonderry
  Watch Tower, Londonderry
  Drugs
  Drugs
  Internees
  Internees
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Means-Tested Benefits
  Means-Tested Benefits
WALES
  Geriatric Hospitals
  Geriatric Hospitals
  WELSH LANGUAGE ACT, 1967
  WELSH LANGUAGE ACT, 1967
  HIGH COURT TAXATION DEPARTMENT
  HIGH COURT TAXATION DEPARTMENT

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Rochester):
The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

LORD HALE
Charles Leslie Hale, Esquire, having been created Baron Hale, of Oldham in the County Palatine of Lancaster, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Gardiner and the Lord Brockway.

NAMIBIA: FUTURE STATUS
2.41 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: 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, as a Member State of the United Nations Security Council, they have received a copy of the report by Dr. Kurt Waldheim, the Secretary General, of his discussions with Mr. Vorster regarding the future status of South West Africa (Namibia).
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, the Secretary General has not yet reported on his mission. But he has kept individual members of the Security Council informed confidentially of the steps he has taken in accordance with the terms of Security Council Resolution No. 309.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his reply. Can he inform the House whether the report will be made to the United Nations Committee administering Namibia or whether it will be made to the whole General Assembly? In either case will Her Majesty's Government remember that the League of Nations mandate and the United Nations resolu
740
tion both accepted the unity of South West Africa and its eventual development to independence?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot tell the noble Lord off the cuff to which body Dr. Waldheim will make his report. I will endeavour to find out and let the noble Lord know the answer. As he will know, Dr. Waldheim is hound under the terms of the resolution to report before July 31. I will take note of the second part of the noble Lord's supplementary question.

M.4 MOTORWAY CONSTRUCTION
LORD MORRIS LORD MORRIS had given notice of his intention to ask the following Question:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to protect the taxpayer from the machinations of the contractors for the building of the M.4 which, opened as recently as December 22, now reveals cracks in the slow lane and hard shoulder necessitating the reduction of the motorway so far to two lanes.
LORD NUGENT or GUILDFORD: My Lords, before the Question on the Order Paper in the name of Lord Morris is answered, I wish to call attention to the offensive phraseology in the second line of the Question. For the information of the House, may I briefly refer to the paragraph under which I wish to call attention to the matter? It is on page 78 of the Companion and reads:
"The decision whether or not a Question 'is in order' and may properly be asked is in the last resort one for the House itself."
It goes on to say:
"Although the House allows considerably more latitude than does the House of Commons, there are certain categories of Question which are generally regarded as not being in accordance with the traditions of the House, i.e., are considered inadmissible. Such questions are … those phrased offensively."
The phrase in the Question, "the machinations of the contractors" is offensive and ought not to appear on the Order Paper.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I support what the noble Lord has said? The House has the power to deny the right of a noble Lord to ask a Question, and in my opinion it is a gross

741
breach of the customs of the House that this language should be used in a Question.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, I have considerable sympathy with what my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford and the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition have said. This is a matter which lies entirely within the discretion of your Lordships' House. "Machination", so far as I understand it from a quick glance at the dictionary, refers to laying plots or intrigues. This does not seem to me appropriate or Parliamentary wording. My own suggestion to the noble Lord, Lord Morris, is that it would be better if he were not to ask this Question and were to re-phrase it.

VALUE-ADDED TAX AND WORKS OF ART
BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider exempting the work of living painters and sculptors from the payment of value-added tax.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government will give careful consideration to the representations which have been made about the application of value-added tax to works of art generally. But I should like to remind your Lordships that V.A.T. is by its nature a wide-ranging tax and my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has indicated the need to keep exceptions to a minimum. The noble Baroness will of course be aware that it is proposed that there should be a general exemption from V.A.T. for suppliers with a turnover in taxable goods and services not exceeding £5,000 per annum.
BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl for his reply. I hope that in consultation with his Treasury colleagues and others he will understand the importance of exempting living artists and sculptors from this tax.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, it is no secret that there are Amendments down for early discussion at the Committee stage on the Finance Bill in another place which bear on the Question of the noble Baroness. I will bring to the attention of my right honourable friend and his colleagues the comments which the noble Baroness has made.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, are the Government aware that at the present time the foreign buyer will get a 10 per cent. advantage over the British buyer? How do they intend to stop the flow of works abroad if the export of our national artistic heritage will be subsidised in this way?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am not quite certain that the noble Lord's supplementary question bears directly on the point which the noble Baroness has made. It bears more on the question of auctions and auctioneers, rather than on the work of living painters and sculptors. I do not feel that it is appropriate for me to dilate at any great length on this matter when it is due to come up for consideration at the Committee stage in another place.

SOLIHULL CORPORATION BILL
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
SUNDERLAND CORPORATION BILL
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

TRAINING FOR THE FUTURE
2.48 p.m.
BARONESS SEEAR BARONESS SEEAR rose to call attention to the consultative document, Training for the Future; and to move for Papers. The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I rise to call attention to this consultative document which is published by the Department of Employment. Those of your Lordships' House who have never been directly concerned with questions of industrial training may reasonably feel that this is a matter largely of technical and administrative

743
concern and not a question which has wider policy implications of general importance. This would be a reasonable view but it would be a wrong conception. Training is an essential element and has a real contribution to make both towards economic policy and in social policy. It is important for economic policy because, as we are all too frequently reminded, we are suffering apparently from continuous inflation; we have large wage claims, and a continuous expectation of rising standards of living. None of us knows the way in which this greatly important problem can be dealt with, but there is no doubt that training, in so far as it enhances the value of the contribution of work done by men and women, makes it easier to meet the cost of rising wages, and to this extent helps in containing inflation. The greater the value of the work done, the nearer therefore does the increase in the level of productivity match the expectation and the wage demands of people claiming additional pay. Their training can assist us—it is only one element, but it can assist us—with our major economic problem.
It can also assist us with our economic problem in a related but slightly different way. There can be little doubt that over the next decade we need to see (as, indeed, over the past decade we ought to have seen) a considerable restructuring of British industry and movement away from declining into expanding types of work. But as we learn anew almost daily, such changes are fiercely resisted—fiercely resisted, in the long run, to the economic cost of the country and of the industry and, very often, of the people themselves who resist. But this resistance is of course entirely reasonable and understandable when men see change in industry bringing them personally to the end of their known way of work and when the future holds little hope for them. It is here that training for an increasing number of people, as our knowledge of how to train increases, makes easier movement from job to job and the application of new technology, on which so much of our economic progress depends—progress which is within our grasp if we could only persuade people that for them personally, as well as for the economy as a whole, such changes are beneficial. Here, too, training has a major contribution.
I said that training was important not only in relation to economic policy but also in relation to social policy. I suppose there are few people who do not support the idea of equality of opportunity, although our interpretation of what is meant by that phrase might well vary considerably. But too often we think of equality of opportunity solely in terms of academic and school education, and of opportunities available for children and for young adults. Yet, over the next decade at any rate, perhaps the most important field for equality of opportunity lies in equality of opportunity for access to good jobs; and access to good jobs means training. So, on both the economic and the social fronts these pro posed changes, and the whole issue of training policy, is of very considerable importance.
I would remind your Lordships very briefly of the present situation and what are the criticisms of the present situation before we turn to consider the new proposals and to ask ourselves to what extent these new proposals in fact meet the criticisms of our present state. Your Lordships will recall that in 1964 the Industrial Training Act was passed in order to improve the quantity and quality of training in this country and to spread the cost of training more equitably. In order to do this, under the Minister of Labour were set up industrial training boards—there are 27 at the present time; tripartite boards on which sat representatives of employers and of trade unions and of educationists. Their financial instrument, both in spreading cost and as an incentive to get training done in industry, was the system of the levy and the grant—the best known aspect, I think, of the Industrial Training Act and the work of the industrial training boards. This system has been with us since 1964, and there has been, and there is to-day, considerable criticism of the way in which this system is working, hence the proposed new scheme outlined in the document we are discussing.
There are a number of criticisms. I will refer your Lordships only to what appear to me to be the most important and those which are taken up in the new suggestions. A major criticism, which was inherent in the 1964 Act itself, and I think in the attitude of all of us towards training at the time the Act was passed, is that training as we have seen

745
it is concentrated on the economic aspect of training, the benefit to the industry and the national economy; to too small an extent have we taken account of the social aspect and the opportunity which training gives to the individual.
This criticism is reinforced by the approach to training embodied in the Treaty of Rome, Article 128, and spelt out in Principles of Training, which has been promulgated by the Commission in Brussels and which to some extent has been reflected in legislation in both France and Germany. There the accent is being put to an increasing extent on the right of the individual to train in order to get greater opportunity for personal development and personal advancement; and this is being laid against the purely economic emphasis which has been characteristic of training in this country. It is not fair to blame the industrial training boards for this, for it was never in their mandate to deal with this aspect. In so far as there was a mandate for training of this kind, it is provided for under the Education Act 1948 and carried out through the vocational training schemes in the Government training centres. It is generally agreed, and submitted in this report, that the number of people in the industrial training centres, even to-day under 20,000 a year, is woefully inadequate to meet the needs of individuals.
The second major criticism, also implicit in the legislation as it was passed, which organised training on an industry basis, is that it allows insufficiently for movement from industry to industry. Since the training schemes are organised by industries for industries, it is not surprising that inadequate provision exists, when an industry is running down, to enable men and women to move from that industry into expanding industries. Yet, as I said a few moments ago, this is in fact one of the most important economic and indeed social problems in this country at the present time. A third criticism is that there are gaps: that not all people are covered by the industrial training boards; that there are several million people who in fact do not come under any kind of industrial training board at all. Fourthly, and best known, is irritation with, and criticism of, the way in which the levy/grant scheme has been operating. It is a scheme which, without doubt, has involved a tremendous
746
amount of time and paper work in industry, and at the end of the day the great mass of the money collected, with much labour, is passed back and redistributed to industry itself. It is argued: is this really the most sensible way in which to finance training, and surely it is in itself expensive and time consuming. These, then, are the major criticisms.
In the proposals put forward in this pamphlet the Government have two major prongs to attack the criticisms. The first is the training opportunities scheme, which is designed to implement the social aspects of training to meet the criticism that our present scheme does too little for the individual who, realising that up till now his training has been inadequate or that the occupation in which he is engaged has no real future, wishes to take advantage of the new opportunities which are opening up but which will be closed to him unless he can obtain the appropriate training.
I think there can be nothing but wholehearted support for the Training Opportunities Scheme, the greatly enhanced scale on which the Government are prepared to finance training and the very much more generous system of allowances which accompany these proposals. I can only regret that although the aim is for 100,000 places a year, in contrast to under 20,000 at Government training centres at the present time, over-modestly the Government are expecting to got only between 60,000 and 70,000 by the end of 1975. It is highly regrettable that in the documents they admit that at the present time they have a long waiting list of something like 10,000 people applying for training to whom they are unable to give it.
Having said that, however, I should add that the objective of the training opportunities scheme is undoubtedly to be supported, provided—and this is an important proviso—that the study of future manpower requirements is sufficiontly skilful and accurate to give a reasonable certainty that people will not train themselves for jobs which in fact are not going to exist. It is little encouragement to people to give them grants and the opportunity to train if, at the end of the day, they find there is no job available. It is not very much good in many cases if the

747
job is going to come some months, or even years, after the training is completed, This training requires quick application at the end of the training period otherwise the skills may well degenerate and prove to be of little use when the opportunity ultimately arises. But with that one proviso in my view the Training Opportunities Scheme should be uncontroversial and should b given a very warm welcome.
The second prong is much more open to question. The Government propose to establish a National Training Agency to take an over-view of training in the country and to provide the finance, broadly speaking, for the development of training. There is the anticipation accompanied by the running down of the grant/levy system which has been operated by the industrial training boards. This scheme meets some of the criticisms which have been raised about existing procedures. It fills the gaps; it makes it possible, provided that the manpower information is there, to match training needs more nearly to manpower forecasts. But many people think—and I am one of them—that the tendency is far too centralised. Training is diverse; we do not know the answers in many cases, and what works in one case does not necessarily work in another. I cannot but be suspicious of the idea that something as various and as elusive as training needs is well controlled from the centre.
Again the text says—and it is no doubt the intention—that the National Training Agency will work through the industrial training boards, which will stay in existence. This is really the crux of the matter: do we wish the industrial training boards to stay in existence or do we not? It appears to be assumed in this document that although the National Training Agency will control the funds, and although, perhaps even more significantly, it will employ the professional staff and second them to the industrial training boards, the work of the industrial training boards will none the less continue. I do not believe that this is so. I believe that if the National Training Agency fulfils the role outlined for it in this document the boards will be greatly emaciated and that their work will seriously run down. It is argued that they have established the idea of
748
training in British industry. This seems to me to be highly optimistic. In some sectors of British industry this is true, but habits do not change as fast as that. The Act was passed only in 1964 and many of the training boards have been set up only in the last three or four years. I believe that unless the training boards are still actively in doing the work that they have done in the past will gradually—or not so gradually—disappear in many areas, and we shall go back to the slothful attitude towards training which has characterised so many areas of British industry in the past.
Why do I not think that the training boards will continue to be there to prod. to suggest, to research the very important part on which little emphasis is placed here if the National Training Agency assumes both financial and personnel responsibility for the work of the boards? Because, my Lords, I do not believe that we shall get the calibre of people needed to run the boards unless they are to a large extent still in charge of their own affairs. If they have to go more or less cap in hand to the Agency to get their training programmes approved, then the employers, trade unionists and educationists on the board will say: "We are not prepared to act as agents for the National Training Agency. We are the people who understand best what the training needs here are, and we are the people who should have the last say." But if the money is somewhere else and the control of staff is somewhere else you do not have the last say. I think this would also be so because it seems to me that the tripartite pattern of the training boards still has a great deal to offer. Surely it is an achievement in these days when industrial relationships between management and trade unions are by no means as smooth and easy as they might be, that on the training boards we get trade unionists and employers threshing out this central problem together. Here is an ongoing, worthwhile example of collaboration, with the friction to a large extent taken out of it, which it would be the greatest pity to destroy, particularly at the present moment. So I would hate to see the training boards gradually run down, and I believe this is what the proposals of the National Training Agency in fact mean, despite what it is saying. For this reason I very much hope that the Government will think again about

749
the National Training Agency proposals and their attitude towards the training boards.
But I have a much more profound disquiet about these new proposals than the effect that they will have on the industrial training boards. Some months ago another document was produced by the Department of Employment, entitled People and Jobs. This document, People and Jobs, deals with manpower forecasting, with the guidance of individual men and women wishing to explore the labour market and to look for jobs, and it deals with the placing service of men and women in jobs. The powers-that-be have decided, in their wisdom, that there shall be one agency within the Department of Employment which will deal with these three elements—manpower forecasting, careers advice and placing. They have decided that this will be a departmental agency while the national training agency envisaged in this document is a hived-off body, reporting, it is true, to the Secretary of State outside the Department of Employment, financed and staffed—and I think this is excellent—not by civil servants but by men and women drawn from industry and from education.
So we are having a new start. But what sort of a new start? We are splitting right down the middle this whole held of employment and training, which is really an organically related whole. Surely it is essential to do what the Swedes do and to have the four facets of the jobs, which are so closely inter-related, in one organisation, not two. It seems to me, reading between as well as reading the lines, that there has been much argument about this. We are told that for the present there may not be this integration. We are told the time is not ripe for some kind of national manpower commission, national labour market board, whatever name you like to use. But why? Surely it is absolutely essential that these aspects of the job should be tied up together and handled by one organisation. Those of us who have watched the work of the Youth Employment Service in the past know how much that work was bedevilled by inter-departmental friction. I do not mince my words. We know there are bureaucratic difficulties about making this kind of scheme work. But if we are starting anew, for goodness sake! let us start anew aright.
Therefore, because above all else I want to see one organisation, not two, I urge your Lordships to urge the Government to think again, not only about the more minor criticisms I have made but also about the need to have one unified scheme, hived off. I am all in favour of that, and I am delighted the suggestion is that it should be largely staffed by people drawn from industry and education rather than from the Civil Service. I am fully aware of the implications of what I am saying. I have seen this work in Sweden. I am deeply interested in the way it is working there. I believe it is along this line that the future lies if we are to have successful use of the men and women of this country, and it is for them, after all, that these schemes are made. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.13 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will thank the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and the Liberal Party for enabling us to discuss this highly important document, which I hope is consultative in fact as well as in name, because then the Government will be able to take some account of the speeches made in this House to-day and the criticism and helpful advice that is coming from knowledgeable people in industry on the industrial training boards. The noble Baroness, in a speech of somewhere near twenty-five minutes, has given us a clear exposition of her point of view, and she has done it, as usual, apparently without reference to a single note, and, unlike so many who boast of their ability to speak without notes, without unnecessary repetition, without straying into the bypaths of parenthesis from which so many of them find it difficult to return—if in fact they ever do—to the main road. The noble Baroness has a lucidity and grasp which I envy her.
It is just over eight years since from this Box I welcomed the Bill which became the Industrial Training Act 1964. I then welcomed particularly Government intervention in a field known to have too many bare patches, in that there was a failure on the part of some employers to engage in any sort of training at all; but they were only too ready to poach the products of firms which did have training schemes for their craftsmen and

751
others. I ended my speech then by saying:
"This is a small Bill but a vast subject. It attempts not merely to face up to the task of making up for past deficiencies in our training methods, but to reach forward to the requirements of industry 10 or 20 years hence. It tries to lay foundations."—[0FFICIAL REPORT, 6/2/64; col. 284.]
Obviously the Government think—and I agree with them—that the time has come to examine what has been built on those foundations. How good is the structure that has arisen from the Act? What are its weaknesses and what is it lacking to enable it to provide the training required by employers and the retraining needed by the economy to enable the redeployment of manpower where technological advance makes that necessary. This last part is very necessary. It is clear that in the future men are not going to do as I did—enter industry at the age of thirteen and expect to be in the same sort of job until retiring at sixty-five or so. It is true I did not do that; I went eventually into the place down below.
But I do not think that the chances of remaining in the same sort of job all one's life will exist in the future. Technological change will mean change of job.
I think that the strongest part of the structure built upon the Act is that of the industrial training boards, which train people for their own industries, and the weakest part that so many people axe outside the scope and influence of a board at all. As I understand it, almost one-third of the working population remains outside the scope of any board to-day. Added to that is the fact that a major difficulty, which many of us suspected would show itself, is that where an I.T.B. is catering for the primary activity of a firm, the need for the training of staff which falls to be parcelled out among a number of boards tends to be dealt with sketchily or not really catered for at all. As one knowledgeable observer has put it:
"The determination of scope of a board by the major activity of a company has left the responsibility for training in a number of major occupations split between a number of boards, with no satisfactory system of ensuring common training standards or achieving training objectives within those occupations."
752
If that is the case, then clearly the Central Training Council has failed to do what it was originally intended it should do. It is probably not the fault of the Council itself, but rather the fault of the limited nature of the Industrial Training Act.
With experience gained as a result of this Act to help us, what now has to be done to relate training and retraining to the manpower requirements not only of to-day but also of to-morrow? During the last few days I have read many of the reports of those engaged in industrial training board work and much of the available literature on the topic of training for industry. Almost invariably reference is made by the authors to the need for a firm statistical base for assessing future training activities within the sphere of an I.T.B. itself. It is also obvious, surely, that when we turn to the wider field there is a need for such a statistical base for an assessment of manpower trends on a nationwide basis. The Government are, of course, aware of this. For example, in the employment document, the one mentioned by the noble Baroness, People in Jobs, a document sub-titled, A Modern Employment Service, we read under the heading of "Manpower Intelligence":
"A modernised employment service should play a more useful part in providing intelligence about local labour markets."
After mentioning that the Department is to experiment in nine areas, it says:
"As well as making more use of statistical and other sources of manpower information, greater emphasis will be placed on obtaining indications of developments which will affect manpower demand."
My Lords, that document—and in my opinion it is also worthy of study by anyone who is interested at all in the manpower problems of this country—ended in this way:
"The Secretary of State believes that the general direction of the Employment Service by the Chief Executive would benefit if a general council on manpower services' were to he established under the Secretary of State to discuss the main lines of development of all the manpower services. A council of this kind could include representatives of management, trade unions and other interests, together with the Chief Executive of the Employment Service, and those responsible for industrial training. This would ensure that manpower policies were developed on a co-ordinated basis."
We are bound to agree in the main with that but it seems to me that everything in that document, and the consultative document we are considering to-day,

753
points to the need for a single manpower agency under one Ministry charged with responsibility for gathering manpower, intelligence for training for job placement and—this is additional to what is mentioned in People and Jobs—for job creation when the employment situation demands more employment provision. I would group all this under one body and I would give it authority and executive power. In that I go only a little farther than did the noble Baroness when she was speaking.
Turning more specifically to the document, I am bound to say that, so far as its assessment of the existing state of training is concerned, I find little fault with it. It boldly admits to failures. It sets out some of the achievements but it boldly admits to failures. But perhaps I ought to mention the chief criticism made of the boards that I have heard from those actively engaged in the work of the industrial training boards. It is that they, the people so engaged, tend to be overburdened by the weight of administrative details and particularly by the amount of detail required in connection with grant claims. That is the sort of thing which is, I suppose, inevitable in the sort of circumstances in which claims based on ascertainable performance have to be made.
So much, briefly, for the assessment of the work under the Act so far. Clearly what now has to be done is to turn our minds to what the document calls "the way forward". Of the four needs set out in paragraph 63 of the document, my biggest doubts arise from the third; namely, the
"replacement of the present general levy/grant system by more selective grants for training activities essential to the needs of industries … as a whole".
There is no doubt that the imposition of a levy shocked many firms out of their complacency and made them realise that just sitting back and poaching the results of other's training could not go on. Such firms would have to pay, and did have to pay, their share of the cost of training done by others or introduce training themselves up to an acceptable level, which would enable them to reclaim, to claim back, to call back, to grab back, the levy that they had paid. This was something very much to be put to the achievement of the Industrial industry the minimum cost of training
754
Training Act 1964. The problem was placed fairly and squarely on to the board of directors' agenda, for money has to be provided to pay the levy or sufficient training done to ensure a grant return.
The requirement to pay a levy is essential. I think it is still essential to overcome industry's training inertia. What I fear is that if the "stick" and the "carrot" are removed and the stimulus to action is left to the prodding of the national training agency, there will be inevitably a tendency to sit back and leave it to "them". It is a trait of human beings' minds to blame them"—that is, the Government or some such body—or just to leave difficult problems to "them". I do it myself when I can. I would not suggest that such an attitude would become universal but it would be understandable if it became widespread, because we all tend to value something we pay for. And surely it is the case that industry should pay for the training of its own employees.
My Lords, there were some extracts from the report of the Engineering Industry Training Board given in The Times yesterday with much of which I agree and especially this:
"Although the elimination of levy-grant would of course he attractive to many firms, the engineering industry cannot afford the widespread rejection of responsibilities for developing key skills which would occur if this abrupt step were taken now.…
It is not just the size of the 'carrot' which matters. The 'stick' plus 'carrot' scheme still is highly effective. For larger firms, the motivation undoubtedly rests on the existence of the levy and the opportunity to avoid it."
In connection with the proposals to phase out the levy/grant system and the retention of the industrial training boards, we shall see boards spending money provided by the taxpayer. And in this connection one wonders whether Government expenditure would be kept anywhere near the suggested figure of £25 million to £40 million a year as the total cost of the Agency's and the boards' work. On the basis of the higher of the two figures I have just mentioned, and subtracting from that, say, £15 million to enable the Agency to provide for the proposed advisory service and for administrative costs, some £25 million would be left for the training carried on by the boards. I understand that in one important

755
amounts to £5 per employee engaged in the industry. That is not, of course, the cost of training the individual trainee but a calculation of the amount spent by the industry when divided by the total of its employees. On that basis, if the figure of £25 million is spread over the totality of comparable employees in the country, the amount available would not be £5 per employee but £1. To maintain the existing standard of training in that industry, the industry that I have just mentioned, with 4 per cent. of the total manpower of the nation, it would require 20 per cent. of the agency's available resources. My Lords, that simply is not on.
Still on the possible phasing out of the levy/grant system, I must admit to finding it a little difficult to understand what is meant by some of the document's suggestions. In paragraph 151 we read:
"The Government propose to introduce legislation to relieve Boards of the obligation to raise a levy.… It would remain open to Boards to propose some further continuance of a general levy/grant scheme after that date if they were satisfied that this was essential."
That seems to me to presuppose that boards might not receive in National Training Agency grants sufficient to enable them to carry on a reasonable level of training. If that were the case and an industry agreed to the continuance of a levy, it would mean that the industry was paying twice for its training: once through taxation, and once through the levy. Surely, if the compulsory levy/grant system is to go, it is not to be expected that the combination of Government and Training Agency would be satisfied to provide grant on such a low scale as to make satisfactory training impossible. I should be very grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, when he comes to reply, or whoever winds up at the end of the debate, would deal with that point.
On the other aspect of finance I welcome the assurance, in connection with "training to meet the needs of individuals", that trainees will receive adequate allowances during training, and that if they have to move their homes in order to get a job after training, additional financial assistance will be provided. The sort of assistance they get will be vital to the success of training as a help to securing manpower mobility and job changing.
756
The proposal to set up a National Training Agency is to be welcomed, for the Agency is to be given a much more positive role than was given to the Central Training Council by the 1964 Act. But I have some doubts, as the noble Baroness obviously had, about hiving it off, particularly if that means isolating it from the rest of the manpower services and making its connection with the other parts of that service merely through representatives on a General Council of Manpower Services. I fear that such a General Council might be limited to discussion and giving advice to the Secretary of State, rather than to be, as I suggested earlier in my speech, part of a single agency with executive responsibility for gathering manpower intelligence; for training and re-training; for ensuring occupational mobility; for job placement: and for job creation. I am sure that that would not be beyond the bounds of possibility. A small country like Sweden has managed to do it. It is true that their scale is much less than ours—the size of the nation, their industries, and so on—which perhaps makes it easier for them to do it, but I do not believe that it is beyond our power to do that sort of thing, and to bring all these services into a single agency, and an agency with some powers. That would certainly bring coherence to what is now incoherent.
My Lords, there is no time in a speech of reasonable length to discuss every aspect of this document. To some extent I have followed the noble Baroness and stressed perhaps more some of the points she made, while she has dealt so well with some of the points on which I have not touched. I have not been able to discuss every aspect of the document. All I have tried to do is to fasten on to one or two important proposals and to make a suggestion or two. But I am bound to end on a note of praise for those who prepared the document, because it is a first-class work, and it is readable. Its form is such that it does not frighten you, as so many Green Papers and documents of the sort do when you pick them up. It is readable, as I have said, and it is well prepared. It is an excellent work of appraisal of something comparatively new. I am delighted to be able to participate in this debate, initiated by the noble Baroness, on so important a topic.
3.35 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, first of all I should like to thank the noble Baroness very warmly for calling the attention of the House to industrial training and to this document at such an opportune time when we are in a period of consultation on the proposals set out in Training for the Future, for doing it with such clarity and for highlighting so well the major issues. It is indeed timely to debate this important subject. The House has not debated it for over two years—since January, 1970, when my noble friend Lord Birdwood introduced a debate on the need for industrial training and the working of the Industrial Training Act in what was then recognised as an outstanding speech. I have re-read that debate, and I am glad that some of the speakers in it, including my noble friend Lord Mottistone and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, intend to speak in this debate also.
I think I can best serve the purposes of the House if I explain the aims of the White Paper, and I hope that I shall be able to draw attention to the issues involved and so get the kind of advice and help that we are looking for from the House to-day. In the past two years, I think that industry has come to feel that a review of the working of the Industrial Training Act was necessary. At the last General Election the Conservative Party committed itself in its Election Manifesto to do just that. There has been a fundamental review of industrial training carried out within the context of the Government's overall manpower policy, and the document Training for the Future is the outcome.
First of all, may I emphasise, as Mr. Robert Carr did when he introduced Training for the Future in another place on February 1, that the proposals in this consultative document are meant for discussion and consultation. The noble Lord, Lord Champion, opened by expressing some concern that this was a consultative document only in name and not in fact. I can entirely reassure him on that point: the proposals in this consultative document are meant for discussion and consultation, except, of course, for the Training Opportunities Scheme itself, about which I shall be saying something in a moment. The proposals are
758
based on the belief that we must have an adequate supply of properly trained manpower if the country is to sustain economic growth and to maintain that growth in the future. As the document says, we need properly trained workers to be available in the right place at the right time. In the past, as the noble Baroness acknowledged, there have been shortages of skilled manpower which have created bottlenecks in industrial expansion ever since the war, and we must do our utmost to avoid that in the future. It is immensely important for the country as a whole, and particularly for the regions and in the context of our entry into Europe, that we should succeed. We must also provide better opportunities for individuals, both male and female, to develop their skills and use their abilities to the full.
The consultative document begins by reaffirming the interpretation that I have just given of the aims of the Industrial Training Act, as formulated by the Central Training Council, and goes on to distinguish the component elements of training policy. It is important that we should be clear about this, because I thought at one point in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Champion, that I detected some slight confusion. The document stresses the clear distinction between training given by individual employers to their own workers to meet their own immediate and foreseeable needs; training going beyond those needs but necessary to meet the foreseeable needs of industry as a whole; training of individuals beyond both those needs to meet national needs; training of individuals to acquire new skills for new and better jobs; and the contribution of education. All these form part of the whole and have to be co-ordinated. But they are functionally distinguishable, and the burden of primary responsibility for them cannot all be laid on the same shoulders.
I should like to deal, first, with the responsibility for providing training facilities for individuals. In this we believe that an important responsibility rests with the Government. I shall deal with that first, partly because the Government have already announced their decision to expand Government-sponsored training, and partly because it is not part of the document, which is intended for

759
consultation. There are two aspects of this responsibility—the purely economic, and the social and economic. As the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, said in the debate in January, 1970:
"… the economic role of the G.T.C.s is that of providing accelerated vocational training in trades where the degree of skill required and the extent of demand from industry for the products of training is such as to justify substantial Government expenditure in providing off-the-job training facilities". —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21/1/70; col. 210.]
This sort of training is to meet future needs of industry which can be foreseen, but which it is not within the capacity of industry, for one reason or another, to provide at the time. That is not to say that the training need necessarily be provided wholly in G.T.C.s, but it is the responsibility of Government to see that training provision is made.
On the social and economic side there are the needs of the handicapped to be considered, about which I shall say a word later. But in this field we are dealing mainly with people who need training because their jobs have been overtaken by technological change, or because they chose the wrong job in the first place, or because they want to improve their skills and status and cannot get the training they require from their employers. The Government have three aims in this area. First, there is a need to provide facilities for training for those who cannot find an employer to train them. Secondly, we must offer people sufficient financial help to attract them to avail themselves of the Government's training facilities, as the noble Baroness made clear. Thirdly, we must try to change attitudes, so that people are more willing to take a course of training and so to improve their chances of getting the sort of job they want, even if it involves moving to another area—and here, again, the Government are giving assistance.
The Government's Vocational Training Scheme has a long history, but the present period of expansion started in 1963. In 1962, there were only 2,500 places in Government training centres. By July, 1971., there were 11,000 places at more than 50 G.T.C.s. There are courses in about 50 skilled trades, mainly in the engineering and construction industries. Most courses last six months. Courses are also run at colleges of further education and private colleges and on
760
employers' premises. Many people who apply for training under the Vocational Training Scheme are unemployed. To encourage them to undertake training, tax-free allowances are paid which are considerably above the rates of unemployment benefit. But even now, with high unemployment, one-third of all applicants have jobs—but jobs with which they are dissatisfied. To encourage people to move to where the jobs are, the Department of Employment's new Employment Transfer Scheme was announced last month. Under the new scheme the biggest help—including a £600 rehousing grant—is offered to workers who have undergone a substantial course of training at Government expense.
The present Vocational Training Scheme has serious limitations. The number of people at present being trained—18,400 in 1971—is relatively small, especially in comparison with the numbers in Germany and Sweden. The range of courses is limited, with few opportunities for training above skilled level. There is a need for better coordination with industry's own efforts. For many courses there are long waiting lists. Accordingly, in Training for the Future a massive expansion of Government training is announced. This will be called the Training Opportunities Scheme. Our aim is to train 100,000 people a year as soon as possible, with an intermediate target of not less than 60,000 to 70,000 a year by 1975. The noble Baroness said that this is a modest aim, but it is no mean task. It will involve nearly quadrupling the number of people in training in the five years between 1970 and 1975.
To reach these targets, the Government training centres are to be expanded, and more use will be made of facilities in colleges and in employers' premises. We also propose that the range of courses available under the new scheme should be expanded. At the semi-skilled level, we want to train more people, not only in a wider range of industrial occupations, but for clerical and commercial jobs as well. At the more highly skilled levels, we would also wish to see greater opportunities for people to prepare themselves for new jobs and new careers as technicians and managers: and to a limited extent we hope to provide

761
more opportunities to train for the professions for those people who missed their chance earlier in life, or to re-train professional people to meet industrial change and technological advance.
I very much agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Champion, said about the need for re-training, and the possibility that people may have to change their jobs two or three times during their lifetime. In all these cases, the aim will be to help the adult individual to prepare himself or herself for a chosen occupation. This may require some training, some education or, more likely, a combination of both. The Government see the education service as having a major contribution to make in the Scheme and its programmes, first and foremost in providing further education; but also, we should hope, in helping to provide some of the training.
The widening of the range of vocational courses will bring especial benefit to disabled people, since the new Scheme is meant to cater for the requirements of the individual, whatever his or her circumstances. We have of course long recognised the special needs of the disabled, and courses ranging from semiskilled work to preparation for the professions have been available to suit disabled people for many years. In particular, the full professional courses which we already arrange for the disabled attract grants comparable to those for mature students. With the introduction of the Training Opportunities Scheme, the range and geographical spread of vocational courses will be greatly increased.
It seems to us that what is needed is a change of attitude on the part of all concerned. I was a little surprised that the noble Baroness did not mention the special position of women. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State, in addressing the Institute of Personnel Management on April 28, recognised that the opportunities for training open to women and girls were far too restricted and said that in developing the Training Opportunites Scheme he wanted to provide more training for women. Opportunities for men and women should be equal—and the noble Baroness mentioned this in passing—but whatever pro
762
vision is made it has to be related to the extent to which men and women are prepared to avail themselves of the opportunities.
All this is going to cost money. The noble Lord went into this aspect. In 1970, Government training schemes were costing £25 million. In 1975, when the 60,000 to 70,000 a year level is reached, the cost will have gone up to about £60 million a year. I shall come later to the question of cost under the industrial training boards. Eventually, when the target of 100,000 trainees a year is reached, the cost may be of the order of £80 million to £90 million a year. The Government believe that there is a considerable untapped demand for training, but we recognise that the new Scheme will have to be marketed effectively. A modest campaign for the present Scheme was begun last August. Since then, the number of applicants for training has doubled, from 1,000 a week last summer to 2,000 a week in December. But with the new targets a major effort will be needed to make more people conscious of the benefits of training. We shall also need to pay greater attention to the selection of the most suitable courses to achieve this end.
Another major consideration in this Training Opportunities Scheme is the need for better information about the likely future demand for skilled labour—and both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord have laid great stress on this. Again, I shall come later, when I come to deal with the National Training Agency, to a consideration of whether there should be one organisation or two. Neither we nor other Western countries have been conspicuously successful since the Second World War in forecasting national manpower needs, but in future we mean to do better. We intend to build up local and regional information about the labour market in co-operation with the up-to-date employment service which has been organised within the Department of Employment and is now taking shape. Even when the new Training Opportunities Scheme has reached its target of 100,000, trainees a year it will be making only a relatively small contribution to the country's total training effort, though by no means an unimportant one. At any one time over a million people are being

763
given some form of systematic training in industry, and it is estimated that about two million people a year are given some training in industry. Most training necessarily takes place in industry and will continue to be the employer's responsibility.
That brings me to the proposals for training within industry and a review of the work of the industrial training boards. As the noble Baroness said, the Industrial Training Act 1964, under which the industrial training boards were established, was necessary for two main reasons; namely, the wide variation in the quality of training then given by many employers, and the shortages of skilled manpower which had persistently held up economic expansion since the war. I am sure that most of your Lordships will have read the document, and will have read Annex I, a review of the I.T.B. system As the noble Baronesss said, there are now 27 statutory boards. They employ 5,000 staff and had a total levy income in 1970–71—I do not think this point was mentioned—of over £200 million. They spent nearly £200 million in training grants, £10 million on advisory and other training services and £5 million on administration. As the consultative document says, the boards have great achievements to their credit. Since they were set up, training is considered by ton management and in the boardroom to an extent that it never was before the levy/grant system was introduced.
As the consultative document also observes, the training boards have provided an urgently needed shock treatment to British industry, not least through the levy/grant system. They have brought together management, unions and educationists. As a result, there have been significant improvements in industrial training, and particularly in the quality of training. The proportion of insured young people under 18 getting day release for further education has risen steadily, though not spectacularly, to about one-quarter. The quality of training has evidently improved; new standards and new programmes of training have been introduced, such as that for engineering apprentice craftsmen and technicians; and in some cases the periods of training have been reduced. There is much more interest in management train-
764
ing than there used to be. These are substantial achievements.
The boards have all developed advisory services, and some of them consultancy services. They have also been successful in encouraging smaller firms to establish group training schemes, of which there are now over 700, as compared with 60 in 1964. They cover something like 10,000 firms and 1·4 million or so workers. My Lords, the essential feature of the industrial training boards system is that each board consists of three elements—the employers, the trade unions and the educationists, who are appointed by the Secretary of State to supervise the training activities of an industry and to arrange with further education bodies for outside training and educational facilities to be provided.
The consultative document does not propose any change in that. It assesses the work of the I.T.B.s and reaches the conclusion that for many industries the board system is well adapted to help individual firms with their training needs and to encourage those training activities of value to the industry as a whole; and that much of the work of the boards must be maintained and expanded, in particular the advising of firms, the setting of sound standards of training, the development in conjunction with the education service of good programmes of training with associated further education, and the stimulating of the establishment of group training schemes. However, it also concludes that the general levy/grant schemes should not be regarded as permanent, though in the case of certain activities of particular importance to the economy the need will remain for financial incentives, which should be on a selective basis. Those of your Lordships who attended the debate two years ago will recall that it was at that time generally agreed that the levy/grant system should not be regarded as permanent, although there was a considerable range of estimates as to how long it would be required.
Finally, they conclude that some kind of central organisation will be needed to fill the gaps which the I.T.B. system cannot fill and to deal with occupations which are common to many or to all industries. My Lords, this is common ground: I note that it has been accepted, both by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear,

765
and by the noble Lord, Lord Champion, but for the question of the levy/grant system. I do not propose to discuss in detail the reasons given in the document why the levy/grant system should be brought to an end. There is evidence of widespread dissatisfaction with the system, which is reflected by some firms ignoring some of the best work of the boards; for example, their advisory services. Suffice it to say that one of the principal concepts of the levy/grant system was the evening out of the incidence of training costs. The idea was—and the noble Lord referred to this—that if firms did not themselves train workers and apprentices then they should contribute, through the levy, towards the training costs incurred by firms who did, since non-training firms would in many cases recruit workers who had been trained by other firms. But as more and more firms have increased their training activities, either individually or jointly, the redistributive function of the levy has declined in importance.
Moreover, the system tends to penalise those firms or sectors in an industry which have a small turnover of labour. In some cases it has proved difficult to work out a levy/grant system accepted on all sides as fair. Some companies which carry on a variety of activities have had to deal with several boards. At the other end of the scale, the Bolton Committee reported that in their view the machinery set up under the Act was
"fundamentally inappropriate to the needs of small firms".
Finally, many boards find it difficult to cover all parts of the country because companies under their jurisdiction are in some areas so sparse. But this is not to say that the levy/grant system has not served a useful purpose. On the contrary, it is to suggest that it has served its useful purpose and that the time has come to devise some new methods appropriate to the 1970s while preserving what is of most value in the present system. Subject to the outcome of consultations, therefore, the document proposes to phase out the compulsory levy/grant system after 1972–73.
My Lords, I think I should make the point here that there has been quite a marked tendency towards disengagement from the levy/grant system; for example,
766
by the Iron and Steel Board. There, a large part of the grant was held in abeyance and a small part of the grant scheme, which still operates, covers the key activities—and I tie this up a little, I think, with what the noble Lord was saying. As a result, the current levy rate is up to £4·50 per employee, instead of some £25 per employee which would be required to finance the whole grant scheme. The same has occurred in the petroleum industry, the carpet industry, and the wool, jute and flax industry; and other boards are going in the same direction. So it is not always a black and white question on this matter, and this tendency is very extensive at the present time.
Under the proposals it would still be open to any board to devise a system of grants—and may I draw to the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Champion, the fact that it is the boards who devise their systems of grants and make their plans for the training in industry under the proposals? As I was saying, it would be open to the boards to devise a system of grants and submit it for the approval of the central body (to which I shall come later) where they consider it necessary in particular circumstances to stimulate training in greater quantity or of a higher quality. The noble Lord quoted from the summary. He will find those words earlier in the body of the document, in paragraph 91. Money will also be made available through the central body if necessary to encourage the establishment of group training schemes. Additionally an industry or group of firms could run a levy/grant scheme on a voluntary rather than a statutory basis if they wished to do so.
For the rest, the Government incline to the view that firms are now sufficiently aware of the benefits of training to be able to make their own training arrangements, with the aid of the advice and guidance which they will continue to receive from their appropriate board or boards, and that they may accept the more readily because they are not obliged to conform with it as a condition of getting their levy back. There remain those areas of industrial activity which are not covered by any board and those activities which are common to most, if not all, industries. It makes sense—and I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord

767
Champion, recognised this—to have some form of central body that will not only supervise training for those activities but also co-ordinate the work of the boards as a whole (and co-ordination is not the same as complete control) and serve as a channel for injecting money where money is really needed. The consultative document refers to this body as the National Training Agency. It would co-ordinate the work of the boards, fill the gaps in the present system, eliminate overlapping and stimulate key training activities which might otherwise be endangered. For example, first year, off-the-job training is very expensive and a company may be reluctant to undertake it because the trainees may leave the company before it has received any benefit.
The Agency might also stimulate group training schemes, and there will be other areas of training which will he candidates for support. It is proposed that the Agency should become also the employer of the staff which the boards need for their continuing functions, and it would itself provide advisory services for companies not covered by boards. To do this, the Agency would need to have a strong regional organisation, with branches in Scotland and Wales. This would enable it to co-ordinate training in occupations which cut across industrial boundaries, such as clerical and secretarial work, or to co-ordinate management training.
The consultative document discusses briefly whether the Agency should be constituted within the Department of Employment or as a separate body, independent in its day-to-day operations, working within an annual budget approved by the Secretary of State and subject to any general directives that he might see fit to give. There are as always advantages and disadvantages in each alternative and I shall be interested to listen to any advice that noble Lords may give in the debate. The Secretary of State, too, will be interested to read it. On balance, the Government are disposed to favour the second alternative—an Agency separate from the Department—mainly on grounds of flexibility of operation and of staffing considerations. If all the staff of the boards are to be employees of the Agency, there
768
are clear advantages, from the point of view of their relations with industry, in their being outside the Civil Service. It is thought, however, that the control of the Agency should rest with a chief executive and a board of executive directors responsible to the Secretary of State and working closely with the C.B.I., the T.U.C. and educational bodies and authorities. The Agency would draw its funds from the Department of Employment and would operate within general guidelines laid down by the Government through the Secretary of State.
As noble Lords will recall, and as the noble Baroness recalled, it is the intention of the Secretary of State, expressed in the consultative document, People and Jobs, to set up a Council on Manpower Services to consider matters of policy in the development of manpower services, including training. As this is done, there would be no place for the present Central Training Council, since the Secretary of State would be advised on training matters by the Council on Manpower Services. The document pays tribute to the contribution which the C.T.C. has made to training, but the choice is plainly between an advisory and an executive central body. There is clearly a need for a central body to unify responsibility over industrial training so that the Government's training efforts and those of industry could be viewed as a whole. In this way it would be possible to deal effectively with the problems of training workers leaving declining industries to take up jobs in expanding industries, of those parts of industry not covered by the boards and of co-ordination of those activities common to many industries. The regional organisations of the National Training Agency will also be able to work closely in touch with the regional industrial development officers of the Department of Trade and Industry.
The Government's review was concerned primarily with the arrangements for industrial training and particularly with the industrial training boards and the Government vocational training service and I have thought it appropriate to focus on these in my speech. But the Government fully recognise that the proposals could have far-reaching implications for the several other interests affected, and notably for the education service. I think

769
it is no exaggeration to say that an essential element for the success of the Government's new proposals will be the willing co-operation of the education service, continuing in the tradition of collaboration that has been built up under the Industrial Training Act. The Act has meant considerable changes and developments for the service, especially for the colleges of further education, and the service has responded readily and extensively to cooperate in the work of the boards. The new proposals could mean further changes and development, and the views and comments of the service are being sought.
At this point, during the consultative period, I would say only two things. First, the Government firmly believe that the service has a continuing, and indeed increasing, role to play in helping people to prepare both for their first and for subsequent employment; and, secondly, despite the different statutory bases for the provision of training and of education, we would wish to see education and training interests working even more closely together in those fields where they have the common aim of helping people in their work and their chosen career.
My Lords, I want to say a few words about the choice between a single agency to cover the employment service and the training service, and the two that we envisage. I do not myself believe that it would lead to the kind of trouble that the noble Baroness has in mind if there were two. I do not think this was much to the fore in the Government's choice, because they mention in the consultative document the obvious advantages of having the whole thing within the Department of Employment. But there are practical difficulties involved here, especially on the employment service side—difficulties so far as premises, staff and so on are concerned. We do not foresee that we should be able to achieve this unification, even if we want it, in the immediate future. We are aiming to get these training services into operation so that they can come into effect next year. Once the consultative period is ended the Government will go ahead and make firm plans for the organisation of industrial training, and we do not believe it will be possible to get the sort of unification that the noble Baroness has in mind in that
770
time-scale. The aim is to ensure that, broadly, men and women can get the training to do the jobs that they want to do and do them well, so as to get satisfaction and to give satisfaction in their jobs whatever job they do—be it manager, operative, shop steward, salesman, export clerk, cook or whatever—and that our industries, on their side, will have an adequate supply and the right balance of trained workers to meet the needs of the nation and our overseas customers, no matter what changes may take place in technology and in the world.
My Lords, that is the aim that we have to keep before us. We believe firmly that it was much more advantageous, from the point of view of consultation, to put forward a specific plan so that it could be examined and criticised, while indicating other posibilities at the same time, than it would have been merely to put forward a set of alternative courses. I hope that this approach has the approval of the House and I look forward to listening to the comments that will be made. I assure the House that whatever is said will be most carefully considered.
4.11 p.m.
LORD SAINSBURYMy Lords, first, may I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, for giving us the opportunity to discuss this vitally important subject this afternoon. The purpose of my brief intervention is not so much to discuss the proposals contained in Training for the Future as to call attention to a vital aspect of our arrangements for training which this document seems to ignore. This, my Lords, is the question of providing adequate facilities for training people from overseas, especially from the developing countries. Before I go any further, perhaps I should declare an interest. I am Chairman of the Trustees of the Overseas Students' Advisory Bureau. This is a charitable Trust, grant-aided by the overseas development administration and is concerned with helping overseas students to find practical training vacancies in industry and commerce. For most of the students helped by the Bureau training is of the utmost importance. In most cases it forms an integral part of the course and unless it is available they may not be able to obtain a degree or diploma, or indeed derive full benefit from their studies.

771
In my view, the importance of providing practical training for people from overseas, whether they are students or trainees who come to the United Kingdom as a result of firm-to-firm arrangements, cannot he over-emphasised. It is a matter of enlightened self-interest and also our moral obligation to the less-developed world. It is fully justified on grounds of self-interest because the provision of such training acts as a powerful aid to export promotion. This was widely recognised and underlined by the 1969 survey by the then Board of Trade which showed that the great majority of businessmen regarded such training as useful on commercial grounds. In spite of this, in the opinion of many our national effort in this field has been far from adequate. The case for training people from developing countries is equally strong on moral grounds. It is, I believe—and I think that many share my opinion—one of the most effective and cheapest forms of foreign aid.
The document under discussion puts considerable emphasis on the importance of a skilled, well-trained labour force for Britain's economic progress and health. This argument, however, applies with even greater force to the developing economies where even the most basic skills are in desperately short supply. In view of its importance as a means of export promotion and of helping poorer countries, I find it extraordinary that this document makes no reference at all to the training of overseas people. The emission is all the more remarkable because the implementation of some of the proposals put forward in Training for the Future may well have the effect of reducing the number of training opportunities available for overseas citizens. Thus in paragraph 118 it is stated that the proposed National Training Agency will seek to make full use of spare training capacity and
"to negotiate mutually acceptable terms with the employers concerned."
While the full utilisation of surplus capacity is clearly desirable this could, in the absence of any special provision, make it even more difficult for people from overseas to find training vacancies. I of course accept that the main concern of the Department of Employment is for our own manpower. However, it seems to me that it would be extremely short
772
sighted to neglect the needs of students and trainees from other countries when reconstructing our training arrangements.
This training of overseas people should not be regarded as a fringe activity but should form an integral part of our training set-up. Clearly there is room for argument and discussion about the best way to achieve this objective. Perhaps one solution would be to enable the proposed National Training Agency to exercise its functions on behalf of overseas people as well as home trainees. Perhaps some other arrangements could be found, such as the implementation of Section 14 of the Industrial Training Act, which would enable the industrial training boards to make special provision for the training of overseas people. My aim this afternoon, my Lords, is not to put forward a solution but to urge that the problems of training people from abroad are given the serious consideration that they deserve before any decision is taken on the future organisation of training in the United Kingdom. Before I sit down, I should like to apologise to your Lordships' House that because of a longstanding engagement out of London I may have to leave the House before the debate ends.
4.20 p.m.
VISCOUNT ROCHDALE: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just sat down will forgive me if I do not follow him in the interesting subject that he has developed. But I should like to say that I wholeheartedly agree with what he has said, whether we look at it from the point of moral obligation or, as the noble Lord put it, enlightened self-interest. The training of people from overseas is obviously of tremendous importance and is greatly valued by those who come: indeed, it was only last Saturday that I was lunching with a group of 30 or 40 people, largely from overseas Commonwealth countries, but also others, who were in this country just for that purpose; and to realise the value that they place on the opportunities given to them here is something of which one can be proud. Having said that, I should also like to add my thanks to the noble Baroness for having introduced this enormously important subject. Like the noble Baroness—I hope that I am not being presumptuous—I doubt whether the importance of the subject is always

773
sufficiently appreciated in the country as a whole. I congratulate Her Majesty's Government on having recognised the importance of the subject and on having produced a document which, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Champion, has already said, is handy, extremely readable, well produced, informative and a valuable basis for discussion.
Certainly a review of the situation at this stage, some eight years after the 1964 Act, is called for. I realise that the period for consultation—February 1 to the end of this month—may be regarded as a fairly reasonable period; but I would still hope that my noble friend, following the discussions not only in this place but elsewhere, and the many representations that we all know have been made to the Secretary of State, if he feels that more time is needed for consideration of these matters, will not be too rigid about the deadline of the end of May. What we all want, surely, is not to pay too much attention to the deadline, but to get the right answer to this highly complicated and enormously important subject.
I am afraid that I shall have a few doubts to express on the proposals as they are presented to us in the document. The document, as I see it, can be said to deal with three aspects of related subjects: first, there is the training or retraining of the individual; secondly, the training for industry, whether an industry or firms within an industry; and thirdly, the contribution that education has to make. If my remarks are primarily directed to the training in industry and industrial firms, I hope it will not be taken that I do not equally recognise the importance of the individual training, whether it be as the document itself describes it, for "national economy needs", or whether it be for social reasons.
Before I come to the industrial side, may I say that I welcome the training opportunities scheme; I think it is excellent and must be developed. However, I would ask and urge, as others have done—it is a difficult aspect—that the numbers planned to be trained should be related in the greatest detail practicable with the numbers required. It is easy to say that, but it is extremely difficult to bring it about. Forecasting in this field is difficult, and I am afraid that what I have seen so far includes a certain amount of crystal gazing. How disheartening it
774
is for an individual who takes a training course in a particular subject only to find that there is no job for him covering that subject. Nothing could be more disheartening and disruptive to a man's or a woman's career. I was very much aware of this difficulty when I and my colleagues were investigating the shipping industry in the committee of inquiry into shipping which we completed two years ago. We spent a great deal of time on the subject 'of training and the related matter of education—several chapters of the Report dealt with it. But we were always up against the difficulty of being told how impossible it was to find out the detailed requirements of the different categories of individuals that had to be trained. I mention that as an example.
On the question of the contribution of education, I am glad that reference to this has been introduced into the document, because I should have thought that a happy or successful career of an individual will be largely dictated by how the transition period between education—whether schools or colleges—and industry is planned and works out for him. If the transition is easy and happy, it will make an enormous difference to his career. Obviously a great many people are doing a lot of planning and thinking on this subject: it is not a new subject. But I would agree with those who feel that there is room for a considerable amount of further research.
I now turn to industry. I have some doubts about the proposals here, and perhaps they are more doubts of timing than otherwise. Undoubtedly, the 1964 Act—and this has been generally agreed, I think, to-day and in other documents that I have seen—did a very good job of work. I think that great credit is due to members of the boards, to staff, to firms, to trade unions and to others for the way in which they have worked, and for the fact that as a result training standards generally can be said to have risen substantially. But have they gone far enough? Clearly they have not. The question therefore is whether, to use the phrase in the document, the "shock treatment" that the 1964 Act provided has been used long enough or whether that shock treatment should be allowed to go on for a little longer? My own opinion is that it should be allowed to go on rather longer. I think there is a long way to go in two respects.

775
There is a long way to go not only, and naturally, in the improvement of training, but there is a long way still to go—I regret to say this—to sell the need for training to industry. Many firms have accepted the importance of this and are doing magnificent work in training, but that, I am sure, is not 100 per cent. true. There are still many people in industry who need to accept more readily the importance and the consequences of training. We have a long way to go before we can say that our training in industry is second to none in the world.
So I ask the question: is this the time to phase out so quickly the levy/grant system? Speaking for myself, I doubt it. I have listened with great care to what my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn said. He gave me a little comfort on this point, but I still think that the Government are a little lukewarm about the continuation of the levy/grant system. I am perfectly well aware that a great many firms would like to see it go. There are many alleged criticisms: it is said to be wasteful and some of the training is said to be irrelevant. It is said to be time consuming as regards the filling up of forms, and so on. It is said to be costly. I can well understand that it may bear rather harshly, as the Bolton Committee said, on many of the smaller and medium firms; but are those grounds of criticism necessarily as applicable to-day as in the early days of the operation of the Act? Criticisms, once they are sown, tend to die hard—I am sorry; I am rather tending to mix my metaphors! —but I wonder whether some of these criticisms did not arise for two reasons. One was inexperience on the part of the boards and the industries concerned and, secondly, there may have been some over-enthusiasm, which is laudable, of course, but perhaps people were trying to do things on a bigger scale and rather more quickly than current knowledge would allow. At any rate, if my information is correct, and as I think has already been said this afternoon, the causes of many of these criticisms are already being ironed out and will be removed. There is still scope for the improvement of procedures, just as there is scope for the improvement and development of the training itself.
Therefore I should like to ask another question: if the levy/grant system lapses
776
very rapidly in 1972/3, will the same rate of improvement of training continue? I am well aware that many employers, like myself, would doubt that it would, and there might well be a slowing down in the rate of operations. Obviously, so far as the larger firms are concerned they are more than capable, if they have the will, of looking after themselves, and many of them have magnificent training schemes capable of training perhaps not only for their own needs but for those of smaller neighbouring firms as well. But if the system is removed I wonder, despite the mention of group training schemes and so on, whether for the medium and smaller firms the situation will be quite so favourable as it is now. I believe that the difficulties they are under could be removed now, but the advantages to be gained might still be available.
In my view, the success of any training board depends primarily on a quite intimate knowledge of, association with and responsibility for, the particular industry that it serves. It must be part and parcel of that industry and it must be held in respect by it. I am not for one moment saying that these finer points are necessarily kept in mind by every industrial training board throughout industry—I have no doubt that they come in for quite a lot of criticism from time to time—but this must be the aim, and there is certainly room for improvement. However, under the proposed role suggested in the document, whereby the National Training Agency will assume a measure of control because it will control the purse strings, I wonder whether there is not a real danger that some training boards will tend to lose some of the impact on the industries that they serve; more especially (as the noble Baroness suggested) that with this change some of the more senior members of the industry might decide that it was not worth their while serving on the boards. In that case what would happen? I see the danger that the training board might tend to draw away from its particular industry when it should be concentrating on that industry's specialised needs, and move across to the more general and more remote atmosphere of the National Training Agency. If that were to be so, I doubt whether the board would carry the same weight with companies in a particular industry.

777
Having said that, I would add that I am certainly not against the establishment of the National Training Agency because, apart from the training board, it has very important work to do. There is the Training Opportunities Scheme, which is immensely important; there is management training, and there is the important work, which others have emphasised, of facilitating the movement of individuals from one industry to another where one industry declines for technological or other reasons. And, of course, most importantly, there is room for a degree of co-ordination, so long as it is not mandatory, between the work of the different training boards—co-ordination in order to avoid needless duplication. That could be helpful. Despite what my noble friend has said, I am not at all happy about the suggestion which I believe is implicit, that the training boards might tend to acquire more and more control from the National Training Agency. I do not like this idea, but I am afraid that it might become inevitable.
On the subject of the Agency itself (I do not think this point has yet been mentioned), I realise that the task of the Central Training Council is coming to an end, but I cannot see why it should not be developed and given a new role so that it might become, in effect, the National Training Agency. It might have to use, in commercial terms, entirely new Articles of Association; but why should it not be used as the nucleus of the Agency? It is extremely disheartening for any body—and I have had some experience of this—whose members have worked together over a number of years, a body which has created a corporate sense among its parts, to find that it is to finish completely and that something else is to be put in its place. Even if individuals, because of their experience, are transferred from one body to the other, surely the Central Training Council could be used as the basis.
To sum up, my Lords, I would say to the Government: "Do not, please, weaken the training boards' autonomy". If the autonomy is weakened the effectiveness will be weakened. What we need more than anything are boards which are increasingly expert in their particular industries, increasingly specialised. This is particularly the case, as the noble
778
Baroness pointed out, not only because of the increasing sophistication and specialisation of the equipment that goes into industry but also (and I say this without any sense of criticism) because of the increasing cost of manpower. Therefore specialisation of the Board becomes more than ever important. The Board wants to be master in its own House financially, and that implies that there must in some degree continue to he a statutory levy/grant system. I hope that the Government will think about this very seriously and, if they do not entirely go back on what is proposed, at any rate be more tolerant of continuation of the levy/grant system.
Ultimately it could be that in an ideal world the Government's present proposals are right; but we have a long way to go before we reach that. If that is our goal, let us work to it slowly, step by step. The document, as I see it, is trying to do things too quickly on this particular aspect. What we want is not to run too quickly and then find that we stumble; we want to have quicker, really first-class training, so that we can say that our industrial training is second to none in the world.
4.41 p.m.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I welcome this Government document, particularly because it opens up the possibility of discussion. I should welcome it more fully if I felt assured that it was going inevitably to expand training in total, but I am not quite so certain of that. In order to establish the first point that I want to make I have to give utterance to a few platitudes. The first is that there are these two forms of training: internal training for work on specific processes, machines and so on. For example, a company which wants to train its export salesmen will have to do it itself; it cannot rely on external people. If it wants to train people to operate particular processes it will have to do it itself. Then there is the external training. That is a quite different category which is concerned with motor mechanics, carpenters, plumbers, computer programmers, teachers and so on.
One could almost describe these two types of training, internal and external, as one being for the production of goods

779
and the administration of those processes, and the other for the services; but I am not quite sure that it falls neatly into those two categories. One is no substitute for the other. They are different and we need both. The feature that I notice is absent from the document is a reference to the fact that in periods of full employment, when labour turnover is high and companies are expanding, the emphasis falls on internal training and the demand for places in Government training centres falls away. In general people who can get work accompanied by in-company training do not volunteer for Government training centres. I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, drew attention to the fact that some one-third of the places presently occupied in Government training centres in a period of grave unemployment were taken by people who already had jobs. This is a result of the failure of people to see opportunities for promotion in the firms that employ them; that is why they are going to Government training centres. In periods of unemployment we get high use of Government training centres and in periods of full employment the demand on those training centres seems to fall off.
The data to support these contentions is largely in the document before us. Rising unemployment resulted in an expansion in the number of those in Government training centres from the derisory figure of 1,900 in 1962 to nearly 10,000 in 1971. Now, in the face of a million unemployed, the Government are proposing to take the places up to 100,000—quite rightly—to meet the current situation. I am not criticising that for one moment. In presenting this plan for future training there has been a failure to take into account the very important twin variables of the level of unemployment and the level of activity in the economy. This failure also goes some way to explain, incidentally, the apparent failure of the training boards. One quotation from page 50 of the document says:
" The second two surveys were held at a different time of the year from the first and there have been other detailed differences, but the broad indications are that the approximate numbers undergoing training on a given date were 1·4 million in 1969, 1·6 million in 1970 and 1·2 million in 1971."
There is reference in the document to the fact that the increase of training
780
in industry since the inauguration of the Industrial Training Act in 1964 has been only about 15 per cent. What the Government do not realise is that if it had not been for the industrial levy the fall in the number of people being trained internally in industry in these past two years would have been much heavier than it has been. It is the levy which has maintained internal training in the face of a situation where there would be a great inclination on the part of most companies to stop doing training in order to save money because they found themselves in stricken circumstances. I do not think that these factors have been taken properly into account in drafting the document.
Conservative policy over this issue of training has been rather pragmatic and too much based on the short-term. During the 'fifties when unemployment was low, the Conservatives failed to realise the value of Government training centres. I believe that they reduced their number. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that when he replies to the debate. They closed them down; because there was full employment they did not feel that the centres were needed. Their thinking which led to the levy—and all praise to the Conservative Government for introducing the compulsory levy scheme—was the growing need for internal training, and so long as the two were not thought of as exclusive alternatives well and good. But there has been a tendency to think in that direction and that is what characterises the document. We notice the proposed vast expansion of places in Government training centres, coupled in the same document with the abolition of the compulsory levy. Why do the two things together? Why not maintain the levy? Admittedly, the practices of the industrial training boards and the Act itself unquestionably need modification. We know that there has been some corruption over the administration of this Act. We have to close loopholes and prevent people from getting money to which they are not entitled.
We have to improve the whole set up. If we go ahead and abolish this compulsory levy—and here I join with the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear—we shall see a rapid fall in internal training, which may pick up a little if we get back to

781
the figure of 400,000 unemployed but it will never reach the levels which are required in industry. I am going to make a prediction, which is always a dangerous thing to do, but I dare to do so. If the Government succeed in getting unemployment down to a properly low figure—let us say, 400,000—and have by that time established 100,000 places in Government training centres, my prediction is that over half of them will have no candidates to fill them. It is on these grounds that I plead with the Government to think again.
The lines on which their thinking might be directed are these: to retain the statutory levy for these training boards, with, I concede, substantial modification of the Act which no doubt is necessary. Then, in order to create the flexibility needed so that the places for external training and for internal training can adjust themselves to differing levels of activity in the economy, they should consider the idea of getting the industrial training boards to give within large companies, during periods of low activity in the economy, the sort of training that would otherwise be organised in the Government training centres. One can see the possibility of large firms which are not taking on new employees—and indeed may be paying off existing staff—having internal training facilities, unused, which could be redirected on to the training of people sent to them by the Minister of Employment—people who would otherwise, if the Government's plan were followed, go to Government training centres. This would provide a much more efficient use of resources, and I believe that the Government could find the way to increase the number of external training places very much more quickly right away if they ascertained how many firms would be prepared, in return for payment out of the levy, to train people in the crafts that are usually taught in the Government training centres. This is an alternative use of the same resources according to fluctuations in the economy.
In the document, on page 44, paragraph 142, a rather confused sentence in an otherwise very clear document reads:
" But if there is legislation to relieve the Boards of their duty to impose a levy and to ensure that a Board does not impose a levy unless this is supported by a consensus within the industry, those conditions would apply to
782
all levy proposals after those arising from the grant schemes of 1972/73."
What I gather from that sentence is that compulsory levies will not continue, unless there is a consensus of opinion in support of them, after 1972–73. This is highly cynical stuff. Many Members of this House know very well that among chief executives and those who take decisions of this kind—and it is their opinions which the Government are seeking—there is the utmost bias against any scheme which imposes upon them the duty of paying and of filling up forms. This has always been so, and I am afraid always will be so. The unfortunate aspect is that those chief executives who are most against compulsory levy schemes are usually those least prepared to take part in voluntary schemes.
What the Government are saying is: "Ah well, of course, if industry shows a desire to go on with the compulsory levy scheme, then we will perhaps consider going on with it." Yet they know very well that if they put the matter to a referendum, which is what they are proposing, the answer will be, "No. Don't go on with it." It is always so. They also know, I think, from their own experience that if an attempt is made to run an industrial training board on the basis of hopes about the decisions chief executives will make with regard to making voluntary payments towards the expenses of running these boards, then it will be impossible to run the hoards properly, because all the good staff, in the light of the uncertainty as to what will happen, will not stay with the boards. You cannot run great organisations for doing serious jobs in the hope that industry in succeeding years will voluntarily "cough up" the necessary funds. It is cynical to suppose that you can go on in this way. So if the Government say, "We will go on only if there is support from a consensus ", it means condemning these boards to decline, and ultimate extinction, and so losing the means by which great strides in internal training have taken place since the passing of the 1964 Act. If it is impossible to get those strides by levy, some other means will have to be devised; and they do not appear in this document.
Another point I would make is that I thought the present Government were against referenda—and this is a form of

783
referendum. It is cynical to propose that we use referenda in one situation, when the Government hope to get the result they want, and to turn down a referendum in another situation where they expect to get the result they apparently do not want. I am sorry, but there is a lot of truth in what I am saying.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. He is making a great point about this, but is it not possible to envisage a situation where it is to the advantage of some firms in an industry to do the training and to others to pay for the training to be done? They would agree together that it was of advantage in those circumstances for this to be most easily done by means of a levy. I do not see that there is anything cynical about this. It may be right or it may be wrong, but it is not cynical.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, so long as the levy is compulsory this is a good basis for co-operative endeavour, but if it is left to those who have a sense of duty and conscience to pay, while leaving it to others not to pay if they so desire, it will not produce a balanced scheme, and there will be some firms carrying the burden for others, as was always the case in the past in industry. It is very important that this point about a continuation of the levy, admittedly not in exactly the same form as now, should be seriously considered by the Government.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I think the noble Lord has now revealed an apparent misunderstanding of the proposal here. The consensus would of course be required for continuation of the compulsory levy.
LORD BROWN: Yes, my Lords.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Well, that is different from a continuation of a voluntary levy, quite plainly.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I regard the term "voluntary levy" as a contradiction in terms; I am sorry. I come from industry, and a levy, to my mind, is a compulsory levy. That is what I am speaking in favour of; and I am talking against a voluntary levy because I do not think there is such a thing.
784
I now come to a quite different point but I regard it as most important. The type of university course which is carried out in a university with which I am associated as pro-Chancellor (I am saying that to declare my interest) is the thin sandwich course. The noble Lord has also been associated with the same university. The thin sandwich course was largely pioneered in this country by 10 colleges of advanced technology, and they have all since become universities. This is a type of education that is of enormous value to industry. It is indeed supported very fully by the Confederation of British Industry in various statements they have made about it. Many of these technological universities have since partially or wholly given up this type of sandwich-course training because of the difficulty of finding places for their students, which involves finding places for students to work in industry, in the Civil Service or in various other occupations, one term out of every three.
One of the main factors in helping firms to provide this facility and face the expense of doing so (because it costs firms a considerable amount of money) is this ability to recover the cost from the training board, as against the levy which they have paid. If one abolishes the compulsory levy there is little doubt that the difficulty of finding places for these students is going to increase very greatly indeed. I would go further. I seriously warn the Government that there is a possibility that this necessary and estimable form of undergraduate training might well disappear. It is an extremely important form of training. For example, at the university about which I am speaking—Brunel—the number of graduates whose first employment is found in industry is 70 per cent, of the total number of graduates leaving the university. That is double the university average.
This question of undergraduates' first employment is a matter of concern to all who have studied it. One of the reasons is that students regard employment in industry as a rat-race, but those who have an acquaintanceship with industry know better. In any case, they are more mature as a result of their working experience and are much more acceptable to employers in industry. That is why thin sandwich schemes are so important. It is because I firmly believe (and this is

785
an opinion shared by many people concerned with this form of university education) that the abolition of the compulsory levy system will result in an increased lack of availability of places for these students that I ask the Government to think again.
5.1 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, the gratitude which the House owes to the noble Baronesss, Lady Seear, in enabling us to discuss this vital subject to-day is boundless. She opened the debate with a superb speech, and it has been followed by speeches from a number of experts in this particular field. I certainly do not count myself as an expert, but being associated with a firm of management consultants, naturally this is a subject which interests me. This subject is being debated against a background of very disturbing unemployment figures and of unemployment which is affecting both skilled and unskilled workers. Therefore the need for training, whether it be Government training or in-training or any other form of training, is more and more vital. I believe that the value of this consultative document is that it is challenging. It is compulsive reading and it will encourage firms and organisations of every kind to take a long, hard look at their training methods. Whether or not the document as a whole will command universal recognition and support is quite another matter.
I should like to say a word about the National Training Agency, which is mentioned on page 40 of the document. The danger of this Agency is that it is likely to become somewhat remote, and one of the important aspects of industry and commerce to-day is that of communication: communication between management and the shop floor and communication of ideas between companies themselves. I am a little worried that this Agency may dispel that communication aspect. Can my noble friend say whether on its management committees, for example, there will be any consumer representations? This is surely important at a time when the customer is more and more becoming a vital part of industry. Without the customer neither industry nor commerce can, so to speak, "tick". Also, it would seem that not only executive from industry but also non-executive directors and trade
786
union representatives should be co-opted on to this body, because while I am sure it has the best of intentions it needs advisers who can give advice objectively. Much the same applies to the role of the management consultant in training. Every reputable company has its in-training before Government training or, indeed, before consultants are called in. There is so often the need for a second opinion, and it is here that the extramural bodies can be used so effectively. So I think these suggestions would give "teeth", so to speak, to this vital aspect.
Paragraph 79 raises the problem: where will the authority come for developing training in industry first? Take, for example, training in the chemical industry. One remembers the old saying: "Whoever pays the piper calls the tune ". I will not try to follow the noble Lord, Lord Brown, in his discourses on the levy, because this is obviously one of the most sensitive parts of this whole document. It is perhaps only right that everybody should pay towards the levy, but it is not only the Scots who may say "Well, if we pay, what are we going to get out of it?" After all, industry as a whole expects to get back something for which it pays.
LORD SAINSBURY: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord for a moment, surely one of the criticisms of the levy grant system is that it is a paperwork transaction—that the people who pay most levy get most back, because they are generally the firms who do the training. So it is surely not accurate to say that firms do not get something back. Surely most of them do?
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, I think the noble Lord may well be right; he has much more experience of industry than I. But one wonders whether some firms, at any rate, get back comparatively what they pay in. The complaint I have heard is that they do not. The whole problem of a levy, whether here or in any other capacity, is that one can never please everybody, and I do not suppose any Government, whatever document they produce, will ever get this completely right.
It is also vital that there should be the closest possible selection of people to be trained under these schemes. The need at the present time for training in industry

787
and in commerce is perhaps greater than ever before. I should like to support very much what the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, said on the question of overseas training. This is quite vital. Leaving aside the Common Market more and more companies over here are becoming internationally involved, and quite clearly training needs must be geared to this aspect. I am not suggesting that we should subordinate our training here to overseas training, but certainly management consultants should bear this in mind. My own company is involved here; we have done a good deal of overseas training, and this may well bear fruit for the future. So long as this training is for British companies it is surely a good thing. We are living in international times and the more discussions there can be and the more exchanges of views and ideas, surely the better, whether this comes into the ambit of the document or not.
In conclusion, may I say that we shall never have a completely satisfactory setup in the training field. Management in this country has been knocked and so have trade unions, and to some extent rightly. But the training which we give in this country, bearing in mind that training is a relatively new thing and that the 1964 Act was revolutionary, is something of which we can be proud. I would certainly hope that whatever the shortcomings of the document (and many have been mentioned) we in industry and commerce, in all its spheres, shall all work as well as we can to make this whole document operate smoothly.
5.11 p.m.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: My Lords, in my contribution to this debate I propose to concentrate mainly on the subject of management development and training. I have to declare an interest in this, as I am at present and have been for some years chairman of the Advisory Council of the Portsmouth Polytechnic School of Management Studies, which has been designated a regional centre for management education for the South of England. Although these regional centres are not mentioned in this document, they fit closely with the pattern there proposed. In paragraphs 40 and 41, for instance, it is suggested that for some purposes a regional organisation covering firms in a variety of industries is more
788
effective as compared with training on an industry basis countrywide. This applies very much, in my opinion, to management education, particularly in the smaller firms which cannot run in-company courses. In each firm it is necessary to have someone who is responsible for keeping under review management development and training, and this person needs to be someone who understands these problems and how they can be dealt with. Such a person must also be fully aware of the objectives, the organisation and management style of the concern.
In a large firm such a person is likely to be a senior member of the firm, provided that there is a suitable person with the proper skills and knowledge, but he must also have an ability to detach himself from his environment and from his personal feelings about things so as to be completely objective. In the medium or small company it is unlikely that such a person can be found within the company. He needs to be, as I said, someone with the requisite knowledge and skills, but also he needs to be able to put himself alongside the firm and act as adviser and guide, not just on one occasion but on a continuous basis. Members of the staff of these regional centres for management education are, many of them, well-equipped to do this, and in fact are already in this relationship with firms in many cases.
In paragraphs 98 and 99 the importance of management development advisers is stressed, and it is stated that the National Training Agency would wish to consider what could be done to improve the availability of these advisers. Any such service could well be based on these regional centres. I fully agree with the statement in paragraph 98 on the importance of on-job training for management. Training for management is not a purely academic subject, and the most effective form of management training involves close integration of the formal training with training on the job. This again needs close contact between the people doing the formal training and management supervision on the job. If a firm is large enough there may well be a requirement for in-company courses, and these are recommended in the document. To my knowledge, these regional centres—at least, some of them—are

789
already collaborating with firms in providing in-company courses, the formal and on the job periods being planned jointly in conjunction with the managements of the companies concerned. Formal instruction and case studies are guided by the staff of the centre and of the company itself, as is most suitable in each case.
So far as the smaller firms are concerned, the courses may have to be run on a multi-firm basis. This is quite possible, but again there is the need for somebody—and I suggest a member of the staff of the regional centre—to keep in close and continuous contact with each firm to see that the periods of development on the job and in the classroom are properly integrated to meet the requirements both of the firm and of the individual. Such a type of course may continue over an extended time, up to, say, three years, consisting of periods of formal instruction interlarded with work on the job. The periods of formal instruction may be anything from three days to three months. Not only does it enable management development and training to be properly integrated, but it also avoids people being taken away from the job for too long. The smaller the company, the greater is the difficulty of allowing people to be away from their jobs for extended periods. Thus, a course consists of a number of modules which can be arranged to suit the requirements of a firm or even an individual It is, to my mind, a basic fault of too many of the management courses available in this country at present that they expect people to be released from their normal work for longer than is practicable, and they do not provide for development and training on the job to be properly integrated with what the person is learning in the classroom. It is no good somebody going on a course and learning some sophisticated technique and then going back into an environment where there is nobody capable of supervising him in that work, and with management which does not understand what it means anyhow. Management education must be an integrated affair carried on over a period of years throughout the manager's or potential manager's working life.
The regional centres, therefore, can play a major part in improving the standard of management in this country,
790
but they must be used properly. They should not be expected just to run full-time courses, but should be encouraged and helped by the National Training Agency to provide the advice which this report regards as necessary, to help with guidance on the development and training on the job as well as the formal training, which may be on a company or multi-company basis. There is no reason, too, why such a service should not be on a fee-paying basis, and in fact the regional centres provide this at present.
There is one question I have to ask in relation to the whole of this management training; that is, what Government Department is going to decide the priorities for it? This document is issued by the Department of Employment. It clearly has considerable responsibility in relation to management. It was the Department of Employment which produced the Code of Industrial Practice, yet the main resource for management training lies in the colleges of further education and they come under the Department of Education and Science. The National Training Agency may or may not be separate from the Department of Employment, but there are other bodies, too, concerned with the allocation of resources in this field. There is the University Grants Committee and there are the researeh councils—in particular, the Social Science Researeh Council. I feel that it needs to be made clear who is responsible. The noble Lord, Lord Drumablyn, referred, I believe, to the fact that there would be some element of coordination applied by the Department of Employment, but this will have to be related to the deployment of resources which are also the concern of other Departments. I feel that there is a need for an overall Government view on the policy for management education.
There are two further points that I should like to make: first, in connection with the industrial training boards. I believe that they have, on the whole, done a good job. They have caused firms large and small to examine and consider their training needs even if the result is to provide opposition. But I cannot agree with noble Lords who object to the droping of the overall compulsory levy, and I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Brown, has read the Bolton Committee Report. I have not a copy with me, but so far as I remember there are 820,000

791
small firms in this country employing quite a high proportion of the working population. I am afraid that I have not the figure with me but the evidence of that Report is quite firmly against the compulsory levy.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? Prior to the introduction of the levy, this very large number of small firms to a very considerable extent relied on their bigger brethren to train men for them. Indeed, I think this happened in many cases, but the Report makes it clear that many of these small firms have specialist requirements which are not related to anything that is provided at present by the training boards. I think nearly all internal training is special; it is the external training which is general.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: My Lords, I know that under many of the training boards the small firms have been omitted from the levy and the levy has not been applied to them; but in many cases they are the firms that need the training most. From this Report it appears well established that the training boards have not, up to now, met their requirements.
The other point in connection with the training boards which I should like to emphasise is the need for ensuring that training is provided for the common requirements of industry where industry does not voluntarily provide it for itself. One field with which I have had experience is the computer field and there the situation was that relatively few companies in the country provided proper training for computer programmers and systems analysts, and employment agencies have admitted to me that they deliberately advertised for people from these concerns, though, of course, they did not mention it specifically in the advertisements. As a result, to my knowledge some of these firms had ultimately to give up their training services, or at any rate to cut them down, and rely on advertising for experienced systems analysts and programmers for themselves. Clearly this is an undesirable situation, because it leads to an escalation of salaries and wages to such an extent that when supply catches up with demand people find themselves out of a job. But as I understand from the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, the Government have
792
this in mind and will take action when necessary. On the whole, therefore, I welcome this document. I have confined my remarks to one or two aspects of it, but there is in it much that I find worthy of comment and commendation.
5.25 p.m.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord who has spoken with some authority on the part of management and he quoted from this excellent though not, I think, always cogently, written pamphlet, Training; for the Future. He quoted the section on "Management Training" and in paragraph 99, which is talking about a National Training Agency and its functions, we see that it says:
"Among the problems which the Agency would face in this field is the supply of management development advisers"—
as the noble Lord has hinted and indicated. I do not want to be repetitive, so I am missing parts of the paper which everybody can read, but the last sentence of paragraph 99 is:
"The Agency would wish to consider what could be done to improve the availability of management development advice"
I want to ask the writers of the pamphlet how much co-operation they have had outside with trade union organisations and educational organisations of the type of the noble Lord, including (and this may sound strange) the City and Guilds organisation which has been in existence for many years and has produced an expert group of lecturers, teachers, men of practice. In fact, the insignia of the City and Guilds is considered a higher qualification than a university degree for men in specific parts of industry because they come into industry with the fresh air of practising in the industry and also the academic qualification that is needed to understand the skills.
If I look about this elaborate building in which we are now, and look at the beautiful carvings here, I see examples of crafts and skills that for the top-level carvers and the men who made the roof depended on a knowledge of solid geometry and of trigonometry, and also on a certain knowledge of algebra. I do not know why they cannot build a proper box bridge to-day without smashing it, but surely it is the case that to-day, in this age of computers, they are building

793
worse than our grandfathers did—and my grandfather helped to build one of the biggest bridges in Wales, the eleventh highest in the world, which they have blown up. In this Beeching-ite age when they want to get rid of all our railways they blew up the railway that was carried over my grandfather's bridge. God knows why it was blown up because they are now walking from one end of the valley to the other!
A NOBLE Lord: Poor old Crumlin!
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: Poor old Crumlin!
To come back to the point, what I have been saying is very cogent because there is a certain pomposity and assumption about the practice of producing pamphlets. I will not declare an interest at the moment but I will soon link with the firm. We are stifling ourselves with Xerox letters at the moment. Now firms are getting this marvellous machine, the Xerox, and they are turning out millions of leaflets and they pretend they are producing. It is not production at all; it is not even a sheet anchor. In many cases it is dragging the poor body corpus of the company down to the bottom of the deep sea of bankruptcy.
Let us see what the City and Guilds tell us are the characteristics of the City and Guilds; and I want to make sure that organisations like this that have the "know-how" are approached by Governments, whether Liberal, Labour or Conservative.
"The aim of the City and Guilds of London Institute is the advancement of technical and scientific education as a service to the individual, to industry and to the nation. The Institute was founded in 1878 and derives its present authority from a Royal Charter granted in 1900….
"Through its own teaching institutions, the Institute provided for the future technologists and managers in industry…"
I am going to miss out large chunks, because most noble Lords here are aware of the work of this Institute, but there is a marvellous list of qualifications that men and women are given. Among them is the "threshold of management", which can be given, as the noble Lord also requested, on a part-time basis, where the man still stays in his industry and gets back to it two or three days a week, and does not come back to industry as an
794
intellectual and lacking wisdom. He comes back, like Antaeus, with his feet on the ground; and he grows stronger the more he keeps in contact with his craft or industry. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, is very kind and has written me a number of letters at different times, and I hope he will let me know whether use is being made of the magnificent know-how of the City and Guilds and its aims and work, and whether it has been consulted here.
Having the joy of not having to repeat what everybody else has said before, let me skip through half a dozen points in about ten minutes and then sit down. First of all, I am delighted that Governments are waking up to one fact. I know that the Conservative sides of the world will not admit this, but in this acquisitive society there is no longer any such thing as pure private enterprise. If training and skill were left to private enterprise, the rags of our behinds would be beating our brains out; we would not have the production and skill in training because they would not consider there was profit in it. In other words, they say, "We don't want Governments to interfere with us", but when there is "something for nothing" they want it much more than the council house dweller, and they get a bigger ratio of refund. Out of that levy, some firms have had 90 percent. back, and it was whispered to me while I was muttering that some firms have even had 110 percent. of the levy back because they have had initiative and used the grants that the Government are giving. All I want to emphasise is that we have reached an age where pure private enterprise alone is not enough.
I do not want to frighten noble Lords into thinking that they are listening to a Welsh Methodist Marxist, and that they are facing a dialectic revolution in this sedate House. I simply want to say that the day of complete private enterprise, except in a rag and bone shop, or the cobbler's, or a sweet shop, is finished.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, even the sweet shop.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: I agree. Consequently, we have to co-operate with big industry in getting training. The greatest investment any nation can make, whatever its politics, whatever its Government, whether Labour, Conservative,

795
or what-have-you, is investment in people. I therefore welcome these two pamphlets, and particularly the cogent way in which the noble Baroness opened this excellent little debate. I welcome this pamphlet People and Jobs and I welcome Training for the Future, the pamphlet under discussion. There has been some constructive—the word "criticism" sounds harsh —some constructive comments put before the Minister, and I welcome the document for that reason. Whatever we say here, this Government, like others, are beginning to realise, and have realised, the fundamental need for the whole nation to get down to the brass tacks of keeping and improving the nation's skill. For instance, we must remember that people do not stay static. Several million people change their jobs and learn little new skills each year. The figures that I have read in the pamphlet are that 2 million people every year get some kind of training, even if it is only six or ten hours, on how to use a new machine.
We want to keep those skills. I want to get rid of this horrible snobbery in the universities and the sandwich courses, that people think that by going to university, and a university alone, they are the élite. A good old hedger and ditcher —and I watched a beautiful bit of hedging the other day—has to acquire his skill from childhood, and it may take six, eight or ten years of training, which is as long as the training of a skilled surgeon. Indeed, no surgeon could make as beautiful a hedgerow as I have seen in some parts. In other words, let us realise the value of creative skills, at whatever level they may be, and in our educational and training schemes try to cut out this stupid snobbery that has entered into the educational system. The polytechnics, the City and Guilds, and the other types of training courses are of paramount importance.
I happen to belong to a firm dealing in pharmaceuticals, biochemistry and pharmacology, and we ourselves nay for men to get their Ph.D.s at university. After they have completed two or three years on researeh with us—and some researeh resulted in a technological breakthrough which has gained for this little firm a Queen's Award—they are paid to attend at university by the firm, not so much to keep the men for ever but
796
because they then can go on to the great skills needed in biochemistry, pharmacology and so on, and they are there for the benefit of the nation. That is natural in some kinds of industry.
I come now to the question of the world and the men in it. The world to-day is a global village. When things are not mentioned it implies one of two things; it is too much trouble to mention them or they are not worth mentioning. When we talk of training and labour do not let us think that we are talking of a white empire, or only of white men. We now have a problem in that industrial belt which, if I draw a line from Liverpool through North Wales and come roughly parallel down to the Thames, contains about 80 percent. of Britain's production in that industrial axis. There are working there tens of thousands of coloured workers of all nationalities. These coloured workers must also be thought of in these training schemes. They will not always be simply the hewers of wood and drawers of water. Consequently, I want the Government to see that these courses are wide open for those people as well.
There is one further small point and my notes have finished, and I will then wait to hear with interest my noble friend opposite. Coming down in the car to-day I switched on the News and, thank God!, the people around me had suppressors on their cars so I could listen. It is an anti-social society that we are living in these days. I tried to listen to some good music on the radio the other day, and could not get it. If any noble Lord is after a prize—you may not know it now, but it will probably be on the tape by the time you get outside—the Government are offering £2,000 for suggestions on how to help small firms. The Bolton Committee Report was mentioned by the noble Lord. In other words, it is good to see that the Government are looking at this area of production. Whether or not we go into the Common Market, we have to live in a highly competitive world. Without being Chauvinistic—and God knows how can a Celt be Chauvinistic about Britain!—all I want to say is that this nation can be very proud of its skills.
I will tell your Lordships a little story. I think I have told it once before. When I was in Wuhan travelling from Peking

797
by train to Vietnam and Hanoi, I met an old engineer Mao was bringing in with the Russians to build a bridge over the Yangtse River. The old boy spoke English like I do, but with a Chinese intonation. He said to me, "Where do you come from?" I told him, "Wales". He knew it. Mao had dragged him in at 76 years of age, and he qualified in his engineering degree at the Imperial College of Science in 1910. He paid tribute to English engineering schools. But what upset me was that, because of the silly strategic levies against selling goods to China, I was travelling in Hungarian rolling stock instead of British. America would not allow us to sell railway carriages to China at that time. I still think that our best course, without exploiting the world, is to pioneer our skills, and 1 hope that whichever Government brings that about will be successful.
5.40 p.m.
LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY: My Lords, I am sure that the House has enjoyed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek. He spoke about Wales but, having been a friendly opponent of his in the North-West of England for a quarter-of-a-century, I had always looked upon him as a North-Westerner rather than as a Welshman. I am quite certain that lie cannot get away from that. I am glad that he is now fully converted to private business, and I am sure that he will make a very good contribution to any company with which he is connected.
It is just two years since the Government inherited the problem—I am not making any excuse—of rapidly rising unemployment. Inflation was also going ahead at a rate not seen for many years. We know that the then Prime Minister went to the country in the early Spring, when he could well have soldiered on for another 11 months. I often wonder why he did not, but I suppose that he was farsighted enough to see the problems with which my noble friends are now having to deal. The present Government have made misjudgments in estimating how large the unemployment figures would be; I think most institutions did. But the fact is that the Government are to-day showing determination to reduce unemployment, which is an economic waste. In 1970, less than 17,000 people received Government sponsored training. That
798
is far less than in many continental countries. The noble Lord, Lord Champion, referred to Sweden, which has done a great deal. But it is probably easier for a country of compact size to show good results. However, the aim is to train something like 60,000 to 70,000 by 1975.
It is extraordinary that to-day the country is getting more production than two years ago, with a reduction of 400,000 in the labour force. I know of one group which has reduced its labour force from 66,000 to 58,000 in the last 18 months, and production has gone up by 10 percent. Over the last quarter of a century, industry as a whole has been employing far too much labour. Many of the great motor car companies kept people on in the thin times because they realised that, otherwise, it would be difficult to get them back when business improved. But to-day, with high wages and high expenses, no firm can afford that luxury and there is hardly a firm of note in this country which is not putting a fine comb through its whole organisation to see where savings can be made. We see an example of that in the contentious matter of containers. But we must progress if we are to be competitive in Europe or anywhere else. Yet, in spite of the million unemployed, there are still shortages of skilled labour in many parts of the economy. We must try to make the maximum use of every available person, man or woman, if we are to raise our standard of living.
On training centres, it is important that planning of future requirements for different skills throughout the country should be based upon accurate and reliable forecasting, which takes realistic account of the effect of individual mobility and job preference, as well as of trends in industrial and regional development. One of the problems in our country is that a man can probably get a far better job if he is prepared to move 300 or 400 miles up North. Of course there is always the housing problem, but, by and large, even without that the British people do not have an inclination to move any great distance, except perhaps the Scots who usually come down to the South. We must adjust ourselves for the future. The younger people are probably facing this problem more than our own generation did, in being prepared to move to a job as they do in America, where they

799
move a thousand miles, and think nothing of it, to improve their position in life. But, as I said, there are grave shortages in many spheres of the economy
LORD BROWN: My Lords, is the noble Lord really suggesting that people should dig up their roots, leave their homes and take their children in order to go to industry, rather than take industry to people?
LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY: My Lords, I was not saying anything of the kind. I do not think the noble Lord can have been listening, because what I said was that frequently, if a man was offered a better lob in another part of the country, he was not inclined to move. Of course I recognise that we have to bring industry to the people in the New Towns, in the development areas and elsewhere. I think the noble Lord, who is probably well versed in this matter, knows that people do not have the inclination to move—and we understand that—but like to stay put. Anyhow, I really do not differ from the noble Lord, because I think we are agreed that, in the main, one has to take jobs to where the people are.
I should like to ask my noble friend what action is being taken to influence trade unions' and employers' policies and attitudes, so as to facilitate the employment of people who have successfully undergone re-training. I understand that in the chemical industry, with which I have connections, the trade unions at top level are quite co-operative. The same can be said of the employers, although I believe that some re-thinking in many directions is required by them. Industry will have to supplement training, as has already been done in a great many cases. The noble Lord who preceded me spoke about doing away with university sandwich courses, but did not quite finish what he was going to say. I hope that sandwich courses will not finish. I think that they are invaluable for training purposes vis-à-vis the universities or the polytechnics and industry, and I hope that they will be increased rather than done away with.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, I hope I gave that impression. Did I not?
LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY: My Lords, I was not quite clear, but I
800
am very glad to have that assurance from the noble Lord on that point. The training boards in many industries, particularly in the chemical industry, have established close collaboration with industrial representatives at all levels. The chemical industry is probably a model industry in this respect. This has frequently taken the form of industrial representation on working parties set up to prepare recommendations for the training of different occupational groups in the industry. There are possibly too many boards set up. Could not the whole set-up be streamlined? For example, could the rubber industry not be allied to the chemical industry? I think there would probably be a better quality if there were fewer boards. As is acknowledged in the document, the levy/grant system has provided an initial impetus to more effective use of training. However, this has now altered in usefulness and is in danger of being unnecessarily cumbersome for the further returns which can be expected from it. There is now general recognition that the early phasing out of the system is necessary, and that the I.T.Bs. ought to begin to make a different kind of contribution to training in industry.
Regarding the National Training Agency, in the case of management and clerical training the objectives need defining. There should be specific links with business schools and polytechnics. The proposals on the systems of finance to be used raise fundamental questions. There are some fields where a National Training Agency could make a vital contribution, despite the flow of money and other resources made nationally to all forms of industrial training. Little is known about the real returns which result from this. There is also little real knowledge about the best way to ensure the efficient transfer of training and knowledge, so that industrial efficiency at all levels is improved. Both problems are closely related and would benefit from further research, which can be coordinated only by an organisation with a national "one-view" in this field. However, the proposals contained in the document give little indication of whether this would be one of the benefits resulting from the National Training Agency's work, or of how it would influence thought and action in this direction.
The chemical industry has been moving ahead. There are fewer and fewer

801
labourers—and I use the word in the accepted sense. Occasionally, you now have a man controlling a building twice the size of this room from up on a platform—one man, with masses of dials, carrying a tremendous responsibility. This man is as highly qualified as any professional man in any other field. Of course, the capital investment per man in the chemical industry is probably one of the highest in the world. Plants have become more sophisticated and automated, and this trend will continue whether we like it or not. It is going to happen; and people have to be more skilled and more trained. That is why it is so necessary to do what we are discussing to-day. For example, workers go from school to the Stretford Technical College. They are sent there by the company for a full year at the company's expense. Then they go back into industry, and they go to the college again every week, one day a week, for another three years. They have nearly four years' training at the technical college and with their firm. Then there is an examination which has been organised by the Chemical Industries Association. This will need to continue; it has been going on since 1953.
To come to the future: will the training for a craftsman be as sufficient as it is to-day? I think it will, so that he will become a multicraftsman—something far beyond the narrow field to which he is probably confined to-day. He may be skilled in mechanical and electrical or even instrument engineering—covering a wide field and being capable in it all. He will then be a super-craftsman; but this will bring him up against a problem which must be sorted out by the trade unions. I hope that noble Lords opposite who have influence will bring all the influence they can to bear to give these men the recognition they properly deserve at the end of their very long training. Plans for training are only part of the strategy for full employment, but they are necessary. As was said earlier on, even when unemployment is low I think this training should be a continuing factor in our economy. It is a vital part of our economy.
I should like to say, my Lords, that I think the document we are discussing to-day has been excellently drawn up.
802
There has been real thought and attention given to it. It is attractive to read; in fact, it is one of the easiest Government documents I have ever read. Normally you get halfway through such a document and put it away, but this is a splendid document and I think the Government are to be congratulated. I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, who opened this debate, for her speech; I thought she made a very fine contribution. My Lords, I think this has been a well worthwhile debate. I hope legislation will follow at a very early date and that it will be given a high priority in the coming Session of Parliament.
5.53 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, I think that any student of politics surveying the activities of your Lordships' House would feel it a little incongruous that far more of your Lordships are interested in dogs coursing brown hares than, it appears, in something on which the entire future prosperity of our country really depends. I think a student of politics would also, perhaps, be interested in the propensity of the present Government towards infanticide. We had a very notable example when they set up the Consumer Council during their previous Administration and then proceeded to kill it under this one. This time they are not going quite so far as that. The industrial training boards have not been in operation a very long time, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, pointed out. Some of them were established only some two or three years back; others a little earlier in the scheme. But now the Government come along, and they do not actually want to kill them off, but it seems to me that they want to emasculate them.
I feel that we have had perhaps not quite a critical enough analysis of some of the possible effects of the proposals which, if they are not amended, the Government presumably will put forward in an Act. I know that it is regarded as almost discourtesy to introduce a political note into these discussions, but I think it is quite unrealistic to be discussing the matter of industrial training without taking into account the reactions and the feelings of those who are likely to be trained; in other words, very largely —though of course not exclusively—the

803
members of the trade unions in this country. The T.U.C. held a special conference on April 5 to discuss this very Report. So far, I think no noble Lord has made any reference to that whatsoever; and I will in a moment refer to one or two of the criticisms which the T.U.C. made of the Report.
Coming nearer to the grass roots, I think your Lordships should be aware of the impression which has been made in certain areas of industry by the Government's proposals in this field. I have here the April issue of The Highway, which is one of the publications of the Transport and General Workers' Union, of which I have been a member for many years. I think it is only right that your Lordships should be reminded that people do react to proposals of this sort and that we must take their reactions into account. I will read a few sentences from this front-page article, just to try to bring this into perspective. We have had a good many speeches from the management side: I think we should at least be aware of what some of the feelings are on the union side. It says here:
" Government plans for sweeping changes in the industrial training system are a pay-off by the Tories to the bosses".
Your Lordships may think that that is just tendentious; nevertheless, it is a very genuine feeling.
This particular article has special reference to the road haulage industry, and it quite fairly describes the proposals in the pamphlet for the phasing out of the levy/ grant schemes for the training boards, which will become advisory and standard-setting only. It goes on to say:
"There are more 'pirates' on the road than tolerable hauliers, and when the levy goes training is likely to go out with it".
Then, the member of the union on the Road Transport Industry Training Board says:
" In the past six years we have been able to raise the standards of the transport driver simply because we had the full `co-operation' of the transport industry. That was given because they were forced to provide training. The Government plan could be a death-blow to real training in the professional transport industry, and I would think "—
says Alex Kitson, the officer I am quoting—
" that the majority at least of hauliers are laughing up their sleeves about it".
804
He then goes on to point out that the money now to be allocated to training will be largely from taxation, which means that it is open to cuts at any time the Government feel that they have to economise, whereas, of course, the levy is paid by the industries themselves; and he also points out that the levy produces some£200 million a year and that the Government are proposing a very much reduced figure for their training activities.
I have read those extracts, my Lords, not because I necessarily agree with all of them but because I think it is very important for us to realise the sort of impression that the proposed Government action is likely to make on the shop floor, at a time when industrial relations are, after all, such an extremely important part of our public concern. I think the reason why there is this political feeling is that there is a sense that the Government are giving way to certain pressures. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, quite rightly said in his opening speech that the Government undertook this survey into training in part because of the pledge given in their own Election Manifesto. It may not be beyond the recollection of all your Lordships that there was strong criticism at the time when the Conservative Government themselves brought in, and then implemented, the 1964 Act. There was strong resistance then, and there has continued to be strong resistance from the smaller firms in industry; that I think we all recognise. But I think there was also what one might call a Poujadiste element, too. I believe I am right in saying that it was Mr. Enoch Powell himself who referred to "the great training robbery"—meaning of course, the levy. Again, I am not saying that all this criticism of the Government is necessarily justified, but it is there in people's minds. So I think that in this context one must look with very close attention indeed at the proposals put forward in the Paper.
One of the first criticisms was made, I think very strongly, by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, as to whether this separation of functions as between training, on the one hand, and manpower estimation and placing, on the other, is justified. I know that there can be differences of opinion on this point: it is not a simple problem, but many people have

805
grave doubts about it. When both the C.B.I. and the T.U.C. share anxieties on this point one must believe that there is some substance in it. The T.U.C. come out strongly in favour of a unitary system for manpower as a whole, including training, prognostication of needs, employment advice and placing services. In their minds that is the sort of pattern that they would wish. The C.B.I. are not quite so emphatic, but I am sure that your Lordships will have seen their statement on April 19 in which they say:
" If a serious mismatch between training opportunities and job opportunities were to develop, this could not only be acutely discouraging to the individuals concerned but also a source of embarrassment to both Government and industry."
It is quite plain, reading between the lines, that there are members of the C.B.I. who are also worried about this proposed division of functions. I do not think there is necessarily a strong political point there; but there is a very important matter of organisation for our industrial future which is at stake and which needs a great deal more discussion than it seems to me that it has so far received.
Turning for a moment from that matter, which I consider to be one of most serious importance, 1 would point out that there are also the proposals, as we all know, for the complete reshaping of the industrial training board set-up. These proposals, too, have come in for a good deal of criticism from those who have had great experience in this field. As my noble friend Lord Brown said in what I thought was an outstanding speech, no one pretends that the present situation is satisfactory. We recognise, as the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, emphasised, that there are certain areas of training which are not really suitable for the 27 or so different boards and which should be undertaken on a different basis, be it regional or whatever. Office skills of all kinds, from clerical to managerial, I should have thought were in that category. We are also at one on the difficulties of some of the smaller firms. But I am not sure we should weep too many salt tears over them, for, as my noble friend Lord Champion said, in the days before the present schemes many of them were guilty of poaching, and necessarily so. Perhaps they had to poach to live, like sonic others. But one is very much
806
concerned lest the Government are throwing out the baby with the bath water; because they say in the document that for large, well-defined industries the present system is on the whole very good. Why, therefore, because it is not perfect in other directions, should we go as far as the Government appear to wish to go in emasculating it? To do as the Government propose can have serious consequences.
These have been recognised by the C.B.I. in their paper and also by the engineering industry's training board, whose statement I have here. Incidentally, this was not among the industries to which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, referred when he mentioned the reactions of the various industries to the paper. The engineering industry board points out that a relationship of very great value has been built up during the period in which the industrial training boards have been functioning. This is a tripartite relationship between the employers, the trade unions and the education authorities. It is very much feared that if one is not careful this valuable relationship may be considerably weakened. Not only that; it is pointed out that if the industrial training boards of the future are to become largely advisory and standard-setting and only to a much diminished degree executive, and in particular if their financial control is to be largely, though not entirely, taken from them, people of real substance and seniority in industry will not bother to serve on them. It seems to me that this is a very important aspect of the situation. One of the advantages of having a levy which the employers have had to pay from their own pockets was that they had a strong interest in making certain that they got value for money. If what they get is a grant from the taxpayer, then, human nature being what it is, they will be far less concerned, and instead of putting forward a senior director as a representative they will take some, let us say, relatively middle-grade officer and send him along to represent them. This may have a serious effect on the quality and momentum of training.
Therefore I beg the Government to think very carefully about the overall way in which they appear to wish to tackle the problem of the industrial training boards. The should certainly amend—we are all agreed on that—but

807
should not be anything like as comprehensive as they seem to wish to be. Again I am fortified in this view by the sort of reaction that one has had over a wide spectrum of informed opinion on this idea that one can do without the levy, or, for practical purposes, do without the levy except in special situations.The Times newspaper, for instance, said:
"The assumption that the shock treatment which the Government considers has already done the trick is uncertain, to say the least. It would be an awful waste to undo much of the good work of the last eight years."
Again, one may look at the engineering industry training board. I quote from this because they are responsible for so much of the industrial training effort in this country. They do not come out entirely against the Government's suggestion but they say:
" An abrupt cessation of the levy/grant mechanism and its replacement by a limited range of grants at a substantially reduced level and from central funds would result in a serious reduction in essential training effort. Many employer; support the view that a serious set-back would be bound to occur and some have expressed the view that the industry would gradually revert to the situation which existed before the 1964 Act."
That is a very serious statement to be made by what is, I suppose, the largest industrial training board in this country. Again the C.B.I. have to make it clear that the majority of their members would prefer the training levy to come to an end; but they have also made it plain, in the statement to which I have already referred, that a considerable number of their members are of the view that if the levy comes to an end much of the effectiveness of the present training system will be diminished. It would be interesting to know the breakdown of the "pros" and "antis" in the C.B.I. membership. One suspects that the "antis" are very much the smaller firms and the "pros" are very much the larger ones, but I have no authentic evidence for that.
Therefore one must ask the Government to take these criticisms from a wide spectrum of informed opinion very seriously. Merely because they have something in print, however nicely it is printed, should not make them believe that that is the last word. I hope that they will allow sufficient time for really adequate consultation and will not feel
808
that because they have said that they must have legislation—or, at any rate, that they will be putting the plans into effect next year—they must rush into things. They may be doing more harm than good and damaging something which should be improved but which certainly has not outlived its usefulness.
My Lords, I have just two more points to make. One is to support most warmly what my noble friend Lord Sainsbury said about providing training opportunities in industrial and commercial matters for students from overseas. I think it a great pity that, so far as I am aware, no mention is made of this in the document, and I hope very much that the Government will take this matter seriously. It is something which is not just a question of our natural public duty to people from developing countries but also, as has been pointed out, it is very much in the national self-interest. It is not something one can normally expect individual firms, or even industries, to undertake unless they happen to be part of a large group which has overseas interests. It is something which I think is of national interest, and therefore a national duty, and I hope that some proper financial provision will be made—possibly on the aid budget, but I would not pre-judge that. At any rate, a proper place should be found for it.
I was delighted that the Minister made reference to a certain subject and I was astonished that the noble Baroness. Lady Seear, did not: that is, the position of women so far as industrial and commercial training is concerned. After the noble Baroness's triumph the other day on the Anti-Discrimination Bill, I was surprised that, in a sphere in which there is such gross inequality of opportunity, she should not mention it.
BARONESS SEEAR: My Lords, it had occurred to me that if I omitted to make any reference to that subject, it would call more attention to it.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, if that was the subtle reason I entirely accept the explanation; but I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, referred to it. I had a notion that possibly he, or his advisers, had been reading a document presented to the Prime Minister and to the Secretary of State for Employment by the National Joint Committee of Working Women's Organisations, which feels

809
very strongly about this matter. If your Lordships study the annexes to Training for the Future closely, you will be able to work out the figures for yourselves, but to save you that labour I would just remind your Lordships that, so far as apprenticeships is concerned, in very round figures, the proportion of boys going to apprenticeships is about 40 per cent. and the proportion of girls a little over 7 per cent. Of the girls three quarters go into hairdressing apprenticeships. I am well aware that a number of occupations which are commonly regarded as women's work do not carry apprenticeships, so perhaps it might be a better indication of the true balance of opportunity if one looked instead at the day release figures. There one will find, again in round terms, that about 40 per cent. of boys of 15, 16 and 17 years of age obtain day release, and just over 10 per cent. of girls. So it is quite plain that in what one might call the public sector, girls are at a tremendous disadvantage in comparison with boys so far as training is concerned.
I was also glad to hear the Minister say that part of this is due to the unchanging attitude towards the kind of jobs which girls should undertake. The time has surely come, as the working women's organisation points out, to have some fresh thought on this matter. I think it starts in the schools, where the kind of education thought suitable for girls does not necessarily qualify them for the greater variety of jobs which otherwise would be open to them. I hope very much that, through the activities of the working women's organisations and other bodies, we shall have a much more vigorous policy so far as both education and also the training of girls is concerned. Conversely, I think that the education of boys will have to be modified in future, because although at the present time women are still in the majority in the population, if one takes the age groups under 40 one finds that men are now in the majority. This means that unless we adopt polygamy or live in communes, men in future will have, to some degree, to be equipped for domestic life. This might be taken into account in their education, and I see no reason why they should not have some training in domestice management. But I think it highly desirable that girls should have a more
810
broadly based education in future. I am surprised—although, as I say, if your Lordships will search through the annexes you will see some of these self-evident truths—that with such gross disparities the authors of a document on training hardly refer to it. I can only say, therefore, that that part of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, pleased me because it showed that at least he was aware that here there is a genuine problem.
To sum up, my Lords, my own feeling is that it is a very good thing that we should discuss these matters. I am very much afraid that the Government may be under pressure from certain directions to which they may submit, and in so doing they may be disposed to undertake changes which are far more fundamental than I believe is called for by the present situation.
6.17 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, it may be rather difficult at this late hour not to be repetitive, and if I am perhaps your Lordships will accept what I have to say as more of a reinforcement than a repetition of the speeches of previous speakers. Notwithstanding what was said by my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn, particularly in connection with the document being consultative. I must confess that I started off at its publication in February in a questioning attitude about why at this time the document had been published. I thought that perhaps it might have been considered that the usefulness of industrial training boards, under the arrangements in the 1964 Act, had come to an end. I thought that perhaps the disappointingly high level of unemployment might have had an effect also; and I remain, I fear, slightly wedded to that view because I do not think that, after only eight years for some boards and two or three years' work of other boards, the true worth of their work has yet to be realised. In the industry in which I am I know that the realisation of the benefits of formal training are only just becoming apparent.
I find it difficult also to treat the document as truly consultative in that it appears to me to be largely a series of proposals which, after a decent interval of time, would be implemented; proposals which alter fundamentally the

811
whole basis of training as set out in the 1964 Act. Notably, for the first time these proposals in the document bring a very active Government intervention into industrial training. Had the Government wished to become even more deeply involved, then I think it might well have been better had they gone further and used this opportunity for the replanning and restructuring of training to have brought in the establishment of the Manpower Planning Commission which has been discussed so many times.
The document describes in some detail as a specific object the training needs of individuals. I am afraid that one's enthusiasm for training individuals may result in training them absolutely for redundancy. As workers come out of industry with high redundancy it appears to me that they grab at any straw of retraining, irrespective of whether upon the completion of that retraining there will be a job. The enlarged operation of an increased number of G.T.C.s is to be welcomed, because in the very nature of their operation, which basically has been craft and skilled training courses, they have always been, and are likely to be, located in areas where local unemployment is greatest and a local identification of immediate re-employment is possible. Any broader based use of the G.T.C. system is, I feel, likely to be lost.
I find it rather disappointing not to have found quite positively in the document the body that is going to be responsible for the identification of the future industries. I should like this evening to he able to reel off three or four emergent industries which are going to demand huge labour forces in 1985. I fear that I am not that clever. But I think that somebody has got to be that clever. An identification of the training needs of 1980 and 1985 must he made and the plans for that training laid right now.
Again, the document lays stress on the needs of an individual. Not only is the training required to equip a man or woman, boy or girl, for a job, but I believe that it has a more social object. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, in her opening speech, which I found tremendously interesting, drew attention to what is normally called job satisfaction, job enrichment; that is, the need
812
for improving a man's basic skill in the job that he has already learned. I believe that training boards have been able to do this improvement work extremely well. I think of an auto-electrician, well versed in an ordinary wiring circuit and dynamo system of power, who has been upon a conversion course to learn of a printed circuit in a motor car and an alternator. I suppose that before industrial training began that man might well have found himself out of a job because he did not know about an alternator or a printed circuit. To-day he goes on a conversion course; and he does not, just because he has learned a wider piece of skill, immediately demand more money. Were he so to do, it would necessarily detract from an employer's sending him on a course. To a great extent, this particular factor is being achieved with the wholehearted and ready co-operation of trade unions. A number of noble Lords have emphasised the close association that has been built up through the platform of the neutral training board council between the trade unions, educationists and employers. At a time when perhaps this relationship is a little strained, I should he reluctant to make any changes in the training set-up that would curtail, or even destroy, any of the relationships that have been so arduously built up. I do not think this is a situation that we can possibly afford.
If one wishes to reassemble, as it were, individual training requirements and national training requirements, then a co-ordinated body is required, and I suppose that the National Training Agency could well be that body. I feel, however, that there is a danger to be guarded against, and it is that such an Agency might well take a too executive role, centralising the control of differing industries without a full understanding of the requirements of individual industries. The fear of the creation of a "Mr. Big" in training is, I think, a real one; and when we consider the antagonism that individual boards and their chief officers created in the minds of some people in certain industries—an antagonism which has diminished only after some years of close co-operation between the boards and the industries—the recreation of a new "Mr. Big" in training would, I think, have a rather unhappy I effect.

813
I am not at all happy with the idea that the training staffs of individual boards should be brought under a central umbrella and seconded out. I have a keen regard for many of the people working in the different boards; and most notably the Engineering Board and the Road Transport Board, where their officers have developed a keen sense of co-operation and identity with the individual industries. If men are to be sent from a central agency, it is going to take a good deal of time to build up the trust required to undertake training operations in a particular industry.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting him on that point. Surely the common-sense thing would be that the boards should retain their existing staff, at any rate, very largely and they would simply become employees of the National Training Agency. This is the way in which it would be done. I do not think there would be any suggestion that the National Training Agency would post people all round the place, just as it thought fit.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, this is an important point, and perhaps the noble Lord could develop it. Who has the right to hire, fire and promote?
LORD DRUMALBYN: The conception is that the people would be employed by the National Training Agency. They would be seconded and completely responsible to the training boards. So presumably they would be hired only on the recommendation of the training board.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, it is one thing to be responsible to the training board; it is quite another, in the last analysis, to face the possibility of being sacked by the central hoard. That is the point I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, is making.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, may I remind your Lordships that this is not a Committee stage, and that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will be speaking again at the end of the debate.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords, who I am sure have been wanting to
814
help me in this matter. I am perhaps a little more grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for bringing us back in train. I meant exactly what I said, and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn for attempting to clear the point. I do not, however, accept from my noble friend that his interpretation of what will happen will in fact happen. I believe that a man works for his nearest master. The man on the shop floor will work for his foreman, not for some chairman in the top office; and you move up the scale accordingly. So the employee (if I may call him that) of a training board works for that board. As the noble Lord, Lord Brown, said. "The guy who pays you has the right to fire you"—and this may not be the body in whose company you are enjoying your life at the time.
If one accepts that there should be a unified scheme—and the Swedish example has been mentioned in this connection; incidentally, it may be of interest to noble Lords to know that although the Swedish scheme is much lauded, they are very envious of our industrial training centres, of which they have none—it may be that the Government, in considering whether these training centres will have a useful purpose in the future, may well consult again with the Swedes to find what their view is.
My Lords, I cannot conclude without some mention of money. I believe that most noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon have drawn attention to the levy/grant system. It has been described as "crude", as "stick and carrot" and as having had "a shock effect"—with all of which description I would agree. It is for this reason, and for this reason alone, that I would continue the levy/grant system in some form or another. I cannot agree with those who say that we have now made a permanent change in the attitude towards training. I do not think this is so. I really do not mind how a man gets to a training centre: even if it is only to recover the levy, at least he has got there and some value will be gained from that. I believe that there must be a direct financing by participants, whether this is done by an overall levy on the industry or by any other method. I seriously

815
believe that there must be this participation in the cash end of the training. Perhaps it is a little disappointing that those boards which have raised the level at which the levy is currently to be applied have excluded, according to figures given in the Bolton Report and mentioned by Lord Courtown, so many small businesses which are in such dire need of training. These small businesses, whether they are specialist engineering firms or "sweetie shops", must be brought back into the training fold, for the benefit both of themselves and of their employees.
One last point: I cannot see how £40 million can be stretched to cover the proper needs of all the participating boards, agencies or people involved. I was going to quote some figures but I have in my memory that the noble Lord, Lord Champion, quoted a series of figures. We can all read them to-morrow, and I think that, in essence, they showed that currently the amount per head allocated for training is £5 but that under these proposals there will be left something like the figure of £1 per head for training. My Lords, we have to look at something considerably in excess of £5 per head if we are going to do something more useful than we have done in the past. If the Government will take real note—and this, I am sure, is what my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn meant when he assured us that all the points which had been raised will be brought to the attention of the various boards, societies and so on—then I think we can quite easily get the whole of the proposals into a more acceptable and useful shape.
6.37 p.m.
LORD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I must first declare an interest because I have the privilege of serving the Distributive Industry Training Board as its chief executive. I am therefore very closely connected with training boards and hope I shall be able to contribute to some extent to to-day's debate in your Lordships' House. I should like to start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, very much for introducing this debate at this time. As other noble Lords have said, it is a particularly timely moment for such a debate. From the depths of my heart I commend to the Government the views expressed by my noble friends Lord Rochdale and Lord Lucas of
816
Chilworth. What they have said expresses almost precisely my own view, and all that I need endeavour to do now is to fill in the gaps. I hasten to add that had these views been expressed by my noble friends then coming from them perhaps they would carry rather more weight than when coming from a hack training board man like myself.
I should like very briefly to invite your Lordships to look at why we have a training Act at all. This matter has been touched upon, but there are a couple of points which I should particularly like to emphasise. You may remember that in the 1950's it was felt that there should be more training, and the Government of the day set up an Industrial Training Council to exhort people to do training; but that had no effect. This was because those people who were operating training said: "Jolly good! We are doing what the Government want and we will go on doing it," but the others simply put the piece of paper into the wastepaper basket. So it was deemed necessary at that time to have a system by which some teeth might be given to the means by which the need for more effective training could really be brought home to people.
The other point which is particularly important is that the duty of raising the levy (because this was the means used) was given to a group of people taken from the industry; and they were taken in part from the employers and in part from the employees. When we hear that the views of the industry must be obtained— and I shall be coming back to this— later I think that the Government seriously need to decide what they mean by "the industry". Do they mean the levy boards or the trade associations, or do they mean the industry as their predecessors described it in setting up the boards which took people from both sides of industry and charged them with the responsibility of raising the levy? They also included educational members, but they did not have this particular responsibility. If one is to consult the industry it is surely necessary to be reasonably certain that one is embodying all and not just a part of the industry. The situation that we have reached to-day is, as my noble friend has just said, that some eight years elapsed before the first boards were set up, 3½ years since my board was set up and 1½ years since my

817
board became fully operative. I wonder what has changed to make the Government say in their document in paragraph 31 that there is a view held by "probably the majority … that a permanent shift in attitude in British industry has been secured".
I know that one has to be careful about using unparliamentary words—particularly in view of what happened at the start of our proceedings to-day—but I am afraid that statement, so far as it applies to the people with whom I am concerned, is not true. I question why the Government, sensible as they are, put in a section and based much of their case on an imagined situation which has in it no depth of truth in general at all. There may be isolated points in which there has been a permanent shift in attitude. There has certainly been a shift in attitude, but the permanence is so incredibly doubtful as to make one wonder why it has been included. I suspect that it could be due to two things: first, it may be that the Government were advised that the training board system of financing did not work; it could be that a certain amount of alarm was felt at the fact that some of the training boards are rather heavily in debt—and it is a fact that must not be avoided, for this is the case. However, one must remember that when the training boards first started the concept of what they could and could not do was very different from what we now understand. They were told that they were to spread the costs more evenly. It was unfortunate that the word "costs" was used because in practical terms you can only do with the levy/grant system what the levy funding allows you to do because it is your sole source of income. The grants must therefore be related to the levy in some way or another. It was quite easy in the early days of the boards for people to be misled by this cost business and they found themselves in a difficult situation because they found that grant claims greatly exceeded what they could afford to pay. All that is water under the bridge and though it is true that mistakes have been made, I described this matter in a speech on the occasion of your Lordships' last debate, in January 1970, as something which was a brave new experiment, and that I still believe it to be. The trouble with experi
818
ments is that sometimes people make mistakes. The situation now is that we know about the mistakes, and all the boards are very conscious and aware of the risk that they run of allowing their finances to run away by not being wholly sure that the levy income can cover it.
You may say in effect that the experimental period is over. The methods by which we operate are, so far as possible, wholly watertight in financial terms. Before leaving that point, I should like as a special plea to recommend to the Government that they give serious consideration to writing off the debts of those boards which have excessive debt positions. This would be fair because to a certain extent when they made their mistakes these people did so with the understanding of the Government of the day. The Government have money at their disposal for this purpose under the Industrial Training Act 1964, and I suspect that the burden of a heavy debt is much more of a disincentive to listen to the word "training" than the payment of a levy. I therefore ask the Government to give particular thought to that suggestion.
I have dealt with the first reason why I think the Government committed themselves in this document to what is a statement of doubtful accuracy. The second reason is that the levy payers have represented to the Government that the payment of the levy is intolerable; the paperwork is intolerable, and therefore the system should be done away with. This is an understandable situation. The levy payers are having to "cough up" money; but in the first place, one purpose of the training Act was to make them think about training because their money was involved. This is so, and of course they complain. It is significant that when we had our debate in January 1970 objection to the levy was never mentioned once by any speaker. In some cases firms had been levied for four or five years longer than the firms with which I am associated to-day. Why was no objection voiced? It was because noble Lords did not think that there was any chance of the levy being abolished. If you suggest that you are going to do something and ask somebody about it he would probably agree

819
with your view. For example, I like whisky; I think the tax on whisky is much too high. If the Government were to come to me and say, "We are thinking of abolishing the tax on whisky; do you think this is a good idea?" I should answer, "Yes". Furthermore, I would probably be able to buttress that answer with such suggestions as, "Yes, indeed; I cannot think why it has not been done before"; or "The tax on whisky is intolerable; it is an interference with my liberty as an individual to drink what I want to drink". I could go on in that vein.
This in effect is what has happened about the levy. It has been suggested that it may be abolished and, of course, the levy payers agree. Coming back to what I said earlier, I suggest that the Government should think seriously as to whether the basis on which they formulated their plans is a true one. Before I leave the matter of the levy, may I suggest one further point? So far we have seen in the document, though we have not heard much about it in the speeches in this House to-day, what is wrong with the levy; it interferes with people's true appreciation of training. et cetera. What has not been described, and what does not appear in the document, are the advantages to the levy payer. The most important advantage is that they have a clear right and an easy method of controlling the levy.
We as a training board are under permanent pressure from our levy payers to keep the levy and our costs low. People write to me practically once a month on that type of ground. This is something that they can do. If they are not going to have their training funded through the National Training Agency from the central Exchequer, it will cost them, we are told, at least £40 million. Many people have questioned whether this sum is enough—for example, speakers to-day, the C.B.I., the T.U.C., the Institute of Personnel Managers. It is possible that there will be more money spent on the general framework of training through the industrial training boards. It could well be therefore that, instead of having £200 million, roughly, collected from them, of which only £16 million is spent on administration and training services while all the rest goes back into grants,
820
they will have quite a large sum—shall we say £60 million?—taken from them through their taxes, and they will not really have an easy way of controlling that at all.
It is much better for them to be able to grouse to us, whom they can attack; and their grouses are not as numerous as all that, my Lords. In the last two years I have had only 80 letters forwarded to me from people complaining to their Members of Parliament who have forwarded the letters on to the Secretary of State. That is 80 out of something like 18,000 levy payers and 35,000 people to whom we have written in the first place to find out whether they should be levy payers. So it can be said that we have interfered with 35,000 people and only 80 of them have bothered to complain in this way. In addition to that, in the last three years I have had, perhaps, a couple of hundred letters from people who have complained to me personally or to my chairman. But what is interesting is that I have been able to deal with these complaints myself. It is not a great task; there is not a great upset. Furthermore, out of these complainants the earlier ones are in many cases now satisfied. We have visited them, we have explained to them what we are doing, and they are getting on with training and demanding our services further. So, many of these complaints cancel themselves out. Probably, therefore, the complaints from individuals can have been given a greater emphasis in the Government's mind than is reasonable.
I want briefly (and I will not keep your Lordships much longer) to touch on one small point which I think is concerning people and has not been mentioned in this debate. It is this. Supposing the Government think again and do not compel people to abandon the levy principle in 1972–73. There is, perhaps, in some people's minds—though Heaven forbid it should happen !—a danger that the Government might change and we should find noble Lords opposite in charge. Some people might think that they might take the view, "Oh, we've got these people with the levies. We'll put them all up", and whereas the present Secretary of State with his powers under the Act is encouraging Boards to put down their levy, which in some cases is very reasonable, it could be that a Labour Secretary

821
of State would take the opposite view; or this is the thought. I personally in speaking of these levies would like to dispel that idea. I do not think there is any chance whatsoever of that happening. It would perhaps be nice to have reassurance on that point so far as it can be given, but I think the risk of that would be very small indeed, if there is any risk at all.
My next point is this. What, if we are to retain the levy, is it suggested that we should do? I believe that as the training boards know their industries through and through, in a way that the Department of Employment does not and the N.T.A. will never be able to because they will not be close to the grass roots, they are the people, surely, gradually to work out the levy. There are two ways in which this can be done, and both might well be done concurrently. Some boards are already working towards it. One is a process of disengagement, where you disengage people who are training better than average and where the purposes of the impetus are no longer relevant; and another is gradually to reduce the levy so that eventually there is practically nothing left for grant and most of it is going in services, the levy going down to the 0·1 or 0·2 per cent. level, which is perhaps rather more tolerable to people. That sort of thing can happen in due course.
All boards have their different problems. That is why we have different boards for each industry, and all boards therefore will have their own assessments as to how this should be done. You may say, "Why should the boards decide?" The answer is that they represent the industry; the board members are taken from the industry, and they will make as good a judgment as anybody as to the rate at which this kind of procedure should take place. This, surely, is a much more reasonable way and I would suggest to my noble friend on the Front Bench, if I may, that it is much more in keeping with what I should have called Conservative philosophy. It leaves the matter in a decentralised fashion; it leaves it to be decided by people who are actually close to the job. That, surely, is the attitude which generally from these Benches we like to encourage, instead of having a great central juggernaut whose contact with reality is unlikely to be very deep.
822
I will not hold your Lordships for very much longer, but I would say a brief word about the N.T.A. itself. I believe that there is a good reason for having an N.T.A. and its principal purpose should not be only to run the Government training centres. If we are to give this increased opportunity to individuals, that will be very necessary, but it is absolutely vital, as certain noble Lords have said, if this is to happen, that it is done with a true knowledge of what the need is; and so a thoroughly expert body is required. My noble friend who spoke before me said that he was not clever enough to solve the problem of the big companies in the future. But at least he posed the problem. This is the kind of question the N.T.A. will have to get down to. It will find that it will receive very good basic advice in working as a partner with, but not as a superior to, the training boards as regards their own resources, because the training boards are more likely than anyone else to know what is happening in their industry with regard to training needs in the future. In fact it is very difficult for anybody to forecast training needs in the future, but at least if one tackles the problem the training boards are probably better able than anyone else to provide the kind of information required. I hope that if there is to be a body looking after the Government training centres, and forming, one would hope, the nucleus of the manpower body which has been recommended vaguely in the consultative document, and more thoroughly and firmly by the T.U.C., the N.T.A. could well develop into such a body and look after the whole question of the training boards and opportunities for people all over the country.
The last point I want to make is that in the document there is reference to the idea that the N.T.A. should develop its own regional training system to supplement the work of the boards. As I understand it, this is to take on those areas which have not got training boards, such as banking and insurance, which escaped by the skin of their teeth through the change of Government, and certain other areas which probably need training just as much as, or more than, those people who are under training boards. It is partly to do that, and to deal with the very small people who are below the cut-off points of the various training boards. I do not believe that it would

823
be good use of the country's money to build up a regional system of this kind. One would have to tread delicately in this area.
So far as the small firms are concerned within a training board's orbit, I believe that as the training boards get on they will be able to work towards providing facilities for those firms. There will have to be a little more flexibility in their operation. I will not bore your Lordships with technicalities about employers and employees, and the Bill which was before Parliament and died as the Government changed, but I think that if we could be allowed to give a service to the small people—as I think we can—and particularly to ally them to group training schemes, where these are set up, this is the kind of situation we want to encourage. I would mention, in passing, that in the last 15 months my training board has got the rudiments of a hundred group training schemes under way, and I think this is something with which the consultative document agrees. I should have thought that an expansion of that sort of body to engulf the smaller firms and possibly take in the loyal staffs, if they are not in a training board in a local town, would be a better way of going about things.
To sum up, my Lords, this document does not impress me. Certain noble Lords have said what a very good document it is. Compared with the average White Paper I would agree; but as a document which tells the truth, which gives the right emphasis to facts—there is a whole page of comment on training boards, most of which gives the wrong impression—as a document which is trying to set out the basis for a new plan I think it is rotten. I am sorry to have to say this to my noble friend, but I believe that the general concept of developing the Government training centres was a good thing. I do not believe that now is the time to "muck about" with training boards. I would say: "Give us at least another five years and then have another look at the position."
7.1 p.m.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, I propose to dwell briefly on only one aspect of training, which I have already raised
824
on more than one occasion in your Lordships' House, namely, the technical training of overseas students, chiefly those from the developing countries. I am encouraged to do so by two sentences at the end of the document Training for the Future, which of course has been referred to, favourably and unfavourably, by nearly all noble Lords this afternoon. In many ways it is an admirable document—and certainly from the point of view of style—admirable, that is, save, from my point of view, in one notable respect, for, as the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, and the noble Baroness, Lady White, have said, owing to some extraordinary aberration it does not even mention the problem presented by the training of overseas students. There is no mention whatever. I hope that does not mean that the Government are becoming "inward-looking", which is always a tendency which they seem to detect (usually wrongly) in their European partners. Anyhow, we read at page 5 of the document
"Government schemes will never compare in scale with the provision"—
they mean the provision of training—
"by employers themselves, since they aim at filling important gaps in the system, and not at taking over functions which properly belong to employers. However,"—
and this is the point—
"experience in certain other Western European countries … suggests that there could well be room for a much larger contribution by the Government to the provision of training facilities for individuals."
The reference to the performance of certain other Western European Governments is indeed apposite, and perhaps the noble Lord who is to reply might confirm what is, I believe, a fact (and I am quoting O.E.C.D. figures) that the Western German Government now provide getting on for eight times as much in volume of training (that is to say, training as measured in man-months) to officially financed overseas trainees as we do. This compares with less than twice as much in 1965. If the Germans can do this, why can we not do it? That is a simple question. Is it not possible that we can learn something from the German system of training which, if we may judge from the figures given on page 62 of Training for the Future, seems in any case to be far ahead of us in a general way? How, then, could

825
we suitably arrange for more practical training to be given to our overseas students from the underdeveloped countries, who, as we all know, are for the most part (apart from a few hundred sponsored ones who have already been placed in training in industry) crying out for practical training rather than for theoretical knowledge, which usually they cannot put to any very good account when they return to their native lands?
As it seems to me, the problem—and of course I simplify; one has to in five minutes—really resides in the willingness of our industrial firms to take on additional trainees over and above those whom they are already training for their own purposes. I am referring, of course, to trainees from abroad. Naturally, by and large, they will do no such thing unless they are compensated. Therefore, why not compensate them? Why not allocate (shall we say?) £1½ million for financing, say, 1,000 students in courses of industrial training, and another £1½ million for financing the training of another 1,000 overseas students in commerce, finance and so on? The £3 million, which after all is a trivial amount in it way, would presumably be taken straight out of the overseas aid Vote, and certainly it would do much more good than most direct aid seems to do. Most of your Lordships would agree with that, at any rate. What is therefore surely wanted, apart from persuading the Treasury that the £3 million would be well spent, is a central agency which will administer the scheme, and the proposed National Training Agency seems, on the face of it, to someone who, admittedly, does not know much about it, to be admirably suited for this purpose. Of course it would work in conjunction with the Council for Technical Education and Training in Overseas Countries (known as TETOC) and the Overseas Students' Advisory Bureau (OSAB), over which the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury presides with such distinction.
I know it will be said by some that such a block allocation of funds might be dangerous as tending to admit that almost everybody from overseas, however ill-fitted, would have a sort of right to technical training in our factories. But this would really not be so. Only those students who had satisfactorily completed at least a year's course at an approved
826
technical college would be eligible. In other words, it would be the duty of, I should think, the National Training Agency to produce the limited number of bodies for whom provision would be made, in conjunction and in co-operation with the educational authorities concerned, who know all about these people.
My Lords, it all seems quite simple to me—so many things seem simple to me which afterwards turn out to be very complicated—given the cash and given the will: above all, given the will. After all, we are not considering vast sums of money or huge numbers of foreigners; only about 2,000 out of the 70,000-odd students in this country and about 1 per cent. of the 0·7 per cent. of our gross national product that we now reluctantly devote to aid as a whole. It is only a question of a few deserving young men and women—potential engineers, technicians, architects, accountants and so on—mostly from the Commonwealth who have voluntarily chosen Britain as a kind of foster parent and who would be the best possible ambassadors for British goods on return to their own countries if they were able to put their acquired techniques to profitable account, which now they are so often unable to do. I have said this before, more or less, and I say it again: to those people we often at the present time refuse even the crumbs which fall from our rich man's table.
Nor need we be alarmed by difficulties in the way of administering the necessary grants. Why should we be? Each trainee placed with a firm would presumably have to be given an allowance, and the firm itself would be given so much for the additional expense of training him. That need not be a very large grant, if there are already a substantial number of trainees in a given firm. In a great big firm with many trainees one or two additional chaps from the Commonwealth would not matter very much; it would not be a great strain. With smaller firms it would be more so, and no doubt the grant would have to vary at the discretion of the Agency by arrangement with the firms. All that would be wanted would be a few competent officers in the N.C.A. and good will on the part of the training officials in the firms. I do not see why this should not be forthcoming.

827
Finally, I would once again observe that what is urgently necessary now, surely, is some common Western European policy regarding the education and training of overseas students generally. For a sensible common policy—and now we are going into the Community surely we ought to aim at one—would go a long way to impressing the underdeveloped countries of the firm intention of "Europe", of which they are often so suspicious, to pursue a liberal policy of aid, and not to conduct, as in the past, a policy of rival nationalism which had such terrible effects before the war.
Having said that, I rather hope that this afternoon the Government, in addition to confirming the figure regarding Germany which I mentioned earlier on, will at least hold out some hope of now proceeding on the broad lines I have suggested. Usually on such occasions I get afterwards a very polite and well drafted letter from the Department concerned, explaining to me that after profound thought the bureaucrats have reached the conclusion that all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds. I should, however, be surprised if there were official complacency as regards the technical training of overseas students; but if there is, I would urge the Government to discover what the various High Commissioners with whom they are in contact feel about it. In any case, the present rethink on training as a whole in this country obviously presents an occasion for a complete reappraisal of the allied but not unimportant question of the training of our young overseas friends and guests, and I hope the Government will at least examine the possibilities of making real progress in this general direction.
7.13 p.m.
LORD COLLISON: My Lords, may I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and the House for intervening at this late hour, but my problem is the usual one: I am never quite sure that I can get here. I will not detain your Lordships long. I do not know whether any noble Lords have mentioned agriculture, but I rise to say a few words on behalf of training in that industry. I have, of course, an interest: I am at the moment the chairman of the Agricultural Apprenticeship Council. That Council
828
was formed some years ago by long-sighted and responsible people from both sides of the industry in order to give the industry some training facility which it had not got, to raise its status and standing and raise the status and standing of the people in it, to bring it into line with the other great industries of our country which have had their apprenticeship arrangements for many years. Now the Agricultural Training Board has been set up, again the result of a campaign coming from both sides of the industry, and I am, as it were, the night watchman. My Apprenticeship Council is to come to an end in about two years' time. We are seeing the present apprentices through, but after that the job will be done, as it is now, by the Agricultural Training Board.
Of course, we had our problem as regards financing. As noble Lords in the industry will know, there was some difficulty with the farmers in relation to payment of the levy. Someone with the wisdom of Solomon discovered a way around that one, and the finances are now found as part of the Annual Price Review. That works very well. We are now somewhat worried as to what the future of the board is going to be in terms of money, in view of the relatively small amount of money which is going to be allocated by the Government for training over the whole field. I believe it is a fact that many people still do not understand that training for agriculture is just as important, and some of us think more important, than for many other industries. In my youth people went into agriculture, both as farmers and farm workers, and they learned the job by doing it. We learned it, I have always said, the hard way. That was possible in those days, but with the highly developed techniques we have in farming to-day, the highly sophisticated machinery, the very precise allocation of scientific knowledge through the farmer and the farmworker, it is no longer of any use, and training for our industry is really essential and we want to see it go on.
In particular, I am sure that it is going to be even more important in the future because of our entry into the Common Market—which, incidentally I approve—and the competition which is going to develop and increase as between our own farming industry and the farming industries of the Continent. If I may say

829
so, I do not think that there is going to be any problem in agriculture (which has been voiced this afternoon) in terms of training for redundancy. I think most people who are knowledgeable about agriculture and have observed the rundown of the labour force have now reached the conclusion, and I am sure rightly, that if we are to be able to compete with the countries of the Common Market, if we are really to go on improving our efficiency—and we can still do that—we cannot do it if the labour force declines any more.
That brings me to my last point, which is that in agriculture I think we have a special case. I know that maybe other industrial people could claim this for their industry. But agriculture is different in the sense that farming units are very small; the majority of farms employ only one or two men, and when it comes to training both my apprenticeship council in the past and the training board now has to find individual farmers prepared to train individual workers, not for themselves but for the industry, and we have therefore had to make arrangements to see that the farmers receive some compensation for what they do. We also in our industry have a structure of training machinery, if I may call it that; we have our farm institutes with technical training on day release, we have our agricultural colleges, and most of the universities, too, have agriculture as a part of their work. So the structure is there, and I think the two things combined make a very good case for agriculture being treated as a separate entity in terms of training. I believe that the arrangements could allow for this, and in my view this should happen.
There is one final point that I would bring out, I hope clearly; that is, that training in agriculture is perhaps more important to the agricultural worker than in any other industry. Of course, my knowledge is very largely centred on agriculture, but I do have knowledge elsewhere in industry. Farm workers, in order to achieve a plus rate—and we now have a wage structure which again forward thinking people in agriculture worked for for years—have to become craftsmen; and they become craftsmen as a result of taking proficiency tests after having been an apprentice or having gone through the training board. So
830
it is important for the workers that the training facilities are there for him, particularly on entering the industry. The Agricultural Training Board has been able to cope with the inflow of workers up to the end of last year, but I know that they are worried about the future possibilities. The demand for training—thank goodness! for the industry's stake—is increasing, and there is some worry on the training board about the financial arrangements being sufficient to carry them. I hope that the Government will have regard for agriculture just as it has to have regard for industry and the efficiency of the nation as a whole and will bear in mind what I have tried to say this afternoon, simply because I think agriculture ought not to be left out of this debate. I again apologise for having taken up your Lordships' time.
7.21 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will agree that my noble friend's apology is not necessary. I should like to add my warm support to all those who thanked the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, for the way in which she initiated this debate and I should also say it is to the credit of the Liberal Party that they made this day available. It has been a critical debate but always constructive. It has also been a non-Party debate, although the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, seemed to be under some compulsion to make a sideswipe at political opponents whenever he could. I have no doubt that otherwise noble Lords have spoken from a non-partisan standpoint. Having said that, I think it is fair to add that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has been in a minority of one so far as most of the points that arose in this debate are concerned. However, we were grateful to him for the way in which he explained what this document is about.
There were certain points upon which we could all agree, including the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. First, that the 1944 Act has resulted in significant benefits to industry as a whole and to individual workers, as well as helping towards a more enlightened and constructive attitude on training. Secondly, I think we agree with the proposal in the gracious Speech of October 1970 that the time is now right for a review of the work of the industrial training boards. We can

831
also agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Champion, and the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale, and others said so well, that the document we are discussing is attractively produced and readable and would appear in certain respects to be proposing further improvements in the national provisions for industrial training. The question is whether the proposals in the document are in the right direction or whether they go far enough.
My Lords, here the area of agreement diminishes rapidly. While I know there is scope for argument as to whether a consultative document should result from discussions before drafting, it is somewhat unfortunate that the document has been produced, as I understand it, without any consultation at all with any employer organisation, with any trade union, or, so far as I can make out, with any educational body or professional organisation, or indeed with the industrial training boards themselves. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, made a gallant attempt to produce evidence to support the contention that the time is now right to wind up the training boards so far as the levy/grant system is concerned. I would have thought it a little premature to be quite so dogmatic as the noble Lord appeared to be about the date for phasing out. After all, no industrial training board has had more than seven years' experience with the levy/grant and some have had as little as two years. The noble Lord spoke of the iron and steel industry, but I doubt whether that can be taken as being typical, and these unnamed small companies, though important, do not necessarily outweigh the evidence which comes from the larger companies.
It is worth recalling what the Minister of Labour, Mr. Godber at that time, had to say when introducing the Industrial Training Bill. He said in November. 1963:
"It is on the industrial training boards … that the success of this policy will depend."
The Minister went on to say:
"The financial sanction will be, and is directly intended to be, a powerful weapon in our board's hands."
I cannot believe that it can be claimed that the levy/grant has so completely done its work, and that all companies in all industries are so alive to their responsibilities that they are prepared to begin
832
or continue adequate training schemes without the use of this essential weapon.
My Lords, I hope that the Government—and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will be able to assure us of this—will take into account what has been said by the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale, by Lady Seear, by the noble Lords, Lord Brown and Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, all of whom have very great experience in these matters. It is relevant also to read what the Engineering Industry Training Board has to say because they, too, speak with some certainty in this matter. They say in the Summary of Conclusions which they submitted after their study of the document:
"The Government's conclusion that there has been '… a major change in the attitude of a large section of British industry to systematic training' and the consequent assumption that the training position is relatively secure, is not valid for the engineering industry."
They also say:
"whatever the general position, the change in attitude in the engineering industry is not substantial and permanent and the training situation is consequently by no means secure."
All this, I suggest, must be borne very seriously in mind.
I do not wish to provoke the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, into another major speech, but I wonder whether, in the light of his emphasis upon the phasing out by 1972–73, he will clarify paragraph 144 in the document, where it is said that:
"It would not he desirable if the phasing out of general levy/grant schemes were to have a significant adverse effect on training or on the level of education resources committed as a result of the boards' training activities."
What exactly is meant by: "It would not be desirable"? Are they going to be phased out by 1972–73 whether it is desirable or not, or will there be second thoughts on this point? A revised combination of direct grant and industrial levy might be a possibility. I agree with what the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale, had to say about that; but in the light of all that has been said here this afternoon it would seem to be a retrograde step to phase out the system to the timetable proposed.
There would be one other incidental casualty from any phasing out by that

833
date. Although he found it difficult to be friendly to his political opponents, the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, I think was potentially very generous to industrial partners, and I thought he was paying a compliment to what had been done by the trade unions in industry. He told us that when we talk about industry we should think about the two sides of industry, and it is a fact that the Industrial Training Act is the only piece of legislation where the trade unions have been given equal opportunity with employers for both advice and control of a measure of industrial activity. At a time when everyone appears to want the trade union movement to assume social and industrial responsibilities and in an area where all would agree they have fully lived up to the responsibility placed upon them, it would seem a most regrettable step to terminate this most useful and hopeful arrangement. We might also spare a thought, as my noble friend Lord Champion reminded us, for the most valuable statistical information about manpower resources which has been coming from the industrial training boards. Do we really want to discard this unique source of knowledge? Will the new arrangement fill this need as adequately?
Although I understand the discussion document to envisage that boards will remain in existence it would be only in an advisory capacity. I am sure the Minister would agree that the combination of workers' and employers' representatives, together with educationists and professional staff, has produced fine results in most boards. Moreover, there have been results not only in fulfilling the function immediately required of them, but also in solving wider problems as a result of growing knowledge and respect of one side of industry and another because of this working together.
I think we do accept, as I understand it, what has been said about the need for a shift towards centralised planning and control. The I.T.B.s of course cannot deal with the problem of re-training. It is a fact that industries with the best record of industrial training are too often in areas where employment opportunities are contracting. One has in mind the engineering and coal-mining industries, for example. So for re-training and for training for the new industries, and for
834
the training of disabled and handicapped, there is a whole new field of work waiting to be done by a new centralised board. But I suggest that we have to look at this problem from a more widely based standpoint, and with a much more positive organisation in mind than that indicated in the discussion document. From that standpoint the new body would have to operate as an active and integral part of a national economic policy designed to expand production and, as the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale, put it so well, to ensure the maximum utilisation of available labour. It would need to have clear responsibility for job placement. It would need to be relieved of the responsibility for the payment of benefits.
In Mrs. Castle's time a decision was taken to reform the services of the D.E.A. and to provide for the administrative separation of benefits and of job placement. We have had a White Paper, but one would like to know—and it is relevant to this discussion—when these reforms are to be implemented. Once they have been implemented, it will be essential to expand and improve the job placement services, together with this task of training. There is now a ratio of one placement officer to every 143 workers unemployed. This compares with a ratio in Sweden of one officer to 15 unemployed. As the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said, we have a good deal to learn from Sweden. In that country, at least one-third of the unemployed are undergoing re-training at any point of time. I think this is probably even better than the example given to us, quite rightly, by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn. A similar proportion in this country to that of Sweden would mean the creation of something like 300,000 training places, and a minimum of 150,000 places, even if we brought our level of unemployment down to 2 per cent. Considering these figures, we can immediately see that the apparently optimistic proposal in this document, of 60,000 to 70,000 places by 1975, is not, as the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said, as generous as would seem at first sight. Moreover, as others have said, the proposed £25 million to £40 million a year to provide selective grants does not nearly match the present

835
£185 million a year now going into this work as a result of levy grants.
I want to emphasise again that it is not good enough simply to talk about training unless there is a much more imaginative machinery for the placing of the trainee in a useful job. Nothing is more frustrating to the individual, more wasteful to the economy, or potentially more dangerous to society, than training a human being who, inevitably, will be unable to use the skills that he is given. If the social objectives are unrelated to the creation of employment opportunities, it is doubtful whether these training schemes, on balance, would be an advantage at all.
Here again, my Lords, we should turn to the work of the Swedish Manpower Board. The Swedish labour market board has developed re-training as a positive instrument in economic planning. The policy of expanding job opportunities during periods of relatively high unemployment and reduced economic activity has proven most valuable. Moreover, the flexibility which they seem to have, the ability to set up temporary facilities for training in particularly hard hit areas, is something that we should study. As one who has been interested over many years in the work of the Cooperative College at Loughborough, I should like to say how much I agree with what was said by my noble friend Lady White, by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, and by my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek about the need to have proper provision for training overseas students. At the College to which I made reference, the Co-operative College, about one-third of the students are always from overseas. I have always been absolutely convinced that, on the basis of the work that has been done in that field, the College has been more than justified. If we could expand similar work under the ægis of this new arrangement, it too would yield immense benefits.
I finish by thanking again the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and, as my noble friend said, her Party, for their contribution to this debate. One hopes that we shall see, outside Parliament as well as in it, much more interest and discussion on this subject, because it is, as others have said, a quite vital aspect of our national economic life. I hope, too, that
836
we shall see this discussion in its proper and widest possible context, and that if not this Government then its successor will bring along plans for National Labour Boards charged with duties not only of co-ordinating training but of ensuring that the trainee is actually used in a productive job.
7.37 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, as we come towards the end of this long debate at a late hour, I do not think you will want me to comment in detail on each of the speeches that have been made. May I just say—and I say this very sincerely—that we are extremely grateful for the criticisms and comments that have been made on this document. They have been made with moderation, and they have gained all the more from that fact. There have been some disagreements, for example on the level of places that should be provided in the vocational training scheme. I do not disagree about that. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, started by saying that she thought that 60,000 to 70,000 was modest. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, projects Swedish experience and says that we should have 300,000; but the noble Lord, Lord Brown, thinks that 200,000 might, in certain circumstances at any rate, be too much. That is all part of the criticism, and all those thoughts have to be weighed. It just shows the kind of problem with which we are dealing.
I thought that perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, was a little unkind to my noble friend Lord Mottistone. He took healthy swipes all round, but I thought he reserved the severest strokes for the consultative document itself and the Government; he called it "rotten". I think the reason is simply that he thought, if I may put it in this way, that the document was rotten at the core; that the main basis on which the decision was taken was wrong. I do not complain of his thinking that. I thought he made an admirable and a most informative speech, and I am sure that all he has said will be considered extremely carefully. The point is that we are all agreed that the purpose must be to secure an adequate level of training. That is the purpose from which the Government start. If it can be shown that the Government's proposals are not going to achieve that objective, and if the purpose

837
can be shown to be achieved better by the retention of the levy, whether in whole or modified, so much the better. We have to achieve the objective, and we will take away everything that has been said and look at it in that light.
I would say to my noble friend Lord Mottistone, only that it is difficult to generalise from experience in one industry. Experiences vary so much. The Department of Employment has received literally hundreds of complaints forwarded from Members of Parliament alone about the levy system. I quite realise that in any kind of big organisation one always expects to get a certain level of complaints, and it would be quite wrong to judge an issue on the basis of those complaints alone. I shall not repeat what I said earlier. I was sorry to hear the noble Lord, Lord Beswick describe the proposals as dogmatic. They are not intended to be. They are a summary of the evidence which the Department of Employment has had, and in its view the balance—
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I used the word "dogmatic" in relation to what I understood the noble Lord said about the 1972/73 deadline.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg the noble Lord's pardon. That of course is a narrower issue. Perhaps I may come back to that in a minute or two. I think the point which has not come out sufficiently clearly in the debate is that under the present scheme £200 million is being paid out in the form of grants. If the grant were taken away, then we hope and expect that the level of expenditure would be maintained by the momentum in industry istelf—this is the criterion—with a slight deduction because there would not be the same administrative expenses involved. The point to which I am drawing attention is that a comparison between the £200 million and the £25 million to £40 million is an entirely false one, because the £25 million to £40 million is on the assumption that the greater part of the £200 million will continue to be spent by industry. But it will not be collected in the form of levy and handed back in the form of grant. This would be the aim of ending the levy/grant system, and I gather that we are generally agreed that, sooner or later, it should come to an end—by evolution, I
838
think my noble friend Lord Mottistone said—over a period of time.
May I say a word to the noble Lord, Lord Champion? He pointed to paragraph 88 of the consultative document, which suggested that the levy/grant should be phased out but that it would be open to boards to propose further continuance of the levy/grant if it were essential to industry. He suggested that this presupposed that the boards might fail to obtain an adequate grant from the National Training Agency. I do not think that is necessarily so. An industry might want to continue the levy/grant as a means of sharing the cost of training, which rightly falls on the employers in an industry. This was an important objective of the 1964 Act. Over most of industry it is no longer being fulfilled, but there may be small sectors where it would still be very important to the employers concerned. I think the noble Lord, Lord Champion, also suggested that the £25 million to £40 million a year proposed for selective grants for key training activities and other continuing work of the boards will not be enough. The Government accept that it is very difficult indeed to estimate in advance how much will be needed, but I should like to make it quite clear that there is nothing sacrosanct about the figure of £25 million to £40 million. As the Secretary of State has said, we shall not spoil the ship for a ha'porth of tar.
My noble friend Lord Rochdale mentioned the need to relate the numbers trained under the training boards' scheme to the numbers required by employers. The Government entirely accept the need to do all that we can in this field. We have no intention of training people for unemployment. That is a phrase which I remember from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, two years ago. We have a very good record of placing trainees under the present Government's vocational training scheme. A few months ago, about 90 per cent. of trainees were being placed within three months of completing their course, despite high levels of unemployment in general. It would be more difficult, of course, with the much larger numbers of trainees which we hope to achieve, but we should make every effort to succeed in this.
The noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, and the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, raised

839
the question of the position of overseas trainees under the new arrangements. I can give an assurance that final decisions will not be made before the position of overseas trainees has been fully considered. They will be taken fully into account. I accept entirely what was said about the economic value, and indeed about the general political and human values, of this. I do not think that the increased use of spare training capacity under the vocational training scheme, and soon under the training boards' scheme, will increase the difficulties of overseas trainees. The Department of Employment makes use of relatively large units of spare capacity—say, a dozen places at a time—whereas overseas students are generally placed in ones and twos and are often even supernumerary to the establishment. In addition, overseas students are usually at a higher level of training—often graduates—than people trained on behalf of the Departments of Employment and Industry, so their interests do not really clash. I quite acknowledge that there are difficulties, but it would be the object of our policy to see that they did not clash in future.
I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brown, for drawing attention to sandwich courses. I was particularly pleased to hear him, with his very great experience in industry and at Brunel University, speaking of the great value of those courses to industry. The Government agree about the importance of sandwich courses and are aware of the concern which has developed in recent months over the difficulty in finding places in industry for the students' industrial period. Certainly some boards have included such courses in their schemes. The Government have made it clear, in paragraph 144 of the document, that
"It would not be desirable"—
and this is the point which the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, raised—
"if the phasing out of general levy/grant schemes were to have a significant adverse effect on training or on the level of education resources committed as a result of the Boards' training activities."
This is in a passage dealing with transitional measures, and follows immediately upon the sentence which states that:
"It would obviously be important not to bring Boards' grant schemes to an end before arrangements to replace them, so far as may be necessary, are in operation."
840
I think it fair to say, first and foremost, that the success and continuance of the sandwich course must inevitably depend upon industry's own recognition of the value of the courses to industry. In addition, the proposals in the document include the very important selective grants for key training activities.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, industry recognises the value of students of this type, but when you take a student for five months you cannot tie him to come back to you. In taking students for a sandwich period in their university education you are therefore training them not for yourself but for somebody else. That is the difficulty.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Yes, my Lords, I recognise the difficulty. I know that at Brunel University, for example, there are two types of student: those who come sponsored by industry, and those who come straight from school with the object of going into industry. I quite agree that there are difficulties. But there seems to be no reason why boards, and the National Training Agency, should not where necessary support sandwich course places in industry, making grants as for any other key training activity.
In a very penetrating speech the noble Baroness, Lady White, made a number of references to the comments of the T.U.C., the C.B.I. and the Engineering Industry Training Board. My Lords, if I could deal with this in a word, I should like to say that such criticisms are valuable to the consultative process, and all these comments will be given the most careful consideration—and, of course, there will be direct consultations with those concerned. In this connection I might also say to my noble friend Lord Mottistone that my right honourable friend is going to see the chairmen of the training boards. I do not know if my noble friend is aware of this yet, but before very long my right honourable friend will do this; so he will hear exactly what the training boards, severally and collectively, think should be done.
My Lords, I want to say just one word to my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth. I think he is unduly worried about the possibility of domination by the National Training Agency. It has to be borne in mind that the National Training Agency will be working on guidelines

841
laid down by the Secretary of State, who will be consulting with all the other Departments involved; and at the end of the day it could also be subject to general directions. I am sure it would not be the wish of my right honourable friend that a "Mr. Big" should develop in the National Training Agency and dominate the whole field. I think my noble friend can rest assured about that.
I was also asked about the general question of the status of industrial training boards. This is a very difficult question, and I take note of everything that has been said here. I would only say that I am sure my right honourable friend agrees entirely with the Opinion that has been expressed here, that the relationship within the industrial training boards between the trade union representatives, the employers' representatives and the educationists is of vital concern for training in the country as a whole, and I am quite sure that this will be constantly borne in mind. My Lords, I think I have spoken for quite long enough.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he answer the question I asked him, about the growth of training centres, or the reverse, during the period 1950 to 1963?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord. There was a decline in the number of training centres from 23 in 1951 to 13 in 1962. There are now 52, and this number will rise to 64 by 1975.
I hope that I have covered most of the points. I see my noble friend Lord Courtown in his place. I saw him dive for the door a short time ago, and I am glad to see him back again in his place. I am very glad indeed that he raised the question of management education. The emphasis of the document is on management training and development within industry. This is where we believe the Agency can make a significant impact. The Government are conscious that in such activities close links will need to be built up with the field management education, and with those active in this field. I am not sure whether my noble friend is aware of this, but Ministerial responsibility for management education rests with the Education Departments,
842
and the proposals in the document envisage no change in this respect. At the level of central Government, there would be full consultation between Departments on the general policy guidelines for the Agency, and the Agency may need arrangements for consultation and liaison on more day-to-day matters touching the education service. We are awaiting the views of the Education Service in these matters, but as I said in my opening speech the Government hope to see this link between education and training strengthened despite this alteration in the statutory basis.
My Lords, on that point, I do not want to wake the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, but I was going to say to him that not only did I appreciate his speech very much indeed but the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the Secretary of State for Scotland have invited the views of the education interests on the Government's proposals for industrial training, and the City and Guilds London Institute is among those bodies whose views are being sought. With those explanations, I should like once again to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. She has done a real service in giving your Lordships the opportunity to comment on these proposals.
7.55 p.m.
BARONESS SEEAR: My Lords, I am sure that the best contribution I can make now is extreme brevity. There are many points raised in the debate on which I should like to comment, but I will restrict myself to three points which I wish to make very briefly. I believe that it has emerged from this debate that there is grave apprehension about excessive centralisation; and, if I may say so, of all the areas of training to which centralisation is inappropriate, management training is pre-eminently the one that I would have stressed. There is far too much difference of opinion and lack of evidence about what is really required in management training, and to choose this area to be dominated by the National Training Agency, even in consultation with regional education authorities, seems to me peculiarly inappropriate.
The second point I would make, responding to the noble Lord who spoke previously, is that it is not so much a question of the maintenance of the levy:

843
it is a question of the maintenance of the responsibility and authority of the training boards—and that is a very different matter. Some of the training boards themselves are highly critical of the levy, and indeed, as is well known, a policy of disengagement has been started by a number of the training boards in order to minimise the importance of the levy. They are keeping the levy in reserve to use in cases where it would still seem to be necessary as an incentive for training. I believe it has come out of the speeches of noble Lords throughout this afternoon and this evening that we do not accept that the position of the training boards will not be fundamentally undermined by the proposals in this document.
If I may pinpoint one particular issue which came up in connection with staff, the appointment of staff is vital in this area if the responsibility and authority of the training boards is to be maintained. It was argued that the staff would be the staff of the training boards, although they were to be paid and posted by the National Training Agency. With the noble Lord, Lord Brown, I do not believe that people are the staff of the training board if they are appointed and paid by the National Training Agency. Moreover, the document itself underlines this, because it says that the staff under the new system will have a better career structure. This means that their career advancement is controlled by the National Training Agency: this is the way they get a better career structure. If their advancement is in the hands of the National Training Agency, then it is to the National Training Agency and not to the industrial training boards to which they are seconded, to which they will look and to which their loyalty will go. This point alone, if none other, would fundamentally undermine the position of the industrial training boards.
844
Finally, my Lords, there is the question of the single unit. This is an organic job in which the four factors are interrelated. I would only repeat that it seems to me absolutely right that we should follow the Swedish system; that we should have an integrated system; that this integrated system should be hived off, and that the employees of this hived-off unit should include a considerable number of people from industry and from the trade unions, and should not be fully staffed by civil servants. I fully realise the difficulties that this suggestion entails, but I believe this to be absolutely essential if we are to have the kind of agency that we really want.
Having said that, my Lords, I should like to thank everyone for the response that there has been to this Motion. I think we can all agree that we have had an extremely interesting, worthwhile and, to me, very informative debate. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

BUSINESS
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, owing, to unforeseen circumstances, it has not proved possible for the next ballot for short Wednesday debates to take place to-day.
RAILWAY CLEARING SYSTEM SUPERANNUATION FUND BILL [H.L.]
Reported without amendment.

WELLINGTON ESTATE BILL
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
House adjourned at eight o'clock.