Sitting of 30 November 1972

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

    Sea Supply Routes
    Mr. Loveridgeasked the Minister of State for Defence if he will consult with his European colleagues with a view to interesting them further in improving the defence of the sea supply routes on which their countries and the United Kingdom depend, and in a joint programme of building more warships to keep these routes safe.
    The Minister of State for Defence (Mr. Ian Gilmour): Regular discussions are already held with our European and NATO allies on these topics. We have constantly emphasised the importance of protecting Europe's sea supply routes and are doing all we can to further collaboration in shipbuilding as in other areas of mutual interest.
    Mr. Loveridge: I am glad to hear my hon. Friend say that. However, will he remind our Western European colleagues that there are approximately 1,000 Western European ships at sea at any given time East of Suez, and that the great tankers could represent an easy target for international terrorists? Will he remind our colleagues that money spent now might prevent terrorism later?
    Mr. Gilmour: As my hon. Friend knows, we have constantly emphasised the potential danger to Western trade routes which is posed by a number of threats. That concern lies behind our determination to ensure that we in NATO possess balanced forces capable of worldwide deployment in this connection.

    Underwater Technology
    Mr. Laurance Reedasked the Minister of State for Defence whether the facilities at the British Underwater Test and Evaluation Centre will be made available for the testing of civil projects.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. Antony Buck): No plans exist for this at present.
    Mr. Reed: I welcome my hon. Friend to Question Time in his new capacity. I wish him well in the responsibilities which he is undertaking. No doubt he knows that there is a good deal of local opposition to the scheme. However, is he aware that this is the only part of the United Kingdom continental shelf with water depths of up to 1,000 feet and, therefore, is unique from the point of view of testing underwater equipment.
    Does my hon. Friend agree that if some way could be found to allow civilian projects to be tested at the centre, there would be less opposition, because Scots people would be convinced that here was a way in which they could boost their chances of getting more orders from North Sea oil development?
    Mr. Buck: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said. Our Navy is not the biggest in the world, but it is the greatest and I am privileged to be the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy.
    I have noted what my hon. Friend has said. Certainly the depths involved make this a unique site which is essential for its present purposes. I shall bear very much in mind the points which my hon. Friend made in the latter part of his Question.
    Mr. Douglasasked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the research facilities available within his Department on the subject of underwater technology.
    Mr. Buck: Research work on underwater technology is carried out at a number of defence establishments. Those primarily concerned are the Admiralty Underwater Weapons Establishment Portland, the Admiralty Research Laboratory Teddington, the Naval Construction

    597
    Research Establishment Dunfermline and the Royal Naval Physiological Laboratory Alverstoke, near Portsmouth. I hope to familiarise myself with the work of these establishments as soon as I can.
    Mr. Douglas: I thank the Minister for that reply. Can he tell us whether this research information was made available to the IME Group, which is looking into the capability of British industry to cater for the needs of North Sea oil exploration as, in my opinion, the valuable research material available would be of great use, especially when we have to search for and to produce oil in very deep water?
    Mr. Buck: Whether this precise information was made available, I cannot say. What I have checked on is that it is definitive policy, with which I agree completely, to make widely available information on these technological achievements. I shall do my best to see that it is done.
    Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: May I be the second to congratulate my hon. Friend on his new appointment? Does he understand that with our only potential enemy possessing 400 U-boats, which cannot be called a defensive force, there is no more important subject for my hon. Friend to bring himself up to date on than this one?
    Mr. Buck: I am obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend. That is why I said that I intended to familiarise myself with these establishments as soon as possible. I shall bear in mind the points made by my hon. and gallant Friend.

    Departmental Land
    Mr. Sydney Chapmanasked the Minister of State for Defence how many acres of land in the United Kingdom are in the ownership of the Ministry of Defence and how this figure compares with one year and two years ago, respectively.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. Peter Blaker): About 572,000 acres are owned by the Ministry of Defence in the United Kingdom. The corresponding figures for 1970 and 1971 are 558,000 and 539,000 acres respectively. Some 50,000 acres were transferred from the Ministry of
    598
    Aviation Supply following its amalgamation with the Ministry of Defence in May, and this more than accounts for the apparent increase between 1971 and 1972.
    Mr. Chapman: My hon. Friend knows that I will consider those figures with great interest. Does my hon. Friend recognise that 1 per cent. of the total land area of the United Kingdom is in the ownership of his Ministry and that there are desperate and competing demands for land in this country? Will he give an assurance that he will have a personal and continual review of service land which could be released by his Ministry for other needs?
    Mr. Blaker: I will bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said. I recognise his close interest in the matter. However, between the financial years 1961–62 and 1971–72, 191,000 acres were disposed of, and the general trend is now towards further reduction.
    Mr. Judd: The progress made in that direction is recognised. However, does the hon. Gentleman accept that there are urban communities in the vicinity of large defence establishments which are desperately short of land for housing and other social purposes? Will the hon. Gentleman look particularly at their needs and make whatever further progress is possible?
    Mr. Blaker: The hon. Gentleman will know that Lord Nugent's committee is now reviewing defence land. We expect that the committee's report will appear either at the end of this year or early next year. It is our firm policy to limit our land holdings to the minimum necessary, bearing in mind, amongst other factors, the one which the hon. Gentleman has just mentioned.

    Northern Ireland
    Rear-Admiral Morgan-Gilesasked the Minister of State for Defence what extra leave entitlement is given to Army personnel serving in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Blaker: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply by my right hon. Friend to the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) on 8th August, 1972.—[Vol. 842, c. 378–9.]
    Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: The Army in Ulster is doing a fantastic job of buying time for us politicians. Will my hon. Friend assure us that leave entitlements are really generous, and, in particular, that men whose families are left behind in BAOR have time while they are on tour in Ulster to get home and spend a reasonable period with their families before going back on duty?
    Mr. Blaker: I agree that the Army is doing a fantastic job in Ulster. The priority which the Ministry is attaching to this question is shown by its efforts to improve leave arrangements by providing leave travel concessions—for example, air travel at reduced fares to Great Britain or BAOR for short leave during an emergency tour which soldiers enjoy if the operational situation allows.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: In Northern Ireland the troops can come under attack in all areas. This was not so heretofore, and therefore they are under greater strain than ever before. Will the hon. Gentleman keep this in mind when considering this very important subject?
    Mr. Blaker: I will certainly bear that point in mind.
    Mr. Duffyasked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a further statement on the operations of the British Army in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Goodhartasked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the recent operations of the British Army in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Ian Gilmour: The Army continues to assist the civil authorities in keeping the peace by combating terrorism, from whatever quarter, and protecting the lives and property of the community.
    Mr. Duffy: The hon. Gentleman will recall the major gun battle in the Ardoyne last Sunday, coming as it did—as The Times pointed out on Monday—just two weeks after the Army had claimed that it had picked up every wanted man in the Ardoyne. This is not the first claim of this kind in the last few years which has subsequently been belied by events. Is this due to over-optimism on the part of the Army, which makes for seemingly extravagant claims? If it is, is it in the best interests
    600
    of the ordinary foot soldier and his morale? Or is it due to unquenchable resources of the IRA?
    Mr. Gilmour: I wish that the hon. Gentleman did not always spend Question time criticising the Army. I do not believe that the Army said what the hon. Gentleman claims. But even if it had said it, it could still have been true because other wanted men could have got into the Ardoyne later.
    Mr. Goodhart: As the IRA is now as much an anathema to the Government in Dublin as it is to the British Government and the people of Northern Ireland, is it not clear that co-operation between the security forces on both sides of the border is in the interests of the law-abiding majority of both communities?
    Mr. Gilmour: We want as much cooperation as possible on the border. There has been a certain amount over the last month.
    Mr. Kilfedder: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is every likelihood that the IRA will shortly commence a campaign of terror in the Irish Republic, just as it did years ago in Northern Ireland? Is my hon. Friend satisfied that there are enough troops in Northern Ireland to deal with it, in view of the fact that there is some evidence that the Eire Government cannot rely completely on the loyalty of some of their troops along the border?
    Mr. Gilmour: I do not think that it is for me to comment either on the intentions of the IRA in the Republic or on doubts about the loyalty of Irish troops on that side of the border. It is a matter of speculation. I do not endorse what my hon. Friend has said.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Can the Minister give some assurance to the people in County Fermanagh and County Tyrone who are perturbed about the present situation along the border? Can he assure the House that there will be more helicopter patrols along the border, so that the Army can have intelligence about what is happening on the other side of the border, in order to prevent the setting up of rocket launchers directed from the south to the north?
    Mr. Gilmour: I well understand the concern of those living in the border areas. As I have assured the hon. Gentleman before, the Army is doing whatever is practicable to patrol these areas and to gain what intelligence it can about forthcoming operations of the IRA.
    Mr. McMasterasked the Minister of State for Defence what steps are being taken to improve security on the border between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland.
    Mr. Ian Gilmour: The security forces continue to control the border as effectively as is practicable. The requirement for further measures is kept constantly under review and, as my hon. Friend told the House on 16th November, a number of proposals are being studied.—[Vol. 846, c. 591.]
    Mr. McMaster: Is my hon. Friend aware that despite the considerable successes of the Army in urban areas the situation on the border is far from satisfactory. Missile attacks in the last two days have shown how vulnerable the border is. Will my hon. Friend take steps to make use of local knowledge by forming some kind of Home Guard or Civil Defence from those who, because of physical fitness or age, are unable to join the Ulster Defence Regiment or the reserve police?
    Mr. Gilmour: I agree that the situation on the border is not satisfactory. As my hon. Friend implies, most people who want to join a Home Guard organisation can join the UDR. There is difficulty about people who are not physically fit, but I will look into the possibility that he mentioned.
    Mr. Stratton Mills: Would not the security forces be greatly assisted in their work in these areas if extradition arrangements with the Republic of Ireland were working properly? Is my hon. Friend aware that of 16 applications that have been made to the Republic of Ireland for extradition, not one has been successful? I welcome Mr. Lynch's new determination, but should not this matter be vigorously pursued?
    Mr. Gilmour: I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that extradition matters
    602
    are for my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary.
    Mr. Kilfedderasked the Minister of State for Defence if he is satisfied that the present number of troops in Northern Ireland is sufficient; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Blaker: The force level in Northern Ireland is kept under review in the light of the situation. I am satisfied that the present deployment meets the present needs.
    Mr. Kilfedder: Is it not extraordinary that the Government should have announced the intended withdrawal of 1,000 troops at a time when they were saying that they were determined to destroy the IRA terrorists in Northern Ireland, bearing in mind especially the frequent attacks on police stations and the need for troops to defend them?
    Mr. Blaker: It is true that total troop levels have recently fallen. As the House will be aware, considerable reinforcements were deployed in Northern Ireland for Operation Motorman at the end of July. Since that task was accomplished there has been a planned reduction, of which recent moves are a part, but force levels are still significantly higher than they were in June.
    Mr. Douglas: Will the hon. Gentleman concede that no level of British troops in Northern Ireland will be sufficient unless the people there come to their senses and agree to live peaceably together?
    Mr. Blaker: I agree with the hon. Gentleman in the emphasis that he places on the importance of a political solution. That is what the Government are devoted to.
    Captain Orr: Can my hon. Friend say something about the level of troops in County Fermanagh, on that difficult border, about which there has been a great deal of anxiety? Is it true that the number of troops has been reduced in the last week or 10 days?
    Mr. Blaker: I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will understand if I tell him that it is not the practice, for reasons which I think he will appreciate, to give details of the deployment of troops in particular areas.

    War Graves (Relatives' Visits)
    Mr. Michael Cocksasked the Minister of State for Defence if he will explore the possibility of setting up a scheme to assist the close relatives of Service personnel buried in war graves overseas to visit the graves at least once in their lifetime.
    Mr. Blaker: Our present scheme results from a comprehensive review made about five years ago. It provides for bringing home the body of a dead Serviceman, or for helping two of his family to attend the funeral overseas at public expense. If neither of these is practicable for Service reasons, two relatives may visit the grave at public expense provided they go within two years of death. The possibility of extending the scheme further back in time was carefully considered, but had to be ruled out because of the practical difficulties and the cost.
    Mr. Cocks: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his reply, but he will realise that it is not really satisfactory. The Government have resources to do this not only through the Armed Forces but through BOAC. Surely it is a small thing for the country to do for the relatives of those who have made the supreme sacrifice for their country.
    Mr. Blaker: I am not clear what point the hon. Gentleman has in mind. Perhaps he will discuss it with me privately or in correspondence, and I will consider it.
    Mr. Wallace: As a member of the Commission, I find that there is a tremendous public interest in this matter. Are any voluntary organisations assisting in this work—perhaps the Royal British Legion, for example?
    Mr. Blaker: The Royal British Legion gives assistance.

    Meritorious Service Medal
    Mr. Thomas Coxasked the Minister of State for Defence what representation he has received from holders of the Meritorious Service Medal calling for a reduction in the waiting time before payment of the annuity is made.
    Mr. Blaker: Since June 1970 we have had 13 inquiries on this subject, by or
    604
    on behalf of holders of the Meritorious Service Medal, some of which have implied that the waiting time should be reduced.
    Mr. Cox: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his reply, but I am sure that these letters will have indicated to him the considerable time that many holders of the medal have to wait before the award is made to them. I know of cases where men have waited over 40 years and are still not in receipt of the annuity. Will the hon. Gentleman find out exactly how many holders of the award are not in receipt of the annuity and then fix a date when all holders of the medal will start to be paid the annuity? This is the only way to treat men who have loyally served the country for many years.
    Mr. Blaker: I fully appreciate the loyal service which holders of the medal have given but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, a review is under way and I must await its results.
    Mr. Concannon: I, too, have written to the hon. Gentleman about this problem. Will he take it from me that the system is quite unsatisfactory? A person has to take part in a ballot, or join a queue of some kind and wait until someone else dies, before he gets to the head of the queue for the annuity. If we cannot do something better than this, would it not be better to stop issuing the medal altogether?
    Mr. Blaker: It is not a question of a ballot but of a "queue", as the hon. Gentleman called it. No doubt all these matters will be taken into consideration by the review.

    V/STOL Aircraft
    Mr. Wallasked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future employment of the vertical short take-off and landing aircraft in the Fleet and, in particular, in the new command through-deck cruisers.
    Mr. Ian Gilmour: I have nothing to add to the reply given by my right hon. Friend to my hon. Friend on 19th October.—[Vol. 843, c. 436–437.]
    Mr. Wall: Is my hon. Friend aware that this question has been asked for five years and has received the same reply?

    605
    These aircraft—the Harrier and the prototype Kestrel—have been available for eight years. The United States has completed trials in the last two years. Why cannot the Ministry make up its mind?
    Mr. Gilmour: I am certainly aware that my hon. Friend has asked me this question every month for the last 18 months. The United States Marines wanted the aircraft for a purpose different from that for which the Navy would require it. A project definition study has been started, and will take some months to complete. I cannot be more precise than that now.
    Mr. Dalyell: The Question refers not to "a through-deck cruiser" but to "through-deck cruisers". Does this mean that we are to have more than one, at over £60 million apiece?
    Mr. Gilmour: Our plan is that the first announcement of the ordering of a cruiser will come at the beginning of next year.
    Mr. Dalyell: Answer the question.
    Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Will my hon. Friend explain to his new colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy, and ask him to bring a sense of history to his appointment, which we welcome, and recall that the first duty of the Royal Navy throughout the centuries has been to protect our trade, and that it cannot be done other than by endemic ship-borne aircraft?
    Mr. Gilmour: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy does not need urgings from me in that respect.
    Mr. John Morris: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that questions have been asked from time to time on this issue? When will he be in a position to make an announcement in order to reassure his hon. Friends? Will he be able to do so in the next Defence White Paper? Will he at the same time give a clear indication of the number of cruisers he has in mind to build, and also the rate of ordering? Will he make the position abundantly clear?
    Mr. Gilmour: We certainly wish to make matters clear as soon as possible. My noble Friend the Secretary of State hopes to be able to make an announce-
    606
    ment in the Defence Estimates, but I cannot give any guarantee.
    Mr. Wall: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    European Nuclear Force
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Minister of State for Defence what plans he now has for a European nuclear force: and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Ian Gilmour: None, Sir.
    Mr. Allaun: That makes me wonder why the Secretary of State for Defence raised the matter at the Conservative Party Conference, which he presumably did with the agreement of the Prime Minister.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Question, please.
    Mr. Allaun: Does the Minister of State fully realise that any such plan would kill stone dead the growing détente between East and West in Europe?
    Mr. Gilmour: My answer to the hon. Gentleman's non-question is that my noble Friend made that speech because he was looking forward well into the future. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is that I do not think that it is true. As I said earlier, any such plans are well in the future.
    Mr. Heffer: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us how far the Secretary of State was looking into the future?
    Mr. Gilmour: My noble Friend made it clear last week that the only discussions there have been with the French have been to agree that any such development is a very long-term matter indeed.
    Mr. Hattersley: Could the hon. Gentleman re-interpret the Secretary of State's speech in the House of Lords a little further and more clearly? Is the hon. Gentleman saying that it is the Secretary of State's view that there should be a European nuclear force but that he does not believe that our NATO partners agree with it? Is that the position advocated by the Secretary of State.
    Mr. Gilmour: No, it is not.
    Mr. Hattersley: What is it then?

    Beira Patrol
    Mr. Juddasked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will make an official visit to the men and ships of the Beira patrol.
    Mr. Ian Gilmour: I have no plans to do so.
    Mr. Judd: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that many right hon. and hon. Members would wish to express their gratitude to the men of the Beira patrol for the way in which they are carrying out their difficult assignment? Can the hon. Gentleman say what approaches have been made to the new Government of Malagasy with a view to securing bases for air support in order to make the patrol more effective, and what approaches have been made to other Commonwealth Governments and allies for possible assistance in the patrol, again to make it more effective?
    Mr. Gilmour: I am always grateful when right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite express their gratitude to the Royal Navy, though I am always surprised that they confine their remarks to the Beira patrol—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] It is a fair point. A party point was made and it is fair to make a party answer—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] There have been many occasions on which the predecessor of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy has had to answer questions on this point. The same point was always made.
    Dealing with the second matter raised by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd), we have no plans to contact the Government of Malagasy. We believe that the patrol is fully effective now.
    Mr. Evelyn King: As it is well known that petrol is freely available in Rhodesia at a price lower than that in Great Britain, is it not a fact that the Beira patrol is no more than a floating advertisement of British impotence? Would not it be much better to bring the patrol back to Portsmouth, where the hon. Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) could inspect it and thereby get to know something about it?
    Mr. Gilmour: Whether or not the patrol should continue is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary.
    Mr. Hattersley: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition benches are already dissatisfied by the fact that we can never ask questions of the Secretary of State for Defence and that, if objective questions are to be answered in a party political way, the dissatisfaction will grow?
    Mr. Gilmour: The hon. Gentleman's dissatisfaction is a matter for him. It was a slightly flippant answer to a flippant question. The hon. Gentleman knows that it is a question which comes up frequently and that it is asked for a specific reason. I answered in a similar vein.
    Sir G. de Freitas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's replies, I beg to give notice that I shall seek an early opportunity to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Deaths Overseas (Notification)
    Mr. Leslie Huckfieldasked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will now review the procedure for informing relatives about, and making funeral arrangements for, soldiers killed either in action or on manoeuvres abroad.
    Mr. Blaker: I see no need at present to review these procedures. On the whole, I believe that they are made with a care and consideration which is much appreciated by relatives.
    Mr. Huckfield: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied with the procedure followed in the case of my late constituent, Signalman Johnson, of Keresley, near Coventry, whose parents were told in a perfunctory telegram that he had been killed in Germany? They were told to ring an Army telephone number. When they did, they were told that that office knew nothing about it. Their son's body was dumped in Coventry with about as much ceremony as one would expect to be given to a sack of potatoes. Two months later, his parents still know nothing about the exact circumstances in which he was

    609
    killed. Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied with this sort of procedure?
    Mr. Blaker: The hon. Gentleman has rather overstated his case, I think. The solicitor acting for the father of Private Johnson has reported that the family appreciated the sympathy and personal kindness of those who had to deal with them on behalf of the Army.
    The hon. Gentleman has referred to a telegram. That is the normal method by which families are informed in these very regrettable circumstances. The squadron commander wrote to Mr. Johnson immediately offering the assistance of the unit should he decide on a military funeral in Germany.
    The point raised in the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question is a different matter. I am personally inquiring into the circumstances and Mr. Johnson's desire to attend an inquiry. I hope to write to him in a short time.
    Mr. Loveridge: Is my hon. Friend aware that the next-of-kin of those killed in civil accidents arising out of manoeuvres are denied rights that they would have had if the persons killed had been in the Civil Service? Will my hon. Friend seek with his colleagues, therefore, to amend Section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act, 1947?
    Mr. Blaker: If my hon. Friend will give me details, I shall look into the matter.
    Mr. Concannon: Will the hon. Gentleman now look into the possibility of adopting the policy of bringing back to this country all those Service men and members of their families who are killed or who die while on overseas service? I cannot see why we should not do this, especially when one considers the expense that the American authorities go to in Vietnam to ensure that this is done.
    Mr. Blaker: I shall look closely into this matter. My information is that a body can be sent to wherever the next of kin wishes. If I am wrong about that, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman.

    Nimrod Aircraft
    Mr. Wintertonasked the Minister of State for Defence what proposals he has to purchase further Nimrod aircraft
    610
    to fill the early warning rôle against low-flying bombers as part of defence strategy.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Lord Lambton): We have no proposals for the purchase of additional Nimrods at the present time. Shackleton aircraft specially converted for airborne early warning tasks over the sea entered service only this year. Their eventual replacement requires extensive study.
    Mr. Winterton: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a dangerous gap in the defence system of this country, namely, our vulnerability to low flying aircraft, and that Nimrod can fulfil this rôle extremely well? The Royal Air Force has been pressing for some time for this gap to be filled. What action will be taken to fill this very serious defence gap?
    Lord Lambton: I do not quite know to which gap my hon. Friend is referring.

    Five-Power Defence Agreement (South-East Asia)
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Minister of State for Defence if, in view of the recent decisions of the Australian Government, he will seek to re-negotiate the Five-Power Defence Agreement in South-East Asia.
    Mr. Ian Gilmour: No, Sir.
    Mr. Dalyell: As the incoming New Zealand Government, the Government of Malaysia and possibly a new Government in Australia want renegotiation, is it not time that we realised we should not commit ourselves, without considerable thought, to Lee Kuan Yew and the Government of Singapore?
    Mr. Gilmour: I do not accept the premise on which the hon. Gentleman's question is based. In fact, the arrangements are voluntary. If there is a new Government in Australia—we do not know whether there will be—this will be one of the many subjects that we shall discuss with them.
    Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Does my hon. Friend agree that, whatever the result of the Australian general election in two days, we may expect a wise and far-sighted policy on South-East Asia

    611
    from the Australian Government in the future, as in the past?
    Mr. Gilmour: Yes, I accept that.
    Mr. John Morris: What consideration has been given, from the defence point of view, to the change of Government in New Zealand, in that they have but one battalion in Singapore, and what contingency plans are there for a change of Government in Australia on Saturday, after 23 years? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Australian Labour Party is pledged to end conscription and to withdraw permanent ground forces from South-East Asia? Does not this call for an early renegotiation of the Five-Power Defence Agreement? Does he not find it odd that there are three outside Powers in South-East Asia—Australia, New Zealand and ourselves—while Singapore and Malaysia will have little to do with one another in the defence sphere?
    Mr. Gilmour: As I said before, I do not accept the premise on which the question is based. The New Zealand Government came into power only a few days ago. The right hon. Gentleman will not, therefore, expect me to reveal our contingency plans. However, we obviously shall discuss these and other matters with the new Government in New Zealand and the new Government in Australia, if there is one.

    Royal Air Force (Flight Safety)
    Mr. Croninasked the Minister of State for Defence what steps he is taking to improve the standard of flying safety in the Royal Air Force.
    Lord Lambton: The standard of flight safety in the Royal Air Force is high and compares favourably with that of other air forces. It is the responsibility of the Service at all levels to maintain and improve this standard, making full use of the continuous research and analysis which is conducted in this field.
    Mr. Cronin: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the increase in the number of accidents in the RAF has now reached an unsupportable degree? Apart from the risk to life and limb of the gallant young men who fly these planes, is it not
    612
    the case that accidents involving RAF aircraft now total about £1 million a week?
    Lord Lambton: No Minister will ever be satisfied as long as there are accidents. However, considering the number of new planes which have come into service. I do not think that the number of accidents is surprisingingly high. They are regrettable, but we must remember that in the last few years we have had new types of planes coming into service.
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Does my hon. Friend agree that there could be more openness about the causes of RAF accidents? Are flight recorders carried in any combat aircraft?
    Lord Lambton: That is another question.

    Combat Aircraft (Procurement)
    Mr. Warrenasked the Minister of State for Defence if he will seek to arrange for discussions on the need to co-ordinate the combat aircraft procurement policies of the German, Italian and British air forces.
    Mr. Ian Gilmour: There are already extensive arrangements both within NATO and with individual countries, including the Federal Republic of Germany and Italy, for discussions on co-ordination of combat aircraft requirements and procurement policies.
    Mr. Warren: Were any consultations offered to my right hon. Friend recently when the West German Government decided to order a further substantial number of American Phantom aircraft with the consequential decision, well known to my hon. Friend's Department, of that Government's intention to reduce their order for the multi-rôle combat aircraft in which we have a substantial interest?
    Mr. Gilmour: My hon. Friend will be aware that the Federal German Republic is at liberty to buy aircraft from America or anywhere else. Any reduction in the number of orders for the MRCA will be a matter for discussion during the current review on the aircraft. If there is any reduction or increase in orders there will be corresponding adjustments in the costs and work sharing.

    Departmental Headquarters Work (Relocation)
    Mr. Millanasked the Minister of State for Defence what steps he has taken to re-locate headquarters work of his Department in the development areas.
    Mr. Ian Gilmour: Since December, 1970 about 150 posts, which at the time were classified as headquarters work, have been re-located in Carlisle and Liverpool.
    Mr. Millan: I suggest that 150 out of more than 20,000 headquarters staff is not a very good record. In that context may I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear in mind that Scotland is interested not only in having facilities like firing ranges, which no other part of the country wants but, arising from the Hardman Report, in seeing a considerable relocation of headquarters staff in Scotland?
    Mr. Gilmour: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point, but he will understand that there are great difficulties about dispersing headquarters staff too widely. As I told him a fortnight ago, I cannot anticipate the findings of the Hardman Committee.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that whilst we welcome the relocation of jobs in Scotland we do not welcome places like nuclear submarine bases? Will he do something to get rid of them?
    Mr. Gilmour: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman does not welcome them but his feeling is not widely shared.

    Nuclear Submarines (SALT Agreements)
    Mr. Hugh Jenkinsasked the Minister of State for Defence having regard to the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks agreement, if he will undertake not to modernise the British nuclear submarine fleet.
    Mr. Ian Gilmour: As my right hon. Friend told the hon. Gentleman on 20th November, the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks agreements are solely between the United States and the Soviet Governments, and no question of our giving such an undertaking therefore arises.—[Vol. 846, c. 264.]
    Mr. Jenkins: Is not the hon. Gentleman mistaken? With the development
    614
    of Trident, which can operate from American bases, even nuclear fanatics will recognise that both Polaris and its bases will become redundant'? In those circumstances, would it not be a complete waste of public money, apart from anything else, to replace Polaris with Poseidon?
    Mr. Gilmour: I am not a nuclear fanatic, and I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. As he knows, the effectiveness of our nuclear deterrent is kept continually under review.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: As Trident's range is about 6,000 miles, it does not need a base here. Therefore, why should we make this country—a highly crowded country—a sitting duck for a superseded but still suicidal weapon?
    Mr. Gilmour: We shall continue to make our bases available to the Americans so long as they want them. As the hon. Gentleman surely knows, the purpose of the nuclear deterrent is to prevent war. It does not, therefore, increase the risk of war.
    Mr. Hattersley: I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman a question on which I pursued his predecessor but never had a very acceptable answer. Will he give an assurance that before any steps are taken radically to alter the nature or character of the Polaris fleet the House will be informed and allowed to express its views on them, rather than have a fait accompli simply reported to it as a matter of Government intention?
    Mr. Gilmour: As no such decision has been made I cannot give any undertaking about what information, if any, will be given.

    Army Officer Recruitment (Advertisements)
    Mr. Goldingasked the Minister of State for Defence if he will withdraw the words, "Talk to the crew on your father's yacht", in advertisements on how to beat the Army Officer Selection Board.
    Mr. Blaker: No, Sir, but that particular advertisement is due to be replaced by the next in the series.
    Mr. Golding: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that yachts have come into disrepute since June, 1970? Can he say

    615
    what percentage of officer recruits in the last year attended public schools? Can he further say what steps he is taking to create a more open type of recruitment to the officer class?
    Mr. Blaker: The object of the current advertising campaign is to attract candidates from the widest possible sections of the community. In answer to the hon. Gentleman's question about the sources from which candidates come, he will be interested to know that in the last two years the percentage of candidates who have put themselves forward from schools other than Headmasters' Conference schools has been between two-thirds and three-quarters.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Reed, to ask Question No. 29.
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have only one Question to the Minister of State for Defence, and that is No. 40. I wonder why those who have two Questions—
    Mr. Speaker: I would rather have a point of order about a Question at the end of Question Time.

    International Law of the Sea Conference
    Mr. Laurance Reedasked the Minister of State for Defence what part the Royal Navy is playing in preparation for the International Law of the Sea Conference.
    Mr. Buck: The Ministry of Defence is playing a full part in preparations for the International Law of the Sea Conference to take account of Royal Navy and other defence interests, and to give appropriate technical assistance.
    Mr. Reed: Will my hon. Friend bear especially in mind the strategic implications of any extension of territorial waters or rules relating to the control of narrow straits and inlets, and also the fact that if any conflict arises as a result of failure to reach legal agreement it is the Royal Navy that will have to cope with it?
    Mr. Buck: I shall bear those matters in mind. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the fact that in the background material here there is a most useful memorandum about these matters composed by him. It is a very useful document.

    Harrier Aircraft
    Rear-Admiral Morgan-Gilesasked the Minister of State for Defence how many Harrier aircraft have now been ordered for the United States Marine Corps and how many for the Royal Navy.
    Mr. Ian Gilmour: The United States Marine Corps has ordered 90 aircraft. There have been no orders for the Royal Navy.
    Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Is not that a fantastic reply?
    Mr. Gilmour: I do not think that I have to explain to my hon. and gallant Friend, of all people, the difference between the Royal Navy and the United States Marine Corps. The American Marines are using their Harriers largely in a ground support rôle, which is not a rôle for which the Navy would use its Harriers.
    Mr. Judd: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that in the interests of the morale of the Fleet Air Arm it is essential that as soon as possible there should be a clear-cut indication from the Government about their future policy for the Harrier with the Navy?
    Mr. Gilmour: I appreciate that, but the hon. Gentleman knows the difficulties, and he heard what I said in reply to an earlier Question.
    Mr. Marten: May I link the Question about Harrier Aircraft with Question No. 16, tabled by the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) who criticised, or had comments to make, about the safety of Royal Air Force flying? May I make it quite clear that he was referring to operational aircraft, and not to Transport Command, which is based in my constituency and which has an excellent record of safety?
    Mr. Gilmour: I am sure that that is true.

  GOVERNMENT MINISTERS
  Mr. Meacherasked the Prime Minister if he will dismiss the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): No, Sir. I do not propose to

  617
  appoint or dismiss any Ministers or to increase or reduce the number of Ministers in any Department or to alter the present allocation of functions to Ministers or Departments unless and until I make a statement to the contrary.
  Mr. Meacher: Will the Prime Minister dismiss the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Does he not realise that, contrary to the Chancellor's policies, a far more important cause of inflation today than wage push is the increasing monopolistic pricing power of the major corporations? The hundred largest companies in Britain now hold no less than 70 per cent. of the total assets of all quoted companies. When are the Government going to deal with the real causes of inflation, rather than follow their own phantom prejudices?
  The Prime Minister: The Government are not responsible for the structure of public companies in this country. On the question of dealing with inflation, the Chancellor having reduced taxes by £3,000 million he cannot do more to reduce inflation.
  Mr. Wyn Roberts: Has my right hon. Friend had a "Private Eye" view of recent editions of the Grocer? Has he noticed that for two weeks running up to last week no price rises were recorded in its lists, compared with an average of 150 in the previous weeks?
  The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is correct, but I have not taken any notice of the Grocer before, and I shall not start now.
  Mr. John Smithasked the Prime Minister if he will dismiss the Paymaster-General.
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave earlier today in reply to a Question from the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher).
  Mr. Smith: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Paymaster-General is going round to the public-spirited men who serve as trustees of our galleries in an attempt to blackmail and frighten them into agreeing that if they have a free day at their galleries they will put up charges on other days? Is not that a contemptible way for a Government
  618
  Minister to behave? Does the Prime Minister know about that and, if he does, does he approve of it?
  The Prime Minister: I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's allegations, or his extravagant language. Parliament has laid down the law in this matter, and my right hon. and noble Friend is discussing, with certain of the galleries which wish to make changes, arrangements that are suitable to them. In a number of cases these have already been agreed.
  Mr. Robert Cooke: Would my right hon. Friend concede that the arts are a highly controversial subject, and that a policy about which everyone agreed would probably be monumentally dull? Would he also agree that the Paymaster-General has many successes to his credit, notably the bringing of the arts to many more people in the regions?
  The Prime Minister: I have no doubt about the controversial nature of the arts. As regards the regions, the grant to the Scottish Arts Council has increased from £950,000 in 1970–71 to £1,400,000 this year—an increase of £450,000. In England and Wales Arts Council grants to the regional arts associations have increased from £320,000 in 1970–71 to £800,000 in 1972–73—an increase of £480,000 in the time that we have been in office. I think that that demonstrates what is being done for the arts.
  Mr. Strauss: Does the right hon. Gentleman really justify the action of the Paymaster-General in imposing entrance charges on children who want to visit our national treasures in galleries and museums solely for the sake of raising £150,000 a year for the Treasury?
  The Prime Minister: We discussed this at great length at Question Time the week before last, and the right hon. Gentleman knows my views. They are also the views of the Government.
  Mr. Money: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that, far from being a subject for censure, it is a proud achievement by our right hon. and noble Friend to have spent more money on housing the arts and more on the performing arts than any previous Government?
  The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is a much wider approach than existed previously. I have always

  619
  felt that in the last 20 years a great deal has been done for the art galleries and for music but that the country has not met its obligations towards the museums. My right hon. Friend is now concentrating on the question of enabling museums to have better buildings and better resources for display.

  NORTHERN IRELAND (VISIT)
  Mr. Douglasasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his official visit to Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Adleyasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement following his recent official visit to Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Redmondasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his recent official visit to Northern Ireland.
  Dr. Vaughanasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his recent official visit to Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Duffyasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his recent official visit to Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Norman Lamontasked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on his official visit to Northern Ireland.
  The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Gentlemen to the answer which I gave in reply to a similar Question on 21st November from my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder).—[Vol. 846, c. 379–80.]
  Mr. Douglas: Bearing in mind the developments since then, will the right hon. Gentleman apprise himself of the numbers of sectarian murders in Northern Ireland and the steps that the security forces, with the police, are taking to bring to book the people who perpetrate these crimes? Secondly, has he apprised himself of the nature of the sophisticated weapons that are now being used in Northern Ireland, and particularly the sources of the funds
  620
  by which these weapons are purchased? What steps does he intend to take with the Governments of the countries who are assisting in the supply of these funds so as to prevent it?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir; I discussed both these matters and apprised myself of the situation. In particular, on the second one, of course, we have known that there was always the risk of weapons of this kind being used. As the House was told yesterday, we have captured one of them. A large number of the markings have been erased and matters are now being studied to see whether it is possible to pin down precisely the origin of this weapon. The House has also been told many times of what we have done internationally to try to intercept any supplies of arms which may have been bought. The Amsterdam case was the most notable of these. As for sources of money, it is always difficult to pin down a source of money which is going to the IRA in the Republic itself; obviously, we have great difficulty in doing that.
  Mr. Adley: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that in the light of recent events, including the Stephenson affair and the Russian missiles, there is the greatest possible need for the closest integrated action between the British and Irish Governments to combat what is clearly the common enemy of both?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, I would agree with that. Certainly, my predecessor, when Prime Minister, and I myself, have always held the view, which we have publicly and privately expressed, that there was a danger not only to Northern Ireland but also to the Republic itself from the activities of those who were using violence.
  Mr. Redmond: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that in view of the measures being taken by Mr. Lynch, which are much stronger than they have been in the past, there is now a greater opportunity for co-operation and for co-ordination of the security forces of both the Republic and the United Kingdom, to the mutual benefit of both? Are not both countries now shown to be under attack not from a religious or political point of view but from a purely ideological point of view?
  The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with the last part of that question. Co-operation has always been forthcoming from the United Kingdom Government and from this side of the border.
  Mr. Duffy: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his first major speech after arriving in Northern Ireland was both courageous and welcome? But does it not now call for action on the ground? Is he satisfied with the action taken this week by Mr. Jack Lynch? Does he not think that Mr. Lynch may be able to hold to that course of action only if the Prime Minister undertakes corresponding moves north of the border against the UDF and those who think and act like them?
  The Prime Minister: The situation in Northern Ireland is that the security forces, including the police, take action wherever crimes are found. I myself have explained this to Mr. Lynch and have given him the figures of the number of cases brought involving both Catholics and Protestants. At the moment, there are at least three of the present or former members of the UDA Council themselves under charges, and many members of the UDA as well. This is a convincing answer to those who say that the forces only operate—[An HON. MEMBER: "As many as three?"] Three of the top council itself and many members of the UDA. This is a convincing argument that the security forces are dealing impartially with anyone found committing crimes.
  Dr. Vaughan: I welcome the much firmer line being taken in the south as well as the north. Is this not in part due to the success of our security forces, and in part to the very firm line which my right hon. Friend took on his recent visit to Northern Ireland?
  The Prime Minister: I do not think that I wish to comment on the events in the Republic or the action taken by the Prime Minister of Eire. These are internal matters of the Republic, and, of course, the Prime Minister of Eire takes responsibility for them.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: Did the right hon. Gentleman learn of the new proposal of the provisional IRA for a truce while he was in Northern Ireland or since, and what is his view of it?
  The Prime Minister: I heard nothing of this while I was in Northern Ireland. What has happened is that various people have come to us who are not themselves members of either branch of the IRA, saying that they had information that the Provisionals wanted a truce. Obviously, the people concerned have felt it their responsibility to pass it on to officials whom they contacted. That is the way in which any information has come to us.
  Mr. McMaster: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the IRA have killed, with bomb, bullet or rocket, over 650 people, including 100 members of Her Majesty's Forces, in the past three years? When will he correct the scandal whereby members of the IRA can have functions in England and walk about freely collecting money to buy these rockets from Russia?
  The Prime Minister: I am well aware of the difficulties which my hon. Friend quotes. That is why this Government, like our predecessors, have been so determined to try to deal with violence. As for action in this country, if it is against the law, action will be taken about it, but in this part of the United Kingdom, we have no law which outlaws particular political parties or groups of people. Neither do we have any evidence that money collected here is going to Iron Curtain countries for the purposes that my hon. Friend mentioned.
  Mr. Harold Wilson: Just so that the wrong figures do not get on the record, would the Prime Minister not confirm that the figures are even worse than his hon. hon. Friend said, in that, from Government sources yesterday, we heard with deep regret of the death of the 100th regular Serviceman within this year, not within the last three years, which makes it worse? On the second point made by the right hon. Gentleman, about political parties, could he confirm that political uniforms as well as unauthorised military uniforms are illegal in Northern Ireland, yet they are being flaunted every day?
  The Prime Minister: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the first part of what he said. In his second question, he touched on a very important point. It always comes back to the definition accepted by the courts of what is an illegal uniform. The right hon. Gentleman himself recognised some of the difficulties which arise in that connection.

  PRESIDENT NIXON
  Mr. Martenasked the Prime Minister if he will invite President Nixon to pay an official visit to Great Britain.
  The Prime Minister: We are always glad to welcome the President of the United States to this country, but there are no plans at present for him to pay an official visit.
  Mr. Marten: In that case, when the Prime Minister next discusses anything with the President of the United States, could he raise the question of the American initiative for an industrial free trade area? As Britain, after 1st January, will lose an independent voice within GATT, where this will be discussed, what view will the British Government take within the Common Market Council of this American initiative before we lose our independent voice?
  The Prime Minister: If, when he talks of an industrial free trade area, my hon. Friend is referring to the next round of tariff negotiations—whether they be external tariffs or internal barriers against trade—I would only say that we have already done a great deal. We did it at the Summit. It was on our initiative that the Community accepted that it would have its own negotiating position ready by 1st July. Moreover we shall do our utmost to bring the negotiations to an end by December, 1975.
  The Community set out in its communiqué the specific ways in which it wants to help these negotiations succeed, both in the field of the external tariffs and on internal barriers to trade. It also set out, of course, its views about the general preferences scheme for the developing world. Thus, the Community as a whole has already taken an initiative in this, which is more precise, more defined and, I think, more far-reaching than that of the United States.
  Mr. John Mendelson: In his normal communications with the President of the United States, will the Prime Minister point out that there was widespread relief when the proposed agreement to bring the war in Vietnam to an end was so near, and that there is now bitter disappointment all over the world that the military régime in Saigon is once again
  624
  being allowed to sabotage the signing of a peace agreement? Will the Prime Minister urge the President of the United States to sign this agreement forthwith, to stop the bombing of Vietnam, and to bring the war to an end?
  The Prime Minister: President Nixon needs no urging to bring about peace in Vietnam. He has surely been working as hard as any President could to achieve that. I know full well that his efforts are just as determined now as they have ever been.
  Sir F. Bennett: Will my right hon. Friend remind the House which Vietnam it is that has been attacking the other, and precisely what sort of régime it is that exists in North Vietnam at present?
  The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has emphasised what the House well knows is the source of the aggression, and the nature of the régime it is. But my hon. Friend would also wish to concentrate, like the rest of the House, on the future of this war-scarred country and the genuine endeavours which are being made by President Nixon at this moment to bring the war to a speedy end. I am sure that we would all like to give him support ill doing that.
  Sir F. Bennett: Yes, but not any fellow-traveller nonsense.
  Mr. J. T. Price: Returning to the question of our relationship with North America, can the Prime Minister give any information about the steps reported as being taken to organise a conference in the spring in Ankara among the members of the enlarged Community to establish a common stance towards North America on behalf of the European partners in the EEC, of which we are a new one? Is it true that a conference is being organised by the European Movement for this purpose? If so, can the Prime Minister give any information as to its true purpose and why it should be held in Ankara—if that is the locus?
  The Prime Minister: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any specific information about that. But the European Movement is not the responsibility of either the Community or the British Government. The relations of the Community with the United States are very well

  625
  known and were repeated in the communiqué after the summit; that is, that we want a relationship of close friendship with them as well as an alliance with those countries which are members of NATO.

  QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
  Mr. Speaker: Mr. McNair-Wilson.
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for calling me on this point of order. It relates to my Question No. 40 to the Minister of State for Defence. It is the only Question I put down to him. I tabled it this week, and I am wondering why it came after the second Question of many other hon. Members, as I thought that the rule was that first Questions came first.
  Mr. Speaker: I think that probably the answer relates to the time at which the hon. Member put down his Question, but I will look into the matter.
  Mr. Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Owing to the highly unsatisfactory and highly discourteous reply to my Question No. 14 by my hon. Friend, I give notice—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member cannot do that now.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Harold Wilson: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. James Prior): Yes, Sir.
The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 4TH DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Local Government (Scotland) Bill.
Motion on the Mines and Quarries (Valuation) (Amendment) Order.
Motion relating to the Awards (First Degree, etc. Courses) (Amendment) Regulations.
626
TUESDAY, 5TH DECEMBER—Supply (2nd allotted day): debate on an Opposition Motion relating to postponement of the introduction of VAT.
Motion on the Development of Tourist Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order.
WEDNESDAY, 6TH DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill.
THURSDAY, 7TH DECEMBER—Remaining stages of the Consolidated Fund Bill.
Supply (3rd allotted day): debate on a Motion to take note of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Reports from the Committee of Public Accounts, Session 1971–72, and the related Treasury Minute (Command No. 5126).
Motion on the European Communities (Definition of Treaties) Order.
FRIDAY, 8TH DECEMBER—Private Members' Motions.
MONDAY, 11TH DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Concorde Aircraft Bill.
Mr. Wilson: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, first, when we may now expect the White Paper on steel? Is he aware that a debate on steel is long overdue? We have deferred pressing for it, even on a Supply Day, because of the expected arrival of the White Paper before Christmas. Will he now categorically confirm that we shall have the White Paper before Christmas? If not, the House may be in the position of having to insist on a debate before getting the White Paper.
Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that a statement will be made next week about what the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary did or did not say in Spain about the Common Market? There is great anxiety about this matter. Could we be told exactly what he said? If he said what he is reported to have said, will the Leader of the House arrange for his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to repudiate it?
Thirdly, are we to expect next week the long-awaited White Paper on higher education? As the right hon. Gentleman will know, universities have had to start the new quinquennium by recruiting staffs and arranging for student courses without any idea of what finance will be available.

627
Are we to be told next week about the finance that will be available?
Fourthly, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for a statement on what is so far only a Press report, which may be wrong, about an alleged raid on a newspaper office for the purpose of discovering whether there was a Government document there, about which concern has been expressed? Will he let the House know whether this is, perhaps, a new development in the matter of the tracing of leaks by the police?
Mr. Prior: On the right hon. Gentleman's last question, I shall have the matter investigated. I do not know anything of this nature at present.
I promised that a statement would be made on the steel industry before Christmas.
Mr. Varley: A definitive statement?
Mr. Prior: It will be a definitive statement, yes. I keep to that promise that I have made.
On the question of the White Paper on education, I confirm that such a White Paper will be published next week.
On the question of my right hon. Friend's visit to Spain, there will be ample opportunity for this to be discussed in the foreign affairs debate, which I hope very much will take place the week after next.
Mr. Wilson: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his courteous answers to my questions. On the question of the Steel White Paper, can he say whether we can expect it to be definitive in the sense of a much more pointed figure for the expansion of the industry, and whether it will deal with the question of where expansion and closures are to take place? Is that intended?
Mr. Prior: I should like to consider those points a little more carefully and, perhaps, contact the right hon. Gentleman. For the moment, I have not mentioned a White Paper. At the moment I have gone no further than to say that there will be a definitive statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in the period between now and Christmas.
Mr. Hugh Fraser: May I congratulate the Opposition on joining in my excellent campaign for the postponement of value added tax? May I also assure my right hon. Friend that I give him a wholehearted zero rating?
Mr. Prior: May I tell my right hon. Friend that it will also give the Government a chance to put right some of the inaccuracies of what he has been saying.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed Early Day Motion No. 27, which calls for nuclear bases to be destroyed? Will he give time for a debate upon this subject because, as has become apparent during Question Time today, there is considerable interest in the Government's attitude towards nuclear bases? Is it not high time that we debated the subject?
[That this House, having regard to the following passage in the 1964 Labour Party General Election manifesto:'… Nor is it true that all this costly defence expenditure will produce an "independent deterrent". It will not be independent and it will not be British and it will not deter … we are not prepared any longer to waste the country's resources on endless duplication of strategic nuclear weapons ', and to the 1972 Conference resolution, which reads as follows: 'This Conference is convinced of the futility of a nuclear war which would be suicidal for the human race and in view of the present world unrest feels the time is ripe for positive action by the British Government. The presence of American nuclear bases prevents us from taking the kind of political stance which would encourage world nuclear disarmament. There is no doubt this country presents a sitting target. This Conference is opposed to any British defence policy which is based on the use or threatened use of nuclear weapons either by this country or its allies and demands the removal of all nuclear bases in this country', believes that these policies should now be implemented.]
Mr. Prior: I do not think that this would be out of order in the foreign affairs debate which I hope will take place the week after next.
Mr. Farr: Does my right hon. Friend expect that a report will be published next week on the riot at Gartree; and,

629
if so, will he make available at some time in the near future parliamentary time to discuss it?
Mr. Prior: I cannot give my hon. Friend an answer to that question at the moment, but I will consult my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. It is most unlikely that we can find time before Christmas for a debate on this important matter in my hon. Friend's constituency.
Mr. Grimond: Can the Leader of the House give us any indication as to where the Committee stage of the Local Government (Scotland) Bill is to be taken? It will be something of a scandal if, simply because the Conservative Party has not enough Scottish Members, Scottish Members are deprived of the opportunity of taking part in the Committee stage of this important Bill which affects every Scottish constituency.
Mr. Prior: In that respect this Bill is no different from the Local Government Act for England and Wales. It is reasonable that a Bill of this nature should be considered by a Standing Committee. Then it will come back to the Floor of the House on Report when other hon. Members on both sides will have a chance of putting their points.
Dame Irene Ward: When are we to have the Coal Industry Bill? When are we to be told who are to pay—and how—the deficits of the nationalised industries? I could do a great deal better with the money that would be available. There are a large number of things I want to spend it on.
Mr. Prior: My hon. Friend may think that she would do better. Over the years she has called upon the nationalised industries to keep down their prices—
Dame Irene Ward: They never have.
Mr. Prior: —and Government aid to the nationalised industries has enabled that to happen. I assure my hon. Friend that the Coal Industry Bill is coming forward very soon now.
Mr. Hannan: Returning to the point made by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), surely the Leader of the House understands the difference between England and Wales and Scotland, in that there is a majority of Opposition Members from
630
Scotland and that they will be deprived of the opportunity of serving on the Standing Committee.
Did the Leader of the House give further consideration to the request made last week by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) that the rule should be suspended on Monday night to afford more time for the debate on Second Reading?
Mr. Prior: I gave further consideration to the question of suspending the rule. I think that the Opposition wished in any case to take a prayer that evening, so this suggestion was not pursued. On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I still think that the right place for discussion of a Bill is in a Standing Committee, and that is the ordinary practice of the House.
Captain Orr: My right hon. Friend will recollect that it was intended to take the Detention of Terrorists Order last week. My right hon. Friend has not announced it as part of next week's business. Is there any particular reason for the delay? May we expect it soon?
Mr. Prior: There is no particular reason for the delay. As my hon. and gallant Friend knows only too well, we have had a lot of Irish business on the Floor of the House in the last two weeks and I wish to pursue some other topics which hon. Members in all parts of the House want to get on with.
Mr. Arthur Davidson: Will the Leader of the House find time soon for a debate on the Franks Committee Report on the Official Secrets Act? Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the longer this report remains pigeon-holed and un-debated the longer this totally discredited Act remains the law of the land?
Mr. Prior: This is obviously a very important subject. I will consider what the hon. Gentleman said and see when we can find time. In the next few weeks we have a very busy programme.
Sir Bernard Braine: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to Early Day Motion No. 1 which calls for the setting-up of a Select Committee to scrutinise Britain's overseas aid performance?
[That this House urges Her Majesty's Government to reconsider its view as set

631
out in its Green Paper on Select Committees of the House of Commons published in October 1970, and to recommend to the House that a Select Committee on Overseas Development be established, whose functions would include the review and appraisal of British performance in relation to the International Development Strategy for the Second United Nations Development Decade.]
This motion has already attracted almost 200 signatures and I can promise my right hon. Friend that it will attract more. Will he give the House an indication whether he will be able to give an inkling of the Government's intentions on this before we rise for the Christmas Recess?
Mr. Prior: I will certainly consider what my right hon. Friend said. We have not, perhaps, been getting on as fast with setting up Select Committees as one would have liked. Therefore, it is difficult at this stage to see whether we should have sufficient hon. Members in all parts of the House to serve on these Committees. In the next few weeks we must obviously reach decisions on these important matters.
Mr. McBride: Reverting to the matter of the steel industry raised by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, is the Leader of the House aware that as Chairman of the Welsh Parliamentary Group I led a deputation to the Secretary of State for Wales this week, on which occasion the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he was not sure whether a statement would be issued about the steel industry before Christmas? Can the right hon. Gentleman now say that a definitive statement of policy about the steel industry will certainly be made before Christmas to allay the anxieties of the steelworkers of Wales and that this statement will in no way be construed as a holding operation?
Mr. Prior: This is a matter of very great importance, not least to hon. Members from Wales. A fortnight ago I said that the Government would be making a full statement before the Christmas Recess. I have no grounds for detracting from that statement.
Mr. Tugendhat: As we were kept up half the night on Irish business last week,
632
and as we are to devote a whole day to Scottish business next week, may I remind my right hon. Friend of his predecessor's promise that we would at some time discuss the problems of London? Over 7 million people live in London. They get very little time in the House compared with other parts of the Kingdom.
Mr. Prior: My hon. Friend exemplifies only too well the difficulties which face a Leader of the House.
Mr. Albu: In view of the vast sums of public money which are now being spent unplanned and unvoted, will the Leader of the House say when the White Paper on Public Expenditure is to be published and particularly whether it will give an indication of the Government's priorities in public expenditure especially in regard to higher education and expenditure on aircraft such as Concorde?
Mr. Prior: The hon. Gentleman can expect the White Paper on Public Expenditure shortly now. It is not my view that large sums of money are being spent unvoted. That is not a correct allegation.
Sir F. Bennett: The Leader of the Opposition's first question about the Foreign Minister's visit to Madrid received the answer that there will be ample opportunity to clarify these matters in the foreign affairs debate. My right hon. Friend does not need to be reminded that not every hon. Member gets called in a debate. May I ask whether on that occasion my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will also take the opportunity to deal with what I am sure are misleading and inaccurate reports which have appeared in the Spanish Press about undertakings he is alleged to have given over the question of Gibraltar?
Mr. Prior: I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary will be able to deal with that matter fully and, having heard what my hon. Friend has said, will take the opportunity of doing so.
Sir G. de Freitas: On the question of the Franks Committee Report and other reports, when will the Leader of the House if necessary reduce some of the legislation and allow us time to debate not only outstanding Royal Commission

633
reports but the 30 or so Select Committee reports which have never been discussed?
Mr. Prior: I am doing my best to find more time for this purpose. I believe it is the wish of the House that there should be more general debates. I certainly could not promise that we would be able to debate all these reports.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the Leader of the House aware that his predecessor in March of this year made a promise to Members of Parliament from Northern Ireland that he would set up machinery so that instead of dealing with Orders in Council that cannot be amended Members from Northern Ireland could put forward amendments and deal with a parliamentary committee? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that pledge has not been honoured and that at the moment, although time has been given for discussion of Northern Ireland matters, most matters are discussed on Orders in Council and there is no room under this system to make amendments to the legislation?
Mr. Prior: I am aware of the views that have been expressed from time to time on this subject. Rather than send certain matters to some form of Irish Committee upstairs or in another part of the building, we have tried to give more time on the Floor of the House for these debates. I believe that, generally speaking, that has perhaps met the wishes of the House in a rather better way than the suggestion that was put forward earlier. If the House as a whole has views on how better we can arrange business concerning Northern Ireland, I am prepared to consider them.
Mr. Leonard: As it is already several weeks since hon. Members had the opportunity of hearing an explanation by the architects of the merits of the new parliamentary building, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to give us an early opportunity to debate the matter so that a decision may be reached before our memories fade?
Mr. Prior: To be correct, it is about three weeks since we had the architects' report and demonstration. This is obviously a very important matter. I should like to have a debate as soon as possible and I agree that we should come to a
634
decision, but I do not think it can be before Christmas.
Mr. Marten: May we have a debate fairly soon on the draft regulations being put out by the Community about driving licences? This matter is still in the draft stage and we could discuss it quite usefully provided we were given the English translation of the draft which is being circulated.
Mr. Prior: These are matters that we would like to find time to debate if the time were available, but I do not believe there will be an early opportunity for that.
Mr. C. Pannell: If we are not to have an early debate on the parliamentary building, will the right hon. Gentleman impress upon his right hon. Friends, particularly the Minister for Housing and Construction, that they should not let out piecemeal information of what is to be done about Parliament and Parliament Square, such as the retention of Scotland Yard and Richmond Terrace? These things must be considered as a whole, and they raise a great controversy. The Minister should wait to make a proper statement to the House about the redevelopment of Whitehall as a whole in relation to the parliamentary building.
Mr. Prior: It is obviously very hard to win on these things. There has been a great public demand for decisions to be reached on Scotland Yard and Richmond Terrace, and on the whole I believe that the House and the people outside, particularly Londoners, welcomed the decision that was made. I take the right hon. Member's point and I believe that we would like to get on with the matter as soon as we can find time for a comprehensive debate.
Mr. Redmond: May I raise the issue of the report of the Select Committee on Parliamentary Questions? Is it not obvious, Mr. Speaker, from the number of points of order coming to you during Questions, particularly Prime Minister's Questions, that the House should have an early opportunity to debate the report and to make up its mind?
Mr. Prior: I want to deal with this problem before Christmas and I hope to make an announcement during the statement on next week's business, and certainly not later than the week after that.

635
I believe that the House would want to get this issue out of the way before Christmas.
Mr. Concannon: The right hon. Gentleman said that the Coal Mines Bill would be out very soon. Did he mean that the Second Reading would be taken before Christmas, because if not, and if it is left over until after the recess, the problem will arise that the Committee stages and the other stages here and in the other place will have to be completed before 31st March? If that is the right hon. Gentleman's intention, will he let us know very quickly so that some of us can make arrangements to come back early from the Christmas Recess to start the Committee stage?
Mr. Prior: By "very soon" I meant that I hoped that the Bill would be published next week, but if not next week certainly the week after that. Whether we could then find time to take the Second Reading before Christmas would depend upon the speed of parliamentary business, but if we could, we would like to do so. I have noted the hon. Member's point.
Mr. Urwin: Will the right hon. Gentleman impress upon the Secretary of State for Employment the importance and urgency of making at an early date, and certainly before Christmas, an anxiously awaited statement on the Loddon Viaduct disaster last month? Will the right hon. Gentleman allow time for a debate on the whole question of bridge design and safety in this part of the construction industry?
Mr. Prior: I shall report both those important matters to my right hon. Friend. I reported the concern about the bridge problem to him last week and I shall consider whether any statement needs to be made.
Mr. Lawson: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to set up a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs next week? If he does not intend to do so, will he explain why there is a delay and what the difficulties are?
Mr. Prior: It is not my intention to set up this Select Committee next week and I am still considering when and whether it should be set up.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We must move on.

CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL (DEBATE)
Mr. Speaker: I have a statement to make about business for next week.
Perhaps it will help if I inform the House that for the debate on Wednesday, 6th December on the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill hon. Members may hand in to my office by 9.30 on the morning of Tuesday, 5th December their names and the topics they wish to raise. The ballot will be carried out as on the last occasion. An hon. Member may hand in only his own name and one topic.
This Consolidated Fund Bill contains the Civil Vote on Account, so that hon. Members may raise any questions of policy or administration arising out of the Civil Estimates. The Bill also makes provision to cover Civil Supplementary Estimates set out in House of Commons Paper No. 12. There is no opportunity for raising defence topics in the Bill. I shall put out the result of the ballot later on Tuesday, 5th December.

ICELANDIC FISHERIES
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement.
My noble Friend, the Minister of State, met Icelandic Ministers in Reykjavik on 27th and 28th November in a further attempt to reach an interim settlement on the fisheries dispute. I am very sorry to have to inform the House that our efforts were unsuccessful.
Since our earlier discussions in July the International Court of Justice has given an interim order under which Iceland is not to enforce her regulations against British vessels outside the 12-mile limit and we should reduce our catch to a maximum of 170,000 tons a year, and our policy is based on this order. However, in order to reach an interim agreement we did not insist on catching 170,000 tons and we were prepared to consider any reasonable method of limitation.

637
The proposal which, with the support of the British fishing industry, my noble Friend put to the Icelandic Government was based on a report made by British and Icelandic officials in October. This suggested a negotiating bracket between 17 per cent. and 25 per cent. below the British catch of 1971. We suggested that one-third of the waters round Iceland should be closed to British vessels at any one time. We also accepted Icelandic conservation areas and recognised that there might be a need for special arrangements for areas containing fixed gear. Our industry was also prepared to give an assurance on the future composition or tonnage of the fishing fleet. We offered to negotiate on the midpoint of the bracket proposed by officials—namely a catch of 163,000 tons—about 21 per cent. below the 1971 figure.
The Icelandic Government proposed that half the area should be closed at any one time. They also wanted further extensive areas to be reserved for the smaller Icelandic vessels and pressed for the exclusion of all our freezers, as well as trawlers over 180 ft. in length or 750–800 tons in size. This would have excluded our most modern vessels and constituted a damaging precedent. We estimated that the total effect of these restrictions would be to cut our catch by at least 60–70 per cent.
In an attempt to bridge the gap, we suggested a different approach in the form of a 10 per cent. reduction in the actual fishing effort—the number of days fishing—by British vessels in the disputed waters. We estimated that this would have resulted in a 25 per cent. reduction in the catch, giving us perhaps 158,000 tons, compared with 208,000 tons in 1971. However the Icelandic Government was not prepared at this stage to accept this suggestion as a basis for further negotiation and suggested no alternative.
My noble Friend offered to extend her stay but the Icelandic Government did not consider we could take matters further at this stage. I hope, however, that when they have considered our latest proposals further they will recognise that they meet their twin requirements of conservation and coastal state preference. This method would still preserve the livelihood of our own fishermen. For our part we are
638
ready to resume negotiations at any time. Meanwhile we will continue the proceedings before the International Court.
We continued to keep in touch with the Federal German Government throughout these negotiations.
Mr. Crosland: The right hon. Gentleman's statement is very sad for my constituency and all the other fishing ports. It is clear from it, and from what we knew already, that the Icelandic proposals were preposterous, and not meant to be taken seriously, and that it was the Icelandic Government, and they alone, who were responsible for breaking off the talks.
I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman four questions. First, did the Minister of State have the slightest indication when she returned that the Icelandic Government had any serious intention of continuing the negotiations during the winter?
Secondly, as British trawlermen are fishing in the grounds with the full backing of international law and of the International Court of Justice, will the Government strengthen as necessary the naval presence in the area, particularly to avoid incidents of harassment? As I have told the House more than once, one of these days many lives will be lost if such harassment goes on.
Thirdly, will the Government also make it clear to the Icelandic Government that if British trawlermen's lives are lost due to the closure of Iceland ports and fjords to British trawlers, the responsibility will be that of the Icelandic Government, and theirs alone?
Fourthly, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us a little more—he just referred to it in his last sentence—of what is meant by the newspaper reports this morning about the actions of the West German Government?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: My noble Friend the Minister of State deliberately kept open the possibility of more negotiations, because everyone realises how serious would be the consequences of a cod war on the industry. I shall have the opportunity in the NATO Council next week to see the Foreign Minister of Iceland, and I shall take advantage of it. But I must say that the Minister of State

639
returned with very little hope that the discussions could be resumed in a meaningful way.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about a naval presence. Yes, naval ships will be on station as required.
The responsibility for any loss of life or damage is that of the Icelandic Government.
As to the Federal German Government's actions, we have kept in touch with the Federal German Government all the time on the negotiations. I should like a little more notice before answering the right hon. Gentleman's question about the Federal German attitude as reported in the newspapers.
Mr. Wall: I very much regret the breakdown in the talks. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that each time the two Governments have met Britain has made concessions, and will he make it clear now that we have no more to give, that we have gone as far as we can? Will he also say quite clearly that if there is any more harassment of British trawlers on the high seas the Royal Navy will move in to protect them, and will he co-ordinate this protection with the West Germans?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I do not see how we could make any more concessions. But my hon. Friend will understand—certainly the industry does; we are in touch with it every day—how important it is that we should reach a settlement if at all possible, because the alternative of a cod war is terrible.
I have made it plain to the Icelandic Government that the Royal Navy must protect our fishermen if they are interfered with. That is quite clear, and I hope that it will be understood by the Icelandic Government.
Mr. Grimond: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it would strengthen the hands of those of us who have to argue our case, which seems to be good, with the Icelandic Government if he could state the reason in equity why we can apparently claim the oil under the sea far beyond the existing limits, but they cannot claim the fish? There must be some good reason, but at present I do not see what it is.
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Nor do I. As to the relationship between fish in the sea and oil under it, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will put down a Question.
Mr. W. H. K. Baker: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) represents the views of many hon. Members, not least myself? Will he assure the House that all possible efforts will be made to bring about a solution of the problem with Iceland, because otherwise it will have vast implications not only for the deep-water fleet but for all other sections of the British fishing industry?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes, Sir. I accept that.
In answer to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), I will go a little further now. The difference is in the international law as applied to the law of the sea and to the law of minerals under the sea.
Mr. James Johnson: Are not the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and all those of us who are Members for fishing ports faced with a savage dilemma? If there is any possibility of keeping the door open, it would not be sensible to send in the fleet between the 50-mile and 20-mile limit. But if Mr. Josefsson, the Fisheries Minister, and his three Communist colleagues in a Cabinet of seven make any chance of future talks nugatory, he must tell the House and all those Members representing fishing ports quite clearly that he will not hesitate to send in our vessels to support our constituents, whether skippers or deck hands, who may get into difficulties.
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: We have a legal right to fish up to 12 miles. I must not go into the internal politics of Iceland. That would be improper. But where we have a right to fish, we must protect our fishermen if there is any interference.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: Will my right hon. Friend keep in mind that it is disturbing to note the new form of negotiation? Our nation could stand firm on an international court ruling. We were safe, and knew where we were. Now we enter into negotiations and give concessions

641
which are the new starting point for other talks. What happened to the procedures that used to exist, under which we did not go into negotiations until behind the scenes we have a clear idea that the other people were prepared to negotiate, instead of weakening the stand and position from which we have to operate?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: My hon. Friend is not right, because we have had the interim judgment of the court, which restrains the Icelandic Government from interfering with the rights of British fishermen between the 12-mile limit and the 50-mile limit. It was also said that we should contain our catch within the limits of 170,000 tons. That we have done. We have kept scrupulously to the interim judgment. The final judgment will come in January.
Mr. Peart: Will the right hon. Gentleman resist the blandishments of the former Leader of the Liberal Party, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond)? There is a major distinction between oil and fish. As the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary rightly said, we have an international agreement. It is not Britain who has broken it. More than that, there is to be a conference on the law of the sea. I believe that the Government will have the support of the Opposition in a desire to achieve a peaceful solution, but we must protect our seamen.
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. We are trying to secure an interim arrangement pending the decision of the law of the sea conference in 1973. Between friendly nations and allies, this should not be very difficult on a modified basis of catch. We are trying to co-operate in this way.
Dame Irene Ward: I support my right hon. Friend in all the efforts being made. Is he aware of the very bad position that will result for the port of Tyne? Already the industry there has fallen considerably. Will my right hon. Friend get in touch with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to find out what will be the effect on the ports and the employment of those who have been engaged in the fishing industry in them? It is very important that everyone should know what will happen to the
642
ports if we cannot obtain a proper and satisfactory agreement on the lines that my right hon. Friend indicated. I should like to know how my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry can help the ports that are under great pressure because of the current difficulties.
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I shall certainly keep in touch with my right hon. Friend on the future of the ports. The catch in Icelandic waters has been good in the past year. The best solution to the problem facing my hon. Friend and all of us is to achieve a negotiated settlement, because a cod war would hit the ports very hard. It would hit everyone very hard.
Mr. Ronald King Murray: In the present situation of stalemate, which we hope will be temporary, will the Government impress on the Government of Iceland that, while the conservation of fish is important, the conservation of human life, whether British or Icelandic, is more important? Will the Government seek in the meantime, without prejudice to the issue of fishery limits, a working agreement during the winter on humanitarian grounds for the safety of those involved, whether British or Icelandic?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: We shall seek this and will try to avoid all damage and any loss of life.
Mr. Laurance Reed: Does my right hon. Friend recall the previous dispute with Iceland when, for 12 years, the Foreign Office stuck to a particular line and it was discovered at the end of the day that international community support for that view had evaporated? In view of past experience, what account is my right hon. Friend now taking of the fact that there is now a large body of opinion in the world which supports the view that the Continental Shelf and the waters overlying it should be treated as a single organic unit, precisely because oil has been discovered in it?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I well remember the 1962 agreement because I negotiated it. I have every reason to remember it. If we are to have any alteration in the law of the sea in relation to the Continental Shelf it ought to be done at the law of the sea conference

643
in 1973 and not by unilateral action on the part of any country.
Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Is it possible to clarify the future position a little further? If one of our ships had to take shelter off the Icelandic coast or, even more unfortunately, if it were wrecked and the crew removed to the police station, can my right hon. Friend say what the position would be then?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: It would be better not to anticipate hypothetical situations. The Navy will do its duty towards any ship that is in difficulties as best it can. If it would help the House I might put in the Library a copy of the Icelandic proposals and of our proposals so that hon. Members can be well acquainted with them.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR MONDAY, 18th DECEMBER
Members successful in the Ballot were:

Sir Edward Brown.

Sir Frederic Bennett.

Mr. Robert Redmond.

BILLS PRESENTED

  MAPLIN DEVELOPMENT
  Mr. Secretary Rippon, supported by Mr. Secretary Walker, Mr. John Peyton, Mr. Patrick Jenkin, Mr. Michael Heseltine, and Mr. Eldon Griffiths presented a Bill to provide for the reclamation from the sea of certain land for the purpose of the establishment of an airport and a seaport in south-east Essex, and for the development for other purposes
  644
  of so much of the land as is not required for that purpose; for the granting of planning permission required for the construction and operation of the airport and the seaport; 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. [Bill 37.]

  FAIR TRADING
  Mr. Secretary Walker, supported by Mr. Secretary Campbell, Mr. Secretary Peter Thomas, Mr. Secretary Macmillan, Mr. Joseph Godber, Sir Geoffrey Howe, Mr. Patrick Jenkin, Mr. Attorney General, Mr. David Lane, and Mr. Peter Emery presented a Bill to provide for the appointment of a Director General of Fair Trading and of a Consumer Protection Advisory Committee, and to confer on the Director General and the Committee so appointed, on the Secretary of State and on the Restrictive Practices Court new functions for the protection of consumers; to make provision, in substitution for the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices (Inquiry and Control) Act 1948 and the Monopolies and Mergers Act 1965, for the matters dealt with in those Acts and related matters, including restrictive labour practices, to amend the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1956 and the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1968, to make provision for extending the said Act of 1956 to agreements relating to services, and to transfer to the Director General of Fair Trading the functions of the Registrar of Restrictive Trading Agreements; to make new provision in place of section 30(2) to (4) of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968; 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. [Bill 36.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SEA FISH INDUSTRY BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.13 p.m.
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Joseph Godber): I beg to move. That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  We have before us today a straightforward and short Bill. Nevertheless, I suggest that it is an important one for the fishing industry, about some of whose problems we have just been hearing. I believe that this Bill will commend itself to the House. At its simplest its effect is no more and no less than to relax the time limits which Parliament originally imposed upon certain enabling powers to support the industry. It does not alter the powers themselves.
  The main powers in question are those relating to the supply of funds for vessel loans by the White Fish Authority and Herring Industry Board; the grant aiding of the research and development financed by these two bodies through levies on the industry; and the operating subsidies. But, before saying more about how the Bill achieves these objectives, it might be helpful if I were to begin with a few sentences by way of background.
  The items covered by the Bill are, of course, in no sense newcomers. The middle, near and inshore fleets have received a measure of assistance on both current and capital account for 20 years or more. These facilities have also applied to distant water vessels since 1962, following the recommendations of the Fleck Committee. Indeed, it is because that Committee saw the fleet becoming self-supporting within a period of 10 years that we now find, with an exception which I shall mention in a moment, that unless we pass this Bill the enabling powers whose duration was set by the Sea Fish Industry Act 1962 will cease to be available at the end of this year, or in the coming year.
  The exception—and a very important one—relates to capital grants for vessels where, as a result of the Industrial Development Act passed by the last Gov-
  646
  ernment in 1966, the terminal date now appears only in the relevant subordinate instrument. This also expires at the end of the year, and we are currently considering, in the light of the views which the industry and the two statutory authorities have given us, what future provision should be made. This, of course, is something which hon. Members will shortly have a chance to discuss when we lay a new Grants Scheme before the House for approval, but I wanted to explain why the Bill does not mention the provisions under which vessel grants are paid.
  Let me now explain in more detail what the Bill does. All the powers which it continues are set out in the Sea Fish Industry Act 1970, which was a consolidation Act. That brought together two kinds of power, the first exercisable only through a statutory scheme requiring an affirmative resolution of both Houses, and the second available to Ministers provided only that this House was prepared to vote the money.
  For the first type of power we see no point in substituting some later expiry date for that originally set. Under this head we are concerned only with operating subsidy schemes, the duration of which is best settled as they are made. So Clause 1(1) simply repeals the time limit in the enabling power under which operating subsidy schemes can be made.
  For the second type of support power, the type which in its present form does not require a scheme to be brought before Parliament fairly frequently, we have not thought it right to ask the House for an entirely open-ended extension. The Bill in Clause 1(2) provides for an extension to the end of 1973 of provisions that would otherwise run out at the end of this year. If, however, they are wanted after that there will have to be an order subject to affirmative resolution of this House. That is provided in Clause 1(3). The order could be for a year, or less, or more; and there could be successive extensions if necessary.
  There are two main enabling powers covered by this procedure. One authorises lending to the White Fish Authority and to the Herring Industry Board so that they in turn can provide loans for vessels, and in certain cases for smaller operators of processing and icemaking

  647
  plants. The other enables grants from public funds to be given towards the research and development work carried out by the Authority and the Board, so supplementing what the two bodies devote to this from their levy income.
  Before I turn to the future use of the main powers, let me dispose quickly of one of the minor ones that for drafting reasons gets disproportionate mention in the Bill, and may therefore seem more important to the House than is the case. I refer to the White Fish Marketing Fund and the Herring Marketing Fund, mentioned in Clause 1(2) and again in subsection (4). These were set up to provide working capital for any Authority or Board activity that called for it. Only the Herring Fund has been used and that in a modest way, but until the time comes for substantive legislation on the future of the Authority and the Board there seems to be no good reason for leaving out particular items when enabling powers generally are being extended.
  If I were to sum up this Bill, I would say that it relaxes the present restrictions on the powers in question whilst retaining a wide measure of flexibility as to their future use. I believe this to be a sensible course for a number of reasons. In the first place experience over the last 10 years, that is, since many of these powers were first taken, illustrates so very clearly how difficult it is to attempt to predict the fortunes of what is still essentially a hunting industry. Profitability and capital renewal have both been running at a high level over the last couple of years and this of course is something to be welcomed. But experience has shown that this, among all industries, can be subject to short-term fluctuations. Consequently, the Bill, which is in any case a purely enabling measure, makes no attempt to prejudge what will be needed by way of financial assistance in the future—or for how long.
  The answers to both these questions will clearly be affected not only by factors nearer home, but more particularly, as is all too evident at the present time, by international developments as well. Much will depend upon the level of fish stocks and their availability to those in pursuit of their lawful activities on the high seas, and here we shall continue to work for
  648
  equitable solutions. I do not think I need to add more about Iceland in the light of what the Foreign Secretary said I was glad to note the support which the House gave on this serious issue. Then there is the question of the way in which the structural and marketing aspects of Community fishery policy will affect our own support policies from next year. This is the other international factor we have to take into account, and the position here is open. There is, of course, a system of Community withdrawal prices, which it will be open to our industry to use: it is a voluntary system, calling first for the establishment of producers' organisations and their official recognition and then for decisions by them to use Community withdrawal prices. So one cannot say now what assurance in practice this system may be found to give to our industry.
  Any support of the industry under the withdrawal price system would come from the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund—FEOGA—which is the basis of such payments. There may also be benefit to this country under future measures to be financed from the Guidance side of this Fund
  The point I want to stress is that from now on we shall be playing our full part in the decision-making processes of the Community. We shall obviously make it our business to see that what is done takes full account of the circumstances of the British industry, as well as of the wider interest in the use to the best advantage of Community funds to which we shall be a major contributor.
  Clearly there will be changes in our existing support arrangements, but it is impossible today to say precisely what they will be, or when they will be made. The Community regulations expressly provide for member States to grant financial aids in so far as the operations to which they relate contribute to the achievement of certain broad objectives with which we have little quarrel. There is a further provision, not so far used, for laying down common rules in this field—rules, that is to say, which would apply equally to the aids granted by all other member States as well as to our own. Obviously, therefore, the right course is to participate to the full in the shaping of these policies, and in the

  649
  meantime to ensure that there is no risk of any gap or discontinuity in our own familiar support measures in this country.
  The Bill is a small but legally essential contribution to that course, and I invite the House—
  Mr. Norman Buchan: It might have been useful for us to see a brief statistical breakdown so that we could know whether the extension is justified in financial terms. In fishery debates it is customary for information to be given of the economic situation in the industry in terms of production, landing value, and so on. Is that possible?
  Mr. Godber: I will see whether in winding up the debate my hon. Friend can seek to provide such information. As the Bill provides primarily for the continuation of the existing arrangements, with no fresh proposals, I had not thought to weary the House with too much detail. It is a measure for extending existing powers which are well known to the House. I therefore commend the Bill to the House and ask for a Second Reading.
  4.23 p.m.
  Mr. Fred Peart: I agree with the Minister that the Bill is short and straightforward. I thought at first that he would be brief in introducing it, but when he concluded his remarks I thought that we should have a long disertation about the effect of our entry into the European Community. I should like to debate that at great length, but not this evening. I think that we should make our speeches relatively brief, although that does not preclude my hon. Friends from pursuing other matters if they so wish. I shall ask the Minister a question about the EEC.
  In view of the nature of the industry, the Bill is essential, as the Minister said. After all, fishing is a hunting industry subject to short-term fluctuations and, as sensible parliamentarians, we should make our legislation fit the needs of the industry. There is general agreement and no controversy on the Bill. I was enabled to have an excellent Press notice from the Department which gave full information about the effects of the Bill. No doubt the Minister will see that this information is put out to the industry and
  650
  to those who are affected. I congratulate those who are responsible for it.
  The Minister in explaining the measure said that the Bill relaxes certain time limits currently imposed upon the financial support available to the white fish and herring industries. It extends until the end of 1973 the availability of loans for vessels, processing and ice-making plants and also grant aid for the research and development financed by the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board through levies on the industry. The Bill provides for subsequent use of these powers to be exercised through orders. The Minister was right to emphasise the clause which deals with the affirmative order procedure, which makes the orders subject to the approval of the House. The Bill removes the present time limit of 1st January, 1974, governing the payment of operating subsidies made under schemes previously approved by the House.
  The Bill also refers to the support powers contained in the Sea Fish Industry Act 1970. That was a consolidation measure, and I am glad of that consolidation. My right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes) in 1969 speeded up legislation in the interests of the fishing industry and there was general agreement that the Act was a good one.
  The 1970 Act consolidated earlier legislation containing powers first granted in 1962. It covered a 10-year period, which we all accepted that the industry needed. The aim of many fishery Ministers and hon. Members who took part in our fishery debates was to allow the industry 10 years in which to develop and to modernise the fishing fleet because of competition from Europe, Poland, the Soviet Union and even from Japan. Any legislation which enables the industry to modernise and to develop should be welcomed by the House. I never accepted the original "lame duck" theory of the Government, and they have now thrown that theory overboard. They have a bit more sense now than when they came into power. Here we have legislation to enable the industry to have resources at its disposal and we are arguing only about timing. No doubt some of my colleagues will develop the theme of the excellent research which is done in our research centres.

  651
  Some of the enabling provisions will expire at the end of 1972, and the Minister has given an assurance that nothing will be affected here. I assume that the loan facilities will apply to England, Scotland and Wales. According to the Press notice there will be separate arrangements for Northern Ireland. However, the operating subsidies are on a United Kingdom basis. Capital grants for the acquisition or improvement of fishing vessels are not covered by the Bill, but as the Minister said, previous legislation caters for this.
  The Minister went on to argue about the European Community. When the Minister's predecessor made an announcement to the House on 18th July this year—I referred to it in my speech in the debate on 1st August—he warned the House that there was a problem about our entry into the European Community. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not be too starry-eyed about Europe. Parliament has made its decision, but we shall still be in a minority in the Community and we shall still need to fight our corner, if I may put the matter in that way. We must not assume that when we go into the Community everything will be good for the fishing industry.
  We have already discussed the uncertainty that faces inshore fishermen, and I should be out of order if I were now to deploy that argument. Today we are dealing with the White Fish Authority, the herring fleets and that section of the industry which is concerned with fishing in more distant waters.
  I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not be apathetic about these matters, and I am sure he will not ignore them. We wish him well and, if he has to negotiate in Europe on these matters, he will have our support in standing up for British interests. This is what the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor said on 18th July:
  "In considering the future of the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board my right hon. Friends and I have had to take into account not only the position in his country but also what form of organisation will best serve our fishing and fish-using industries within the enlarged European Community.
  "The Community regulations foresee the establishment of a network of producers' organisations which, if fully achieved, would
  652
  leave no separate regulatory rôle for independent national bodies like the board and the authority. On the other hand there are functions for which continuing provision may be needed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th July, 1972; Vol. 841, c. 64.]
  Therefore, there was uncertainty about the effects of our entry into Europe. It is all very well to say that some marketing structures may evolve or that producer co-operatives may come into being. The simple fact is that we have the White Fish Authority and the Board.
  The Minister also seeks to strengthen the administration through amalgamation and also through dispersal of the centre of this activity to Edinburgh. This may be necessary in bringing about a measure of devolution to satisfy a measure of Scottish nationalism, and my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) no doubt will speak on that matter when he winds up the debate. The right hon. Gentleman must realise that the Authority, which is so important to the industry, could be jeopardised by our entry into Europe, especially in the transitional period. I should like to have Governmental assurances on this matter. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, West, agrees or disagrees with that statement.
  Mr. James Johnson: We are solidly in support.
  Mr. Peart: I am glad to have my hon. Friend's agreement.
  I raised with the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor the matter of staff transferred to the White Fish Authority's headquarters in Scotland. I have received many letters from people who work in the Authority, and it is obvious that some of the older staff members are anxious about their position. It is not always easy to be faced almost overnight with a transfer from London to the North with all the major commitments relating to family and other matters. I should like to have seen that decision deferred for a period of five years, but that suggestion was not accepted. However, I asked the Ministry whether it was possible to find suitable employment for any of the Authority staff within the Ministry. I should like to ask whether there have been any new developments and whether this matter is still being considered sympathetically. The Minister wrote me a sympathetic

  653
  letter and I know that he is aware of the problem. I trust that the Government in replying to this debate will be able to give me an adequate and suitable reply.
  Let me conclude on this note. We are anxious to develop our fishing industry for we believe that the industry plays a major part in our economy. The importance of fish in our food supplies has been stressed so often in the past, and I have always stressed the importance of the industry to our defences. We tend to forget that in time of crisis our sea fish industry provides admirable personnel for the Royal Navy and the Forces which protect our shores. It is all very well to acquiesce in all that is going on and to hope that everything will be all right and that we shall never in our lifetime face another crisis. I trust that we never shall, but I believe that we must have adequate defences.
  The sea fish industry plays its full part in our society. It not only provides food for our people but provides work in the industry itself and in the associated processing industries which are situated near our fishing ports. Above all, it is an industry which is an important part of our life and it makes major contributions in many ways. We shall support this measure, and hope that it will have a speedy passage through the House.
  4.37 p.m.
  Mr. Patrick Wall: I should like to begin by welcoming my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to our fisheries debates. It is nice to see him back on the Front Bench in these debates.
  This is a short Bill, it has been well introduced by both Front Benches and there is little to say about it. It is a conservation measure which seeks to continue the support for the fishing industry for another year or more.
  I should like to put one important question to my right hon. Friend. He spoke of further legislation which, presumably, cannot be presented until we are in the Common Market and which will have to take account of the EEC regulations. Can my right hon. Friend give any idea when that legislation is likely to be presented to the House? Will it be early next year or towards the end of next year?
  654
  On the question of the EEC regulations, I think it can be said that we have had a satisfactory solution over fishing limits, but there are two regulations in the Common Market which are worrying the fishing industry to a considerable extent. The first regulations relate to grading and I understand that they came into effect on 1st February and are mandatory—which means that we shall have to accept them. However, those grading regulations are rather absurd. My inquiries have shown that there are three quality grades and five size grades, which makes a total of 15 grades. If a vessel fishes in two different grounds during its trip, it must produce another 15 grades for the second ground—in other words, fish from that trawler would have to be divided into about 30 different grades. This is an absurd situation and it will require an immense amount of skilled manpower to administer. I know that this matter is being raised with the EEC, but I hope that when the Government spokesman winds up the debate he will be able to assure us that we are making some headway. Surely these regulations are as absurd for the French and the Germans as they are for us.
  There is a further worry in relation to the regulations on withdrawal prices, which are also complicated. Those regulations are not mandatory, but we shall have to accept them if we are to have any help from EEC compensation funds.
  I understand that there are now more regional variations in withdrawal prices than there were when the EEC first propounded the doctrine, but I gather that towns far from the main centres of population, such as Aberdeen, will suffer under the EEC scheme of withdrawal prices. I hope that this point also will be dealt with in the Government reply.
  I hope that I shall be permitted to say a few words about Iceland because we are discussing a Bill which provides money for operations of the fishing industry in the coming year. Those operations will be very much affected by the solution or otherwise of the dispute with Iceland.
  There are two points I should like to make on this topic. The first relates to conservation. It is clear that we shall go as far as Iceland wants to go in terms of conservation. If genuine conservation is

  655
  to take place, then we shall accept any suggestions—provided that the conservation applies to Icelandic ships as well as to our own. However, recently the Icelandic propaganda machine has been saying that it is the view of the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission that cod stocks are in danger round the coasts of Iceland and from this they draw the conclusion that Britain is over-fishing.
  I want to make it clear to the House that the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission is a very important organisation and has expressed its views. My noble Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs said earlier this year:
  "…but noble Lords will also recall that the international organisation that is responsible for fishery conservation in the Icelandic area is the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission."
  She went on to say:
  "It was decided at the last meeting of the Commission, in May, 1971, that the condition of the Icelandic cod and haddock stocks was not such as to warrant any special conservation measures. This conclusion was reached on the basis of the latest available scientific advice, which had been agreed internationally by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 2nd March, 1972; Vol. 328, c. 1259.]
  It has been said that this year the Commission has tended to reverse its decision and that it has implied that cod stocks are in fact in danger. I have made inquiries about that and I understand that the views of the Commission this year are based not on biological conservation but on economic effort. It has said that if the industry is properly organised it could catch the present amount of fish with half the effort or half the number of vessels. It has not implied in any way that cod stocks are being over-fished off Iceland, but merely that the fishing effort could be more economically organised. The House will agree that the Icelandic fishing industry is itself responsible for the over-fishing of herrings. It has also endangered its haddock stock and I hope that the same thing will not happen to cod.
  The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) will find that the Continental Shelf Convention 1964 states clearly that the coastal State has a right to gas or oil in the ground of the Continental Shelf, but it specific-
  656
  ally excludes the sea above the Shelf and all resources in the sea, including fish.
  It is clear that the claim made by the Icelandic representative in The Times this morning, that it is now accepted that the sea goes with the Continental Shelf, is wholly incorrect as the law stands. The position may be changed at the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, but at the moment it is an illegal claim and the Icelandic Government is also acting in contravention of the decision of the International Court.
  I am sure that every hon. Member regrets the breakdown of the talks which was announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. My right hon. Friend said that we agreed to limit our catch by 25 per cent. less than the figure given by the International Court, which itself was less than our average over the last ten years. We have gone a long way in trying to reach a compromise. I hope very much that the Icelandic Government will realise that we can go no further and that we genuinely want to reach a settlement based on conservation.
  We know the difficulties faced by the Icelandic Cabinet. We know who are the hawks and who are the doves. The trouble is that the hawks control the Icelandic gunboats. It would be disastrous if the Ministry of Fisheries authorised its gunboats to continue harassing British trawlers. Only yesterday they attacked two German trawlers. If that is to continue there can be no alternative but to send in the Royal Navy. One knows what effect that would have on Iceland. We do not want it and I am sure that the Icelandic Government do not. The answer is to stop the harassment until the talks continue and to try to reach some interim agreement which will last until the Law of the Sea conference convenes at the end of next year or 1974, when I hope very much that a final solution will be reached which is satisfactory to all. This is an interim problem which may exist for up to 18 months and if the Icelandic Government believe—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not continue for too long on this topic.
  Mr. Wall: I will leave it at that. I support the Bill and the idea behind it. I hope that the basic problem which is troubling the industry at the moment, which is the Icelandic dispute, will be solved by commonsense on both sides.
  6.45 p.m.
  Mr. J. Grimond: I trust that I shall not step outside the fishing limits if I say a word or two about Iceland. It has been referred to and it is a matter of great concern to the fishing industry and, therefore, to the Bill, because the future of the industry is very much bound up with the Bill.
  I shall not conceal that I have some regard for the Icelanders' wish to protect what is one of the most important industries in a small country. Equally, I am glad to support the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) in emphasising that we have made a generous offer to them, and that it is on an interim basis.
  I raised the question of oil as a matter of equity. It is constantly put to me by Icelanders and they must get an answer. But the answer is now clear that there is a legal distinction between fishing and oil. It may be altered and perhaps it should be altered in equity. But our having made a reasonable offer to Iceland, the right policy will be for them to accept it as an interim measure, as the hon. Member for Haltemprice said, until the whole question of conservation, oil and fish can be thrashed out.
  The right hon. Member for Working-ton (Mr. Peart) is right in thinking that I very much welcome the fact that some decisions about the fishing industry are now taken in Scotland. Workington is closer to Edinburgh than London. I know that the right hon. Gentleman will not wish to be absorbed into a Scottish community. If it sets his mind at rest, I am sure that we would be happy to offer Cumberland associate status with Scotland. We will welcome him if he likes to come to Edinburgh and discuss fish. It is a great success that we have at last prized one industry out of London. I consider it very satisfactory that it has gone to Edinburgh.
  This is an enabling Bill which continues generally satisfactory legislation. No doubt people will have detailed criticisms of various parts of it, but it is
  658
  comparatively inexpensive. The fishing industry is one of the most valuable industries. Legislation has been continued by all parties for a considerable time, thereby giving stability and assurance to the industry. That is a very good thing. It is an excellent industry because not only does it give a lot of employment and good food to the country, but it has great social advantages in my constituency at least. It is an industry which retains people, which draws them back, and which offers employment to young people which they welcome. There are now 15 or more processing plants in Shetland. The Shetland fleet has been greatly improved over the last 10 years and fishing is now starting up in a big way in Orkney. It has important social aspects as well as economic ones and we are glad that we are to continue this general policy.
  As the Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office well knows, and as he agrees, the real danger about the Iceland situation is that it may divert very heavy fishing to other fishing grounds nearer home. Candidly, I take a selfish view about that. Some of the fishing grounds to which the heavy fishing will turn will be off the North of Scotland. There are already vast fleets from Eastern Europe and other places which are fishing heavily in those areas.
  I am told by some experts that there is not a serious danger of over-fishing because fishing becomes uneconomic before stocks are reduced to a level at which they will not replace themselves. But I have some considerable anxieties. There is now an enormous catch of fish in the North Sea. In addition, there is heavy industrial fishing which must affect the food stocks of the ocean. I hope that the Government will give the maximum attention to this matter and undertake research and keep the situation closely monitored to see whether there will be heavy diversion of catching from the Iceland waters into those nearer home.
  The next question is the discovery of oil. Again I am assured—and to some extent I accept the assurance—that there is not a major danger of pollution. The oil companies seem fairly certain that they can control it. But we would be unwise to think that there is no danger.

  659
  Heavy pollution in a small area could have a disastrous effect upon certain fishing communities. If there is any anxiety about pollution, it may make them hesitant about building boats and taking advantage of the various aids which are now given to fishing. The Government are accepting some responsibility. But I hoped that they would have introduced some sort of insurance fund, because I am not clear who would be liable if there was heavy pollution. In any case, I doubt whether inshore fishermen could undertake the heavy legal proceedings which might be necessary to establish liability. Therefore, I think that there should be a fund available to fishermen in the event of pollution and that the Government should again assure themselves that the maximum is being done to safeguard the coast and the inshore waters against the possibility of pollution by oil.
  Mr. Patrick Wolrige-Gordon: What kind of pollution does the right hon. Gentleman have in mind that the inshore fishermen may encounter?
  Mr. Grimond: I have several in mind. First, there is danger of rupture of pipes. Secondly, if we are to have offshore terminals, there will be considerable transfer of oil to tankers by a method which in other parts of the world has occasionally led to pollution, the extent of which may be arguable. Thirdly, there will be many secondary industries which could cause pollution. I was talking about pollution in general terms.
  There are two other aspects to the influence of the oil industry. The fishing industry, particularly the inshore section, depends a great deal on comparatively few people. It is the expert skippers who really make the industry. It is conceivable that they may be seduced by the oil industry into heavily paid employment elsewhere. I do not suggest that the Government can do anything about that, but we should keep in mind the social effects. Secondly, what happens after the oil is finished? Fishing is of immense economic and social importance to many parts of the country, and we do not want to be left after 20 or 25 years with a fishing industry disrupted and oil finished. The Government cannot look
  660
  too far ahead, but they should look to the aftermath of oil.
  I turn now to the question of the European Economic Community. We only have 10 years grave on limits. Everyone building a fishing boat is looking some years ahead, and the industry will soon want to know the next steps over limits. I hope that we shall press for the retention of the existing limits. It may well be that after the general conference on the sea the existing limits will have to be extended.
  But perhaps the more immediate matter is the question of marketing. The concentration of discussion on limits has tended to make people forget about the marketing aspect of joining the Community. I was glad to hear the Minister refer to this matter. But are the Government satisfied that there is sufficient information to begin with? If not, should they not publish a paper of some kind about the choices which will face the industry and the steps it should take?
  There is the position of producers' organisations. It has been pointed out that the main organisations are the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board. There is also the Highlands and Islands Development Board. I suppose that the latter would come into this to some extent as it is concerned with financing. There are other fishermen's organisations. The question is whether these organisations should be strengthened a great deal, and if they are they must be financed. The Minister has indicated that it is possible to provide finance under the Bill. I hope that money will be made available, therefore, for the strengthening of fishermen's organisations in accordance with what appears to be necessary in the Common Market. Apparently, any such sums would come out of the guarantee fund and there is no reason why they should not.
  It was also indicated that there were regulations about size and grade, which will be of importance to the North of Scotland. There is also the question of the withdrawal prices, even if it is at present a question whether one accepts voluntarily this system or does not. All these matters will be of immediate importance to the industry and I hope that the Government will consider publishing further information and taking steps to

  661
  back up whatever decisions the industry itself may make.
  Lastly, there is the question of fish farming and research into it. This is so far a hunting industry and will remain so for the near future. But there are signs that fish farming of various sorts may grow. There are places in Scotland, such as the lochs and voes, where it might well be carried on and this process may have great effect on the fishing industry. There is considerable lack of knowledge as to how far fish farming is practicable. If it is practicable, how far is it desirable? If it is desirable, how far is it to be financed? If fish farming is to be a major part of the fishing industry—although it will not take its place—I hope again that we shall have the support of the Government and the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board in informing fishermen about the situation.
  I welcome the Bill. I draw attention to these new factors which have arisen and to the fact that the fishing industry can help us greatly. I hope that the all-party agreement on support for the industry will continue. Broadly speaking, with some reservations, we have so far been on the right lines.
  4.55 p.m.
  Dame Irene Ward: I am glad that the Bill has been introduced. I am sure that it will be helpful and effective in giving necessary assistance to the fishing industry. I am also glad that apparently it is in order for me to refer to the White Fish Authority. It is well known to hon. Members that it is extremely difficult by Parliamentary Question to get any details about the Authority or how it makes up its mind or what it does, and when one represents a fishing port the fishermen and others connected with fishing want to know a lot about the Authority. But, as I have said, it is extremely difficult to find out about it.
  I have recently had one or two very strong conversations in the fishing port of North Shields with those interested in fishing, and this is a heaven-sent opportunity to raise what I wanted to raise. For instance, the White Fish Authority has done a very good job but, having dealt out through the taxpayer's money grants for building fishing vessels of one
  662
  kind and another—in North Shields we are extremely grateful for this—the Authority, as far as I can make out, is not interested in the least in whether the fishing fleet it has helped to create is adequately assisted by the ports from which these vessels fish.
  In my constituency is the small village of Cullercoats, which is well known in the fishing industry. It has had fishing families for centuries. For example, the Lisles and the Donkins have been very well known for generations in the fishing world. Last Saturday at my surgery, a member of the Lisle family came to see me. He told me that he had a very good grant from the White Fish Authority for building a coble. Incidentally, when I tried to include the word "coble" in a Parliamentary Question, no one seemed to have heard of it. People thought it was my peculiar writing.
  At any rate, my constituent has a very satisfactory coble, of which he is very proud and which he is putting into operation. But he complained that he has been denied by the Port of Tyne Authority a safe mooring for it. This is quite ridiculous. The taxpayers' money is involved, and I think that the Port of Tyne has the responsibility for seeing that safe moorings are available for the fishing fleet's vessels of various kinds which are supported by the taxpayers' money through the White Fish Authority. I was highly indignant to hear that this fisherman, a member of a fishing family of many years' standing, should be wondering what he ought to do, because the instructions which appeared to have been issued by the Port of Tyne Authority were quite ridiculous.
  I telephoned my right hon. Friend's Department this morning. His officials did not seem to know much about the White Fish Authority or, for that matter, about the Port of Tyne Authority. My right hon. Friend's Department, after all, is responsible for the operations of the White Fish Authority. But once it has granted public money, does the Department take any interest in ensuring that those who get the advantage of grants are properly serviced and provided for by the authorities which have these subsidised craft within their ports? I am referring specifically, of course, to the Port of Tyne Authority. I am very annoyed with it, and I hope that someone

  663
  will take the members of that authority and hit them hard on their heads. It is quite ridiculous for a fisherman to have a new coble and no safe mooring.
  My second point refers to the fact that, thanks to the Ranger firm, we have a very important trawler fleet now. That firm has had long experience and knowledge of fishing. It has done extremely well with freezer trawlers. I hear suddenly that the Port of Tyne Authority is insisting that those trawlers go higher up the river. This will take them right away from the area where they can be properly maintained. It is quite ridiculous, and I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will have a proper inquiry into the actions of the Port of Tyne Authority.
  Our Ranger trawler fleet is a growth industry. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was right when he said that thanks to our men, to our direction and to the assistance that we have had, fishing in the Port of Tyne is a growth industry. But now along comes the Port of Tyne Authority and says, "There is no place for you to moor anywhere near where you normally get your maintenance done." It is in the public interest as well as that of the taxpayer that the trawler fleet should be properly maintained. But the Port of Tyne Authority does not seem to mind. It simply says, "You must move up the river." The two big firms of fishing trawlers in the port are highly irate, and I am irate on their behalf.
  The next matter which I wish to raise relates to marketing. We intend to build a new fish quay. It is very important that it should conform to what is required by the people who will use it. I am sure that the Port of Tyne Authority has some very good directors. But they are not fishermen. They know nothing about fishing. They know nothing about what the fishing fleet wants. What is even worse, they do not seem in the least interested in what it wants.
  I gather that we have a grant. However I had a most extraordinary answer to a Parliamentary Question that I put to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Apparently the grant comes out of the funds of the Port of Tyne Authority. This
  664
  must be some new alteration to financial arrangements. Apparently the Port of Tyne is to finance the new fish quay. I believe that it bought the old one. The new quay will cost well over £2 million. We are grateful to the Ministry for increasing the grant. We are to get a 60 per cent. grant to build the new fish quay. But it is no good building it if it does not enable fish marketing to operate properly and if it does not enable the trawler fleet and the cobles to have what they want if they are to carry on an efficient industry. The Port of Tyne Authority is not providing sufficient moorings for the trawler fishing fleet. That again is quite ridiculous. I cannot understand why it cannot. I do not know who is responsible for the Port of Tyne Authority.
  The next thing that happened was that I received a letter from my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries, who seems to control our ports. I do not know whether he knows anything about fishing. I rather doubt it. But he has written to me saying that he is doing his best to help. Of course, all Ministers try to help. The question is whether they stretch their powers and have the imagination to know what goes on when two or three different departments are involved. In fact I had a Question down to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister asking whether he was satisfied that there was proper cooperation between the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the department of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries on matters relating to this very important industry. I have no idea whether my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries could crack the members of the Port of Tyne Authority on their heads, but I want their heads cracked, because the whole situation is deplorable.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries announced that the Port of Tyne Authority is extremely short of money. One reason is that trade on the Tyne has dropped. It is part of our unemployment problem on the Tyne. I do not know whether the Port of Tyne Authority is going bankrupt. No one tells me. I have to try to find out for myself, and that is very difficult. However in view of the shortage of money in the Port of Tyne Authority, my right

  665
  hon. Friend says that he hopes that the fishing industry will find the balance of the money required for the new fish quay. That is all very well. I think that the fishing fleet will be prepared to look at what it can do to help. We have the P. & O. helping us with the Ranger group. But the fishermen do not get any help from the Port of Tyne Authority. The Authority seems to think that it has no responsibility.
  I asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs about the situation. I believe in making use of every Minister. I do not care whether he has the powers. If he has not got the powers, he may as well take them. It was a heaven-sent opportunity. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is always very helpful. Perhaps he can find some money out of the Industry Act funds.
  It is no use spending 60 per cent. of £2½ million on a fish quay which will not serve the interests of the trawler fleet and provide the necessary marketing facilities. At the moment we have a very good marketing set-up. In fact it is a very good industry in North Shields. But it is no good if the new fish quay does not serve the needs of the trawler fleet.
  When these very distinguished bodies of trawler fleet owners talk to me, I think that my only contribution in this House is to stimulate Ministers to action and to say where it is needed. Certainly I think action is needed in the Port of Tyne.
  The Government have said that everything will be done to help the development areas. I believe them. However I cannot think that it is helping a development area if the Port of Tyne Authority builds a new fish quay for an industry which is subsidised very substantially by the taxpayer if the money is not available to build a proper fish quay.
  I do not know whether it is possible within the Bill, but as everybody has talked about all kinds of things, I am talking about all kinds of things.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries said that the application for the building of the new fish quay had to be in very early next year and must be completed within six months. Of all the idiotic things! Is it not known that on Tyneside one cannot just pick
  666
  up builders of fish quays and expect them to build a fish quay within six months? I have never had to make a contract with anyone for the building of a fish quay. However, I hope that the Bill—it seems to extend everything—will extend the powers of the Minister for Transport Industries so that, if builders can be found—it is difficult to find sufficient builders to carry out work covered by improvement grants—the time may be extended. It is ridiculous to say that a new fish quay can be built within six months. I do not believe that my right hon. Friend has discovered whether there are any builders available who can build fish quays. If they have other work, good luck to them, because we are short of work on the North-East coast. But what is the use of saying that the fish quay must be built within six months without knowing whether the best, most appropriate and competent of firms which carry out such work is available. I hope to goodness that the Bill, which extends to all kinds of things which are almost Greek to me, will enable the time to be extended because there is not a suitable builder of fish quays available.
  This is an absolutely marvellous occasion. I have never had such luck to find a day on which I can raise all these controversial points.
  I want to know what all the Ministers of all Departments—the Prime Minister, the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, the Minister of Transport Industries, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and so on—are going to do to support what we believe is a growth industry, provided that Iceland does not wreck all our plans. We have done jolly well with the Ranger trawlers. In some way one of our firms is mixed up with Aberdeen. I do not know how that comes about, but apparently that is the position.
  I want to know which Department is responsible for doing what is essential to support our fishing fleet, the people who work on the fish quay, the merchants who sell, and so on. I want to know to which Minister in future I should address Questions in order to get answers. Which Minister has responsibility in this matter? I am sick of rushing round from one Minister to another. I am tired of putting down Questions to Ministers who have not the slightest idea of what is

  667
  happening in other Departments. They do not seem to know about employment in my area. I know that everybody says that North Shields is a small fishing port compared with Hull and the other great ports, but it is just as important from the point of view of the people who work there and the contribution that it makes to the country's economy. We are jolly good contributors on the North-East coast. The men who served in either the Merchant Navy or the Royal Navy on minesweepers and other vessels during the war should have everything possible done for them.
  I do not know why the Port of Tyne Authority should say that it has not got the money. Somebody must find out why it has not got the money. I do not know whether it is a competently run Authority. It is not for me to say. Sometimes the Authority is very nice to me; at other times it cracks me on the head.
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has recently said that the Authority, through the White Fish Authority, I think, spent £16,000 on something. That is no good to a fishing fleet which requires a new quay. We want a great deal of help.
  I should like to know why all these Government Departments are concerned. I do not think that the Minister for Transport Industries knows anything about fishing—I do not see why he should—but the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food should know about fishing.
  I am delighted with the Bill because it has given me this opportunity to say what I think. However, if the Port of Tyne Authority cannot do its job properly because it has not got the money, I hope that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will find the money under provisions in the Industry Bill. We have spent masses of money on all kinds of things. I want to be quite sure that this important fishing industry in North Shields, which gives consistent employment in which has always been a fishing port, is properly treated.
  I am grateful to the Minister for bringing in the Bill. If its proposals are acted upon by the people who can act upon them, it will be very successful. But, for
  668
  heaven's sake, I hope someone will let me know what it is all about and whether the Port of Tyne Authority will do the job that it ought to do. Otherwise, we must have a new Port of Tyne Authority.
  5.16 p.m.
  Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: The hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) has referred to a number of matters effecting the fishing industry in her division. It occurred to me as she was speaking that only a foolhardy man would venture to trespass in her territorial waters, and I certainly do not propose to do so.
  I agreed with the Minister when, at the commencement of his speech, he said that, notwithstanding its brevity, the Bill is extremely important for the British fishing industry.
  I have a particular interest in the Bill, not only because I share the concern of all hon. Members for the anxieties of the fishermen of Britain at this time but because it continues the policies started in the Sea Fisheries Act 1969 for which I was responsible. The House will recall the report of the Fleck Committee and the Sea Fish Industry Act 1962 initiated by the then Government and which was based upon it. That Act did not work well, for reasons of which hon. Members will be aware, and as a result the industry found itself in increasing difficulty.
  We decided that the industry needed continuing support on a new basis—namely, an annual subsidy related to profitability. We also saw the subsidy as an instrument to encourage efficiency and related it to the efficiency of each individual vessel. I am glad to think that the policy has been successful and that this is recognised not only by the industry, but by the Government.
  I recall that when we debated these questions in detail in November 1968 right hon. and hon. Members opposite were very tardy in their acceptance of the new principles. The hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), whose speech today was on the whole a good contribution, called the 1969 Act
  "a stop-gap rather than a cure."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th November, 1968; Vol. 772, c. 922.]
  The Bill seems to indicate that the Government now regard it as having been

  669
  a cure rather than a stop-gap. That is certainly the view of the industry.
  At that time we were concerned with the difficulties created by imports of frozen fish fillets and we reimposed a tariff of 10 per cent. on them. Perhaps the Minister will say something about the present import position when he replies.
  What is significant is the way that the industry has taken advantage of the policy. It has created confidence, it has increased efficiency, and it has not been costly to the country.
  Section 4 of the 1969 Act, consolidated in the 1970 Act, improved the financial resources of the White Fish Authority, to which several hon. Members have referred. I should like to ask some questions about the Authority and its future.
  The then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, now Leader of the House, obscured matters in his statement on 18th July when he referred to a provisional five-year period for the White Fish Authority. He may not have intended the word "provisional" to convey the doubt that it did, but I can confirm what my right hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) said—that his statement has created uncertainty and insecurity in the minds of those employed by the White Fish Authority. The Leader of the House made a critical attack on the Authority in 1970 before he took office, and that gave his use of the word "provisional" rather darker undertones.
  My first question relates to the removal of the headquarters to Edinburgh. Will the Minister say precisely what effect this will have—this is to repeat the question put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Workington—on the staff now employed in London? I understand that the move is to be made early next year. Is there not a danger that a good deal of valuable expertise will be lost to the industry as a result of the move? I am in favour of the dispersal of Government offices, even to Scotland, but I am also concerned lest the industry in England and Wales suffers as a consequence of the move. The presence of the Product Development team at Epsom is a contribution, but it is not a sufficiently strong
  670
  guarantee, and some assurance is required from the Minister.
  We should be told more about the future rôle of the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board. I return to the words used by the Leader of the House, "a period provisionally set at 5 years". What is to be the rôle of the Authority and the Board in the EEC? Other countries, for example Ireland and Holland, have decided that their statutory boards have a clear rôle in the EEC. What about the Agriculture Intervention Board under the Chairmanship of Sir Con O'Neill? Will it have any responsibility for fish?
  We are also concerned to know who is to form and administer producer organisations responsible under EEC regulations for important activities such as determining the levels of withdrawal prices, which have been referred to, and claiming financial support for unsold fish from Community funds. The Minister referred to this very sketchily. I can imagine what he would have said if my right hon. Friend the Member for Workington or I had made that kind of skimpy statement from that Dispatch Box. The right hon. Gentleman has been less than candid with the House on this important matter, and we need to know more about it.
  Another vital question is whether the present grant and loan scheme for building new vessels and for improvements will continue within the Community? Who is to be responsible for administering all EEC regulations? Is it to be the Ministry, or will the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board have a part to play in relation to the regulations in the EEC? Otherwise, what functions will there be left for them to perform? The Minister must apply his mind to that issue and give us some fuller explanations today.
  The Minister should say whether or not there is a rôle for the statutory boards, as otherwise the agony and uncertainty which they have suffered since June 1970 will continue for another four or five years. Make no mistake about it. The White Fish Authority has not been a happy authority since the Government came to power. It is the Minister's duty to set at rest the minds of those who work conscientiously on the staff of the

  671
  Authority today. It would be better if today the Minister were to say clearly to them that their term of life is four or five years, instead of leading them up the garden path as his predecessor has done for the last two years. I have said enough to show that the position is highly unsatisfactory and that some clarification is urgently needed.
  In the final analysis the Bill and the previous legislation make sense only if the industry is given fair treatment in the broader international context. There are two critical developments which loom large over our debate, and right hon. and hon. Members have referred to them. The first is the unilateral action of the Government of Iceland, and the other is our imminent entry into the EEC.
  On the first, I am sorry that the talks with the Iceland Government broke down. As the Foreign Secretary said this afternoon, one significant point in the context of the Bill is that the compromise proposal made by this Government to the Icelanders envisaged a drop of 25 per cent. in our deep-sea catch. That is a substantial concession, and if it had been accepted by the Icelandic Government it would have been necessary for us to have been told more today about its effect on the industry and what additional measures the Government had in mind to help the industry to meet a new and grave situation.
  Mr. W. H. K. Baker: I do not wish to put words into the mouth of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, but I think he said that the offer was a 25 per cent. reduction on the 1971 catch.
  Mr. Hughes: That is correct. I accept the qualification.
  I understand that the British Trawlers' Federation and the Transport and General Workers' Union were represented in Iceland and that they subscribed to those terms in an effort to secure a settlement with a country which is a friend and ally of many years' standing. It seems to me that to reject the kind of proposal that was made by Her Majesty's Government over the weekend is to strain that friendship. It is distasteful to the British people to see British trawlers harassed on the high seas in what has been their traditional fishing ground, especially after
  672
  the British Government have conceded the possibility of a substantial fall in our deep-sea catch.
  I hope that there will be searching second thoughts in Iceland, as no one here wishes to see a deterioration of the excellent relations that we have enjoyed with that country. No country has been more anxious than Britain to effect good international rules governing fishing operations, both as to conservation and as to conduct on fishing grounds. We played a leading part in bringing the Convention on the Conduct of Fishing Operations in the North Atlantic into being, and this was signed by us and by 17 other countries which fish the whole of the North Atlantic. I hope, therefore, that Iceland will reconsider the proposals put forward by the Government, and will do that very soon, so that there can be a resumption of the talks on the reasonable basis which the Government have offered.
  The general position of our fishing industry in the EEC is the other critical factor. The Governments of the Six help their fishermen in various ways—perhaps not in precisely the same way as we do, but in ways which are at least as effective in money terms. I hope that our fisheries policy within the EEC will not be less effective. Given parity of treatment the British fishing industry can compete with any comparable industry anywhere in the world, and I hope that the expertise which the White Fish Authority has built up will be used by the Government when we are in the EEC. This is what creates anxiety. Will our policy be as good, as effective and as constructive when we are in the EEC as it is under the Bill? I hope that we shall get a positive answer from the Minister.
  Our fishing industry makes a most important contribution in terms of providing food, of saving imports and, not least, of providing employment for some of the most stalwart members of our community, and for those reasons I have great pleasure in supporting the Bill.
  5.29 p.m.
  Mr. W. H. K. Baker: I would not wish to follow the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes) in any great detail, but he talked about withdrawal prices and the price paid for unsold fish. As I understand it—perhaps my hon. Friend will be able to confirm

  673
  this—FEOGA will be responsible for 75 per cent. of whatever price is paid, and the producers' organisations will be responsible for fixing the actual price paid for unsold fish. In the final analysis, the producers' organisations might have to find no money at all, and the whole of the amount paid might come from FEOGA.
  I certainly join other right hon. and hon. Members in welcoming the Bill. As has already been said, it is a continuation. Possibly its most important provision is the facility for the operating subsidies to continue to be paid for the foreseeable future. That future includes our entry of the Common Market, and to that extent it is almost open-ended. When my hon. Friend replies to the debate, I hope that he will be able to give us some indication of how he sees negotiations proceeding for the continuation of the payment of these operating subsidies when we are a fully integrated member of the Common Market. At the moment, the inshore fleet particularly is doing very well. We can all welcome that, but these operating subsidies are an integral part of the individual boat's economy and they cannot do without them.
  The Minister mentioned research and development, which is of course administered by the White Fish Authority. When the various producers' organisations have been set up—for the inshore fleet, the middlewater fleet and the distant-water fleet, or whatever the interests in the industry finally decide on—most of the operating subsidies, if not all, will be administered by the producers' organisations themselves. I understand that they will also administer the grant and loan system.
  In other words, immediately these organisations are set up, there will be a large erosion of the sphere of activity of the White Fish Authority and indeed of the Herring Industry Board. We must ask the Government to give us—today if possible, but if not in the near future—some indication of how they see the White Fish Authority developing or continuing.
  It is all very well to say that producers' organisations can administer the matters that I have mentioned, but they obviously
  674
  cannot deal with such things as research and development. Things move very fast these days. That is a truism, but they move particularly fast in the realms of technology. Television cameras now go down in the cod end of the net to watch the behaviour of fish.
  No one can expect producers' organisations to carry on where the television camera left off, as it were. A good deal of research has to go on into what is actually happening, so there must be a continuing rôle in research and development for the White Fish Authority. I should be grateful to know how my hon. Friend and the Government see this developing.
  The mechanism for paying these operating subsidies will be the producers' organisations. When do the Government envisage the takeover, as it were, the change of function between the Authority and the organisations? The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) asked about the setting up of these organisations and the grants available. Again, as I understand it, FEOGA will be responsible for 60 per cent. of the running costs in the first year, 40 per cent. in the second, 30 per cent. in the third and 20 per cent. in the final year. That is the four-year subvention to running costs.
  That again is all very well. Provided that the thing is working efficiently, undoubtedly, after four years, they will be self-supporting, but that does not take into account the very important questions of research and development. At the moment, Her Majesty's Government pay a grant of £ for £ with the White Fish Authority for its research and development programme, with an annual limit of £300,000. Is it envisaged that this process should go on? It is not covered in any detail in the Bill, although grants generally to the Authority are covered. The Herring Industry Board at present gets a 50 per cent. grant for the same purpose.
  If the producers' organisations take over the administration of various schemes for the herring industry, presumably the scope of activity of the Board will be reduced, like that of the White Fish Authority. Again, the Government must give us a clear indication of their thinking on developments here.

  675
  Obviously, the producers' organisations and the White Fish Authority—or something to take its place—and indeed the Herring Industry Board, must go hand in hand and must be developed in tandem otherwise we shall be in vacuo—if one can be in vacuo at sea—for a long time. That cannot be good for the fishing industry.
  I very much hope that the House will give this excellent Bill a Second Reading and that it will continue to do the work for which it is proposed—continuing a viable fishing industry in the United Kingdom.
  5.38 p.m.
  Mr. James Johnson: I doubt whether any industry in this land has so much good will as fishing, because of our insular position, our past history and many other factors. I am sure that the Minister knows that whatever is said on the Opposition benches is not vindictive. There is no animus towards the Government as a Government. Whatever we say is directed towards the future welfare of the deep sea or inshore fishing industry. He will accept today that all exchanges upon Iceland are absolutely at one. It is a bipartisan team here in the sense of looking after our own people who are our constituents: we know them from meeting them in the fish docks.
  Deep-sea fishing is an important industry. Fish is a protein source. The Minister of Agriculture, who is a Lincoln man, knows that if fat Belgian farmers, our future partners in the Common Market, come to a Lincolnshire market and buy large amounts of beef, that has a corresponding effect on the auctions and markets for fish on the Humber. So there is an intimate connection. In the post-war situation, this industry has been an invaluable saver of exports.
  The dangers of deep-sea fishing weed out the slackers. At this stage in our history and our overseas relations, it is important to have men of guts, particularly in the coming winter in Icelandic waters. December comes in this week; we shall have 24 hours of darkness and 40 degrees of frost, and men out of Hull and Fleetwood will be fishing in conditions like that. If they are harassed by people who in the past have been our
  676
  colleagues in international fishing, as the Icelanders have been, we expect our people to be looked after.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes) is a man of many parts. Today he is a Daniel come to judgment. He was the architect of this measure. Leaders of the industry have nothing but praise for the measures he introduced, for the welfare of the industry is based upon what the Labour Government did in 1968. Let us not forget my right hon. Friend's faithful lieutenant, the former hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith, now Lord Hoy and in another place. No one has done more than the former hon. Member for Leith as a Labour watchdog in the past.
  This is an enabling Bill and it continues the course of events. In 1962 we were in difficulties, so the Government of that day, now the present Government, listened to a man called Fleck. In 1968 we thought Fleck not so good; hence we introduced a Bill. I remember the debate vividly. My right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey talked about a subsidy geared to efficiency—which is the basis of the present measure. A fellow Welshman had another saying which I couple with that. Morgan Philips talked in Copenhagen of "Methodism before Marxism".
  Today we extend these measures until 1973. They have been an absolute tonic and have been welcomed not only by us but by the unions, too, because if the owners are doing well, so are the men on the deck who catch the fish. The measures have stood the test of time. It would be utter folly to discard anything like this now, especially when we are entering the EEC and in the light of our difficulties in Icelandic waters.
  We are building up a modern and efficient fleet on this financial basis. For the Minister's benefit, I give a short quotation from Fishing News International about a famous family firm in Hull, just to show how this measure has benefited our men in Hull and many other places.
  "The whole fish freezer stern trawler St. Benedict was launched in August from the yard of Ferguson Brothers (Port Glasgow) Ltd. The 245 ft. long vessel is the sixth trawler to be built by the yard for the Hull firm, Thomas Hamling and Co. Ltd."

  677
  These are Class J vessels, and we have had four built over the last four years. That is an indication of the health of the industry, and it has been based upon a measure of this nature.
  In the light of what I have to say later, I mention that another famous firm in Hull, Tom Boyd, had a boat called the "Boston Lincoln" which, since last September, has been off Patagonia fishing for hake. I shall ask a question later about the Government's activities and what they are doing in the light of giving finance of this nature to build vessels and enable them to function efficiently against other fleets such as those of the Soviet Union and Japan. What is the Government's policy, if they have one, for the next 10 or 20 years for the deep-sea fishing fleet?
  It is important that we still have these family firms. I see in the industry not only a beginning but a well-developed tendency towards monopoly, towards larger fleets owned by public companies. I have advocated nationalisation for a section of our deep-sea fleet, but that has not met with my party's approval—at least, it is not in our manifesto.
  In the light of the history since we passed the previous Bill and of the success of these financial measures, it is in no vindictive spirit that I say that on winding up our debate in 1968 the present Minister of State for Agriculture said that he had misgivings about our measures. This induced a waspish comment from my right hon. Friend that this was a qualified welcome in sour tones. Perhaps my right hon. Friend has forgotten saying that. He was correct to say it at that time.
  The logic of all this is that we hold on to and increase all these measures, especially when entering the EEC. They have given stability to our workforce. I say that because the Minister talked earlier about international factors. The EEC is one such factor. We shall be coming into what is termed a common fisheries policy, a CFP. It would be out of order to go into detail about that, but in view of what has been said about the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board, and other bodies, I should like to know what will happen to them. We should hang on to the instruments we have because next year
  678
  we shall have a tough period of bargaining about them and about the changes inside the Common Market.
  We had an example on this last night in the bipartisan debate in which both sides of the House were united on the matter of the weight of lorries, 10 ton axles and goodness knows what else. In our fishing industry I want to see an equally bipartisan, united fight inside the EEC on the whole matter of defending it and giving succour to it. Last night's debate was a foretaste of what is to come. We shall need all the weapons in our armoury when we are debating these matters inside the EEC. If we have to make concessions, will the Minister say what they are likely to be? The more I listen to Ministers, the more I think of the famous sledge in the snow and the wolves which were pursuing it. Occasionally a body left the back of the sledge. That was a sort of hurling off of hostages. We shall hurl off our hostages when we begin discussing within the EEC a number of institutions which have previously served us so well. Obviously, some concessions will have to be made.
  Without asking the Minister to be a fortune-teller, I should like him to say what our difficulties will be and what concessions we are likely to make next year when we are bargaining in the EEC about the common fisheries policy.
  I turn briefly to Iceland. Whatever our views about over-fishing in the northeast Atlantic, conservation measures and the dubiety of Iceland's case, I remember the Icelanders telling me, last September when I was in Iceland, that of their total exports 92 per cent. was fish. I do not accept that for a moment. I should have thought that it was well under 50 per cent., because the Icelanders forgot in their estimate to put in tourism and exports of aluminium, which come here, and other items which could be legitimately within that total.
  The fleets of all nations are steadily fishing out the Barents Sea, Bear Island, the Faroes and elsewhere. Sooner or later in New York the conference on the law of the sea will take place. It will begin next year, and may take two or three years to finish. New limits will then receive an international imprimatur, and we must accept that in two, three or four years' time the developing nations, perhaps, will say that they want 25-miles

  679
  or 50-mile limits. We must be honest and not say that we shall fight with gunboats continually to safeguard limits if the International Court in future decides on deeper and wider limits. For example, the Polish mackerel fleet has for many years fished off Senegal. Senegal has now imposed a limit of 200 miles, so the Polish deep sea fleet is in enormous difficulties off Cape Verde and Senegal.
  All this means for the deep-sea fleet diminished catches, longer voyages, increased overheads in wages and fuel and, at the end of the day, the "added value" factor will diminish for the fleet in Hull. Hence, the Bill is vital to ports like my own.
  I have talked about the weather that is coming next month in Iceland and the need for the Minister to think about this. If the Icelanders behave as some fear they will—I hope they will not—and if they take the law into their own hands, we must safeguard our own people. It is imperative that we protect the lives and limbs of our constituents.
  Is the door closed completely with Iceland, or is there a possibility of talks being held later in London? I have heard a whisper that this is not impossible. I hope that the Minister will be able to say something about this. As I said earlier, naval action between 12 and 50 miles would aggravate the situation, but we must wait and see what happens.
  What is Government policy for our deep-sea fishing fleet over the next 10 to 20 years? Are the Government thinking about this. Is the Bill just a stopgap to carry us over 1973 and possibly 1974? It is important for those of us who represent fishing ports to know this.
  I said earlier that the Tom Boyd line is conducting a successful fishing experiment off Patagonia in conjunction with Argentina. I know that this is probably a Foreign Office matter, but in the matter of fishing limits it is important for the next several years that we maintain our claim, if it is a claim—our possession, so to speak—to the Falkland Islands and South Georgia. If we are to see over-fishing in the North-East Atlantic, with fishing limits going against us, and the North Sea becoming an EEC lake, we must think in terms of going to the South Atlantic. Over a six-months voyage the
  680
  Soviets caught 240,000 tons of South Atlantic cod. The Russians are fishing in the South Indian coast off Kerguelen There is plenty of fish in those waters.
  We must think in global terms if in Hull, Fleetwood, Leith, Aberdeen and Grimsby we are to maintain work for the men who work on these vessels. I believe that our men of Fleetwood and of Hull are as good as any fishermen from Murmansk. If the Russians can catch 240,000 tons we can catch more. Our fishermen are as good as any.
  I give the Bill my full blessing and express the hope that the Government will attempt to work out in the near future a positive, clear and definite policy for our deep sea fishing fleet.
  5.54 p.m.
  Sir John Gilmour: I believe that all hon. Members will agree with what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) said about a bipartisan approach to the Common Market fisheries problems, in the same way as we achieved a bipartisan approach to the question of lorry axle weights yesterday. Fisheries was one question which united people of all parties in the Common Market negotiations to seek to achieve one end. I hope that this approach continues.
  I have been in touch with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office about one or two anomalies which have operated against a special class of vessels—the line fishing vessels—in my part of the world. I hope that this opportunity of an extension of the financial arrangements will be taken to consider if there are any anomalies and, if there are, to iron them out.
  One of the most important aspects of the extension of this legislation is research and development, because of the approaching Conference on the Law of the Sea. A real problem is developing arising from the high and increasing cost of protein, which is encouraging everyone to go in for industrial fishing. We must get the right balance between industrial fishing and fishing in our own waters for human consumption.
  I hope that we can ensure that the money for research and development is

  681
  spread evenly between all sections of the fishing community.
  As Norway has not acceded to the Common Market, it is likely that her pressures will be to extend her fishery limits. If at the same time we have pressures from Iceland and other countries, we are in for a very difficult time. This may strengthen our hands in our negotiations in regard to adapting the present Common Market fisheries policy.
  The importance of the Conference on the Law of the Sea cannot be over-stressed, and I greatly hope that all the necessary preparatory work will be done and all the finance will be made available to ensure that we are able to take the best advantage of it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) mentioned difficulties being experienced in her constituency. In Aberdeen considerable difficulties are arising from the landing of inshore fish. I hope that something can be done to resolve the difficulties.
  I warmly support the Bill.
  5.57 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: The hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes) have expressed the disappointment which is felt throughout the House at the breakdown of the negotiations with Iceland. Our primary concern at this stage is for the safety of the crews and of the vessels fishing in that area.
  We must ensure that there is a close and continuing discussion with the trawler owners so that they maintain constant radio communication. At this time of year it is essential that this be maintained. While there is a possibility of harassment, it must always be a temptation for a skipper to go off the air to keep his position quiet so that he can fish in comparative comfort at this time of year. I hope that the importance of constant radio communication being maintained will be drawn forcibly to the attention of all skippers fishing in Icelandic waters.
  The hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) said that the question of extending limits is not confined to Iceland and that there are already possibilities of Norway extending her limits,
  682
  primarily because of her decision not to join the EEC, although I believe that she would have wanted to do so, anyway.
  I have been in touch with the Norwegian Ambassador. He gives me the categoric assurance that what the Norwegians are thinking of is a positive development for the Conference on the Law of the Sea. The Norwegians are indicating their views publicly, but we are not to be faced with what we have been faced off Iceland, namely, a unilateral declaration of an extension of fishing limits.
  Almost every hon. and right hon. Member who has spoken so far has given a totally unqualified welcome to the Bill. They have all said what a marvellous Bill it is and how well the system is working. I find myself, perhaps not unsually, not agreeing completely with some of their sentiments. I give the Bill a qualified welcome because there is a lot to be said and a lot to be discussed about the future of the fishing industry. I was disappointed with the Minister that he did not take the opportunity of giving a wider view of the state of the industry, how it is developing and how he sees it developing. The Bill merely extends existing legislation and in one way or another goes back over 10 years. But after 10 years one would have thought that (here would have been a close examination of the industry's development and of the kind of direction it should develop in during the coming 10 years.
  No one doubts that one of the main intentions in the original Act of achieving an efficient fishing industry has been achieved. One has only to look at the fishing ports to see what has happened. In Aberdeen over the past 10 years, the number of fishing vessels has dropped dramatically. It is fair to say that the fleet has been almost decimated and yet more fish are being caught. That is a measure of efficiency and we welcome it. It means that the vessels which are sailing out into these wild waters are bigger and safer with more crew comforts. As the total amount of money paid for the catch has increased so the earnings of the fishermen have increased correspondingly. Again, that is something we welcome.
  There is one vital element in this series of policy discussions which has never been

  683
  mentioned and that is the effect upon the consumer. Where does the consumer enter into this? How far is an efficient industry based on the gross of the catch not in terms of the value but in terms of the volume? It is possible, and it has happened, for the annual catch to decrease but, because of scarcity value and other factors, for the total value of the catch to increase. The volume could go down yet under the previous legislation the greater the value of the catch the lower the subsidy.
  The lower the subsidy the more the Government are pleased, because this has proved to be a very economic scheme to the taxpayer. But it is only economic to the taxpayer at the expense of the consumer who is having to pay more in the shops. There is evidence in figures, for which I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan), that the price of fish in the shops is increasing rapidly. We do not know what is to happen over the next few months when we shall be faced with an inevitably smaller proportion of the catch coming from Iceland.
  It is interesting that the hon. Member for Fife, East had a reply to a Question by the Secretary of State for Scotland about the volume of fish landed in Scottish ports. The figures show that in 1972, compared with the corresponding period in 1971, there was an increase of less than 1 per cent. in the amount of fish landed. With the exception of February when there appeared to have been a dramatic rise of 145,000 cwt. in one month over the same month in the previous year, there was a general decline in the catch landed in Scotland.
  I do not wish to quote too many figures as the House has a great deal of business before it tonight, but in the debate on 1st August on the inshore fisheries orders we were told that earnings were up by 30 per cent. Those earnings were made on a smaller volume of catch and therefore I would have thought that the Minister should examine what is happening. Is the trend since 1969 towards a very big increase in the value of the catch and an increase in the profitability expected to continue? The Minister told us in August that gross profits had doubled in the last 10 years. This rise was after deduction of operating cost including men's wages,
  684
  so there is a great increase in the profitability of the industry.
  It may be that profitability is linked with stability and that as long as the fishermen are able to get increased profits they will be happy. As long as they get increased profits the Government are happy because that reduces the amount of subsidy to be paid by the Treasury. I am not sure, however, that the consumer will be happy. The figures for the last two years—and I quote those two years simply for a convenient period—show that between August 1970 and August 1972 the price of cod fillets rose by 50·7 per cent. In August they were fetching 31·8p a lb. There was an increase in the price of haddock fillets of 36·4 per cent. and the price was 34·5p a lb. Smoked haddock went up by 36·1 per cent., plaice fillets by 27·5 per cent., halibut by 32·9 per cent.—which meant that it was fetching 60·6p a lb—herrings by 46·4 per cent., and kippers by 38·1 per cent. In view of that, the Minister should tell us how he intends to stop that trend because it is clear that there is nothing in the legislation on subsidies—operating subsidies, building subsidies or call them what we will—that will protect the consumer against price rises.
  The figures are, of course, average figures throughout the whole of the country. My friends in the fishing industry in Aberdeen and further north tell me that the price of fish has never been so high and that they are facing great difficulties in buying fish on the quayside because of the cost. It would be ironic when the price of meat is rocketing—I was told last week that in Aberdeen the price of some cuts of meat were up as much as 10p a lb—if in the north-east of Scotland, home of the finest beef cattle in the world, people were unable to eat meat. If the situation continues the people in the north-east of Scotland, where the freshest and finest fish in the country is landed, will be unable to eat fish, and that would be a fitting epitaph for the Government.
  6.8 p.m.
  Mr. Norman Buchan: I hope to be brief as other hon. Members have been brief, and I do not want to cover the whole subject as we did on the last discussion on fisheries. In any case, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes)

  685
  has already used the figures which I intended to argue about today. He rightly raised the point that we should sometimes stop and look at what is the function of the industry. It is not good enough to be told, as we were told by the Minister in August on the last occasion we discussed the subject, that it is a sufficient for the industry to be profitable. Of course we want the industry to be profitable and we want our fishermen to earn the maximum possible, but the fishermen would be the first to say that it is the people for whom they catch the fish that also matter. Therefore, my hon. Friend is right to say that in looking at the extension of the Act we have to relate it to the purpose and function of the industry, which is to provide our people with protein, with good food.
  Therefore, it is unsatisfactory to get the kind of answer we received on the last occasion. I interrupted the Minister in the hope that I would get at least part of a statistical outline on which we could correlate these matters. I had to do a little correlation myself instead. With the mass of statistics, particularly the monthly statistics, we always wonder whether we understand the position correctly.
  In replying to a similar point in our last debate, the Under-Secretary said of my speech:
  "His figures of consumption were of doubtful origin and not based on fact, he mixed up questions concerning the European Economic Community and he did not really understand the industry."
  The hon. Gentleman was careful not to say how my figures were wrong. The only concrete example he gave was when he said:
  "One must be very careful not to confuse figures of earnings and figures of profit, to which my right hon. Friend rightly referred."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st August, 1972; Vol. 842, c. 517.]
  Therefore, when we examine the hon. Gentleman's speech in the cold light of HANSARD, we find that his real anxiety was about his right hon. Friend's figures. Mine came from various Government publications, including the Department of Employment statistics and the family income and expenditure surveys.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: During my speech I said that the profitability of the fleet
  686
  doubled in 10 years. In fact, the Minister's figures show that it doubled in three years.
  Mr. Buchan: Which figures does my hon. Friend think to be correct—his own or the Minister's?
  Mr. Hughes: The Minister's.
  Mr. Buchan: The function of the industry is the first thing we must establish. That is why I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising the point so sharply. I shall deal with more figures later.
  Of course, we welcome the Bill. We are always pleased to acknowledge it when the present Government recognise that we have done something good and want to continue it. At least they have done something useful in continuing some good legislation.
  I was pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) paid tribute to Lord Hoy. My hon. Friend was very coy in referring to him as the previous Member for Edinburgh, Leith. My right hon. Friends the Members for Anglesey (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes) and Workington (Mr. Peart) also worked when in office to bring about this form of support for the industry.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North was right to say that because of other changes in the Government's attitudes to food an undue proportion of costs is falling directly on the consumer rather than the taxpayer, because of the linking of the deep-water and middle-water subsidies with the economic formula. That can mean only, in line with the present Government's general policy, that the poor pay more. That is the real significance of the Government's agricultural policy and their general attitudes towards subsidies. They always force the poor to pay more, by shifting the burden on to the consumer. This can be spelled out in great detail. It is not just an abstract point but something very important that we must consider.
  The industry increased its return in 1971. There was an expenditure of £243 million by customers in this country compared with £213 million in 1970. But despite that £30 million increase in expenditure the landings on which it was based

  687
  were down. There was a decrease in landings and consumption, but the cost went up, and as always in such a situation the poor suffered.
  Between 1970 and 1972 there was a 19 per cent. increase in expenditure on fish compared with a drop of 4·4 per cent. in consumption. The poorer section of the community, those low wage earners with incomes of less than £17 a week, suffered a 14 per cent. drop in consumption in the second quarter of 1972 compared with the second quarter of 1970. The consumption of fish by pensioners dropped by 10 per cent. in the same period. Yet fish has always been regarded as one of the sources of a cheaper form of protein in place of beef. When the Government have forced beef prices through the ceiling, we find that pensioners and low wage earners are also cutting back on their fish consumption, a serious situation.
  It makes us want to look again at the formula used. We must see whether it can be changed in a way that looks rather more towards Exchequer support and less to the consumer, because the present system means that the poor pay more, I had hoped that some of the facts might be brought out by the Minister. I hope that the Under-Secretary will not say in reply, as he did last time, that my figures are inaccurate If he does, I hope that he will show me how I have gone wrong.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North gave specific figures, including the striking example of a 507 per cent. increase in the price of cod fillets between August 1970 and August 1972. We are haddock eaters in Scotland, and the people in England and Wales tend to be cod eaters. That means that in England and Wales particularly the cost of the basic fish consumed has doubled in two years. That fact must be considered along with what the Government are doing to beef prices. I shall not repeat the other figures that my hon. Friend gave.
  General anxiety was expressed on both sides of the House about the continuation of the kind of assistance for which the Bill provides. It was expressed not only by those of us who might be seen as traditional anti-Marketeers but those of us who have been seen traditionally as pro-Marketeers. I am reminded of Dr.
  688
  Johnson's saying that the prospect of execution concentrates a man's mind wonderfully. I am interested in seeing just how many anxieties are developing about the Common Market as we come closer and closer to reality.
  The Ministry's Press notice about the Bill says:
  "This extension of the enabling powers leaves open the question of their use after entry to the European Economic Community. This will depend upon the need to promote continued stability and prosperity in the industry, and the developing structural and marketing provisions of Community policy."
  The Government are saying that they do not know what the future of the fishing industry, its various grants and supports, its structure, will be in the Common Market. We have bought a pig in a poke, and not only in regard to the general financing and structure. There are the marketing problems—
  Mr. James Johnson: It is a fish in a poke.
  Mr. Buchan: Along with chips, that is a very good place to be.
  My own anxieties about the Common Market's policy of open access were expressed almost exactly a year ago. We have had no satisfaction on them yet. The Government did their best to sell Norway down the river. We were already putting pressure on the Norwegians to come to an agreement, but they—all honour to them—stuck out more doggedly than we did for the protection of their shores, in spite of the unfair pressure the Government put upon them. At the end of the day, the Norwegians decided that they did not want to join anyway.
  We were told that one of the arguments for accepting the derogation until 1982 was that we should have the right to veto developments of Common Market policy. We exposed that, despite the assurances given by Ministers. All we can do if we attempt to use the veto is to allow the position to revert to what it is under the basic Common Market regulations.
  We have no possibility of achieving anything if the other countries say "No". We were told that it would be not the Six but an extended Ten. Yet the biggest fishing country which would have been in support of this, Norway, will no longer

  689
  be there. Our arguments have been weakened and nothing has been protected. The Government's argument rested on the fact that, once inside the Community, we would be able to advance our own case. Our major ally—no doubt the Danes will be on our side—will no longer be there, following the Norwegian decision. So the guarantees and goodness knows what other vague declarations that we have had are no longer enough. We have less than two months before we enter the Community and clearly everyone wants a guarantee satisfaction.
  We are also concerned about the future of the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board. I am glad that the authority is also to come to Edinburgh. It is a beautiful city. We might not be able to beat the All Blacks as they did in Workington but we welcome the dispersal of civil servants to Scotland or to any other development area as a matter of general policy.
  The important question is: what is the continuing future of these bodies? Have the Government considered their rôles once so many of their functions are taken over by producer organisations? We have had little guarantee on this and it must be as worrying to the staffs as any move.
  The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) correctly argued the case for more information to be provided to fishermen. The Government ought to spell out more clearly the prospects and what they are doing to improve the guarantee of security.
  The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the grants and loans for fishing vessels. The ten years of the derogation is a short period when considering the guarantees for the scheme.
  Almost every speaker has mentioned the Iceland situation. I am slightly disturbed when I hear the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) referring to the use of the Royal Navy. I hope it is clear when such a comment is made that from this side of the House we are 'talking in terms of the protective rôle of the Navy. A good deal of understanding has been shown by all sides about the Icelandic problem. We understand the difficulties and agree with the Government Front Bench that the final sug-
  690
  gestions made by the Icelandic Government are not good enough.
  This kind of cut in our potential catch cannot be accepted. Our aim should be to get the right kind of total catch arrangements that would square with the conservation objectives of the Icelandic people. This is their main concern and it must be ours. I hope that we shall be more than ready to continue negotiations after having had today the opportunity to express our views on both sides of the House.
  6.25 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): We have had a useful and wide-ranging debate. It is always a great pleasure for me on these occasions to wind up the debate because this is a subject on which, although there may be differences on certain points such as fish prices, it is clear that everyone has the interests of the industry at heart. Party lines are cut across in these debates.
  It will be helpful for those who have to take part in international negotiations on such matters to have behind them the united view of this House as well as the united views of the industry. On the external matters which may affect the future prosperity of the industry it is true to say that we are all united over the action which should be taken by the Government.
  The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes) and the hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) raised a number of points about the price of fish and the effect on consumers. They were right to do so because any productive industry has two sides. We must consider those who buy the product as well as those who profit from their occupation in the industry. I will not go into the figures produced by the hon. Member for Renfrew, West although I must take exception to some of them. He referred to a doubling of the price because costs had gone up by 50 per cent. It is slightly slipshod phrases like that which mislead people. When the cost of fish goes up 50 per cent. it does not mean a doubling of prices. I am sure that it was a slip, but we are dealing with an emotive subject and I hope that we can deal with it responsibly.
  Mr. Buchan: I am glad that after four months the hon. Gentleman has managed to find one flaw in my statistics. I should not have said that it was a doubling of the price; it is up by 50 per cent.
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Such flaws are not difficult to find.
  Hon. Gentlemen must remember that fish prices started from a relatively low level. They were particularly low in the period 1967–70. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North should bear in mind when making his comparisons that when doing so he is using a very low price period. My contacts in the industry felt that the kind of prices they were getting then did not reflect the effort they were putting into what is a dangerous occupation.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: I hope the hon. Gentleman is not saying that I am suggesting that the amount of money going to producers should be cut. That is not my argument. My argument is that while this goes on the consumer should be protected.
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I accept that. I was trying to put it into perspective so that there should be no mistake. Hon. Gentlemen must also remember that there is this built-in enabling factor. When prosperity increases in the deep-sea industry the Treasury commitment is affected. The hon. Member for Renfrew, West is honest about this. He said that in such circumstances he might have thought again about looking at the mechanics of the scheme, and that is a fair point.
  The Government are conscious that the less-well-off have to bear higher costs. That is why we increased pensions and why today, in terms of buying power, pensions are higher than ever before. Hon. Gentlemen must pay attention to what the Government are doing to help those sections of the community about whom we spoke. We have gone out of our way through direct Government action to help those who may be affected by higher prices.
  The hon. Gentleman was wrong when he said that the Government put beef prices through the ceiling. It was not the present Government. If it was anything it was the failure of the agricultural policies pursued by the hon. Gentleman's Government. The Labour Government
  692
  failed to give the beef industry the financial support it needed, so that in a period of world shortage there was insufficient home production to meet demand; that was of course related to the world situation.
  Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: May I correct the hon. Gentleman? It is true that many aspects of the Price Reviews introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) and myself between 1964 and 1970 were criticised by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, but what was never criticised and was accepted as a favourable part of our reviews was the increased guarantees for beef.
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I accept that the right hon. Gentleman increased the guarantees on beef, but through many of their other policies the Labour Government failed to get the confidence of the industry; it is not just a question of prices.
  To return to fish, the debate has been marked by its international context. I will deal in more detail later with the EEC, but in passing I will mention Iceland. There is not much I can add to what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. I emphasise one point which should be helpful to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson). The Government have full support in what they are doing from the fishing industry, particularly at Humber-side. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and my noble Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs consulted the Joint Action Committee of the fishing industry on 24th November, before going to Iceland. Two members of the industry, Mr. Charles Hudson, President of the BTF and Mr. Dave Shenton, Regional Secretary of the Transport and General Workers' Union, accompanied the delegation to Iceland. I put on record our gratitude to those representatives for the help and support they have given throughout the negotiations.
  I cannot emphasise too much that the' door is still open. The British Government have not withdrawn from the negotiations. The door is open for the Icelandic Government to come back, and they know where we stand.
  Mr. James Johnson: The Icelandic Government have not withdrawn. They say that they have asked to study our proposals. Is not that so?
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: That is correct. There has been a suspension of the negotiations rather than withdrawal. I repeat, the door is open for them to come back.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) raised the question of the Law of the Sea, and I agree with what he said. It is the Government's wish that every fishing nation shall take part in the conference that is being arranged under United Nations auspices. I hope that all countries will co-operate in reaching agreement. We shall be playing a full part in that conference, which is of far-reaching importance to the fishing industry throughout the world.
  The right hon. Member for Working-ton (Mr. Peart) mentioned Northern Ireland. I confirm that there are separate loan arrangements in Northern Ireland, but the subsidy is the same as it is for the remainder of the United Kingdom.
  The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) raised the general question of industrial fishing and conservation. I have had correspondence and, in the last few days, discussions on this question. The right hon. Gentleman is right. We must at all times be mindful of conservation. In a Scottish context I should be delighted for him to visit our laboratory in Aberdeen which monitors stocks. Shortly after I took office I paid the laboratory a visit and I was fascinated to see the work that was being done. It helped me to a much greater understanding of the problem. I see the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North indicating his agreement; I hope he has availed himself of the opportunity to make a visit. I shall be pleased to arrange for any hon. Member to visit the laboratory to see the work that is being done there.
  Both nationally and internationally more concern about and interest in industrial fishing are now being shown. The United Kingdom Government certainly play their part in keeping industrial fishing under review, and we shall not hesitate to introduce measures to control this form of fishing should they be necessary.
  Mr. Buchan: The Minister has mentioned industrial fishing. Will he comment on possible fishing off the west coast of the Outer Hebrides and its relationship to Common Market boundaries?
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I do not see the relevance of that question to industrial fishing. The west coast of the Outer Hebrides is not more at risk from industrial fishing than is any other area.
  Fish farming—which was referred to by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland—has been included in the research programme of the White Fish Authority. Research has been carried on into farming marine species, not rainbow trout, at Ardtoe in Argyll. Progress has been made but the stage of commercial development has not yet been reached. The authority will keep industry informed of progress. Representatives of industry are members of the WFA Committee which advises on research and development, so there is opportunity for information to be fed back.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward), in her usual independent spirit and not wishing to let any opportunity pass, raised several questions. I am sure she will forgive me if I am unable to reply to them in detail. I will bring them to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends whose concern they are. From inquiries I have made this evening, I can tell my hon. Friend that the Port of Tyne Authority, like other harbour authorities, is charged by Parliament under Statute with a range of duties inside its harbour limits. After listening to my hon. Friend's strictures of the Minister for Transport Industries I hesitate to confirm the position. It is for him to say whether the Government have powers to intervene.
  Dame Irene Ward: Yes, but surely the Port of Tyne Authority is not charged with not providing sufficient moorings for Cobles and proper moorings for the trawler fleet. That cannot be laid down in an Act of Parliament. If it is, I had better get it removed as quickly as I can.
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: My understanding is that the provision of such facilities is one of the functions of a harbour authority if it is properly constituted. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries will take note of what my hon. Friend has said.

  695
  The Port of Tyne Authority has been offered a 60 per cent. grant towards new works, provided that a scheme is agreed between the industry and the harbour authority, provided that the scheme is put up to the Minister before May next year and provided that it is started within 12 months of the original announcement last May. I hope that will put my hon. Friend's mind partly at rest. The grant goes to the authority because it is the authority which must carry out the work and pay the builder for it. The fishing industry is benefiting from this, although the matter of harbour dues may have to be looked at in helping to pay the other 40 per cent.
  The right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes) raised a number of points and I, like other hon. Members, pay tribute to him for the part he played in bringing the parent legislation which the Bill seeks to extend. The right hon. Gentleman raised points about the EEC and the White Fish Authority. His main points related to the future of the industry within the Community and in particular to the position of our operating subsidies and other subsidies. I must emphasise that we shall be negotiating on these matters from within the Community. These matters have not been decided, and when they come up for decision we shall be able to play our full part in the negotiations.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) mentioned grading and the withdrawal price system. Grading is a matter which gives great concern to the industry because of the multiplication involved and the suitability of such grades as applied to our industry. We are consulting our industry about it and we believe that practical common sense will prevail. We are not pessimistic about finding the correct answer.
  I entirely agree that the question of the withdrawal price system and the question of limits are of vital importance. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland also referred to this topic. It could have a terrible effect on our industry and it must be pointed out that in a strange way—and this is not always appreciated in the industry—if the intervention price is too high, we might find first-grade fish from Shetland being taken
  696
  off the market at an intervention price, thus denying the processing industry and also consumers of the quality of fish to which they have become accustomed.
  The implementation of the Common Market regulations following our negotiations for entry are still being worked out and we are in close touch with the industry. However, I must point out that our difficulties were accepted during the negotiations, and I feel sure that a solution can be found on the lines of some form of regionalisation of withdrawal prices.
  The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland also mentioned financial aid for producers' organisation and related it to the money which the Bill seeks approval to spend. The items covered in the Bill refer to domestic support measures and not to measures of a Common Market nature. As my right hon. Friend the Minister mentioned in opening this debate, the establishment of producers' organisations will introduce a new element in our policy in the Common Market regarding common fishing. The question of financial arrangements must be a separate matter to be covered by the EEC regulations.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. W. H. K. Baker) and others mentioned operating subsidies after 1st August, 1973. At this stage I cannot make any statement about the decisions that are likely to be taken on the payment of such subsidies after 31st July. Before that date we shall review the situation with the two sections of the industry concerned, and we shall take fully into account the usual criteria of profits, economic prospects and developments which may take place within the Community.
  My hon. Friend also asked about the type of financial assistance which might be available to the industry in future after our entry into the Community. The EEC has not yet drawn up common rules on financial assistance in the fisheries sector and we shall be taking part in those discussions. What matters to us is that when those rules are drawn up our present form of grant and loan assistance will continue. Recently, because of the increased profit levels, the operating subsidies have been of relatively

  697
  less importance for the industry. Nevertheless, this matter will be much in our minds in any negotiations.
  I wish to correct my hon. Friend on one point. He mentioned—perhaps I did not fully follow the point—100 per cent. reimbursement from FEOGA in withdrawing fish from the market. In case there was any misapprehension about this matter, I should point out that the way in which FEOGA will contribute to the rates will vary according to species of fish and it will work out at around 60 per cent. Our own producer organisations will have to meet the other costs from their own equalisation funds. I hope I have given hon. Members the information on these topics which they require.
  The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland asked what steps we were taking to inform the industry about what was happening in the Community. We have been active in keeping in close touch with the industry, particularly the inshore fishing industry, in terms of the EEC. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I personally met the fishery organisations in both Orkney and Shetland about six weeks ago, so that I hope that those in his constituency are fully informed on these matters. We intend to continue the consultations, and even today officers of my Department are in Edinburgh meeting representatives of the processing side of the industry to discuss the impact of any EEC arrangements upon them.
  I turn to the last main area which has been dealt with in the debate—the question of the White Fish Authority, its future in the EEC and indeed its future in general. There are certain functions which are at present exercised by the authority and the Herring Industry Board which could continue under the EEC. One particular function relates to research and development. Another function which should continue is the use of the White Fish Authority as a vehicle for the collection of funds for the industry in financing industrial contributions for research and development; and there are one or two other functions involved.
  I should like to deal with the questions which have been raised on the statement made earlier in the year about waiting for perhaps a period of five years to see how things will develop in terms of pro-
  698
  ducers' organisations. Under the EEC rules the operation of the withdrawal price system depends on the establishment of producers' organisations. This refers strictly to producers' organisations—and I must emphasise that neither the Authority nor the Board is a producers' organisation. It is in respect of this function of the Authority that the rôle of the producers' organisations must be taken into account. It is in this respect that we must consider their future.
  I wish to reaffirm what my right hon. Friend said in the summer of this year—namely, that we believe that the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board have an important rôle in helping the industry to adjust to the new situation within the Common Market. Both these organisations have been of great assistance to the industry already in helping it to adjust to the new situation which is likely to prevail.
  Several other questions not directly connected with the EEC were raised regarding the future of the two authorities. The right hon. Member for Workington asked about the staff and in particular whether some of the staff might find employment in my right hon. Friend's Department. I am not aware of any individual approaches having been made from members of the WFA staff for employment in the Ministry, but the position remains as it was stated in the letter which my right hon. Friend sent to the right hon. Gentleman, and if any requests were received they would be considered. I cannot at this stage give a categorical assurance on how matters would work out in relation to any individual.
  The right hon. Member for Anglesey referred to the possible consequences of moving the headquarters to Edinburgh. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was a little pessimistic about the move and its implications for the industry in England and Wales. It should be remembered that the authority itself wished to move out of London. There was the question of higher costs in London as well as—I know that the right hon. Gentleman supports this, as I do—the question of dispersing public offices out of London. We shall give careful consideration to the position of staff in these circumstances. One realises that

  699
  any policy of dispersal involves a human element, and we shall watch the position closely.
  Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Could the hon. Gentleman give the proportion of the present staff who will move to Edinburgh and the proportion who will move out of the employ of the White Fish Authority and look for work elsewhere?
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I could not answer the right hon. Gentleman without notice. I shall look into the present position and write to him explaining how matters will rest, so far as that may be known.
  I apologise for a somewhat piecemeal reply to the debate, but there have been many questions raised on a variety of topics. I turn now to the present economic position of the industry. Earnings have been steadily rising over recent years. In 1970 total landings in the United Kingdom by British vessels were £76 million. Last year they were £93 million. We expect them to exceed £100 million this year. These are tremendous achievements and they have been reflected in the profits of the fleet. Deep sea profits in 1971 were about £7 million, compared with just under £5 million in 1970. We are still waiting for the 1972 results and it is as yet difficult to forecast what the position will be, but there seems to be little reason to expect profits to have fallen.
  As the House will recall, our debate on the inshore and herring subsidies last year took place against a background of substantially increased profits, particularly in the Scottish fleet. I think that the prosperity of the industry today is best reflected in the confidence which it is showing in investing in new vessels. This is, I believe, the best measure we can have of the view which the industry takes of its future. Here are the figures regarding the number of applications to the statutory bodies for grant and loan assistance in building new vessels. In the last financial year, applications in respect of 157 new inshore and nine new deep sea vessels were approved. That is to be compared with 89 inshore and 18 deep sea applications approved in the previous year. In the first six months of this year, however—I emphasise that it is only the first six months—applications
  700
  in respect of 110 inshore and 11 deep sea vessels have been approved. It is against that background of the confidence which the industry has in itself that the Bill should be considered.
  It gives me great pleasure to commend the Bill to the House. The Government are extending the means at their disposal to assist the industry and the industry has shown by its record that it is confident in itself and in the Government by investing its own money, backing success with success.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

  SEA FISH INDUSTRY [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to relax certain time limits under the Sea Fish Industry Act 1970, it is expedient to authorise—

  (1) any increase that may result from the repeal of section 49(4) of the Act of 1970 in the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament under that section (white fish and herring subsidies) or under section 51 of that Act (reimbursement of Isle of Man herring subsidies); and

  (2) any increase that may result from the extension of the time limits under sections 22(1), 23(1), 35(1) and 36(1) of the Act of 1970 in the amounts payable out of moneys provided by Parliament, or payable into the Consolidated Fund, in respect of Exchequer loans or grants to the White Fish Authority or the Herring Industry Board; and

  (3) the extension of the period during which under section 24(2) or 37(2) of the Act of 1970 repayments of certain Exchequer loans are to be paid into the White Fish Marketing Fund or the Herring Marketing Fund.—[Mr. Goodhew.]

ARMY, AIR FORCE AND NAVAL DISCIPLINE ACTS
6.55 p.m.
The Minister of State for Defence (Mr. Ian Gilmour): I beg to move,
That the Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 1972, a draft of which was laid before this House on 31st October, be approved.
The House will have observed that, for the first time, it is being invited to approve a single annual order which provides for the continuation of all three Service discipline Acts. Until the Armed Forces Act 1971 came into force on 1st July this year, the Navy was governed by a permanent statute, the Naval Discipline Act. By contrast, the Army and Air Force Acts have, since 1955, been quinquennial Acts which have to be renewed annually by affirmative resolution of both Houses.
When the 1966 Armed Forces Bill was considered, this arrangement led to mild parliamentary criticism and it had, therefore, to be decided whether to bring all three Services into line, and, if so, how to do this. We concluded that we should retain the long-established tradition whereby, for nearly 300 years in the case of the Army and since its formation in the case of the Royal Air Force, their code of discipline and constitutional structure has been subject to the annual approval of Parliament. We therefore decided to bring the Naval Discipline Act into line with the Acts for the other two Services and made necessary provision in the Armed Forces Act 1971. The result is the single order covering all three Services which is now before the House.
I am sure that the House will wish me to say something about the people whom the order concerns in the three Services. I turn first to the Army and in particular—almost inevitably in a debate of this kind—to its discipline in Northern Ireland. I refer directly to its discipline, because I know Mr. Speaker has said that this debate is extremely narrow, relating to the discipline of the Armed Forces. Much has been said in the House and in the country as a whole on this subject, and I scarcely need to assure the House that the standards of discipline and morale in the Army remain impressively high. Indeed the overall rate of disciplinary
702
offences has dropped appreciably since the middle of 1971.
The House will, I know, wish me to take this opportunity to pay a special tribute to the manner in which the Army continues to do its job in Northern Ireland. I doubt that any other army in the world would have discharged its duties for so long in so provocative and delicate a situation with so much patience and restraint. The conduct, discipline and morale of the troops deserves the highest praise.
I think I should say a few words about the statement issued last week by a number of priests—exactly how many seems rather obscure—from Catholic areas in Belfast alleging widespread brutality and harassment by the Army. The Army's task is to uphold law and order and protect all sections of the community from terrorism and violence of all kinds; and troops do not open fire except to protect themselves and others when life is being endangered by terrorist action. Any suggestion that the Army sets out to shoot unarmed civilians of the community in Northern Ireland is absurd and totally false.
It is worth emphasising too that the allegations of brutality, harassment and victimisation which are made should be looked at against the backcloth of a deliberate campaign which is being conducted by the IRA and other extremists to discredit the behaviour and discipline of the security forces. The campaign sets out to gain the fullest possible publicity for any allegations against the Army, however distorted or incredible they may be—indeed, the more distorted and incredible the better.
Clearly, whilst terrorism persists there is a need for soldiers to check people's identity and to search for arms and explosives. In this they have had considerable success. But such results cannot be achieved without some inconvenience to peaceful people. In hunting down the gunmen and the bombers the security forces will continue to make every possible effort to cause the least possible hardship and inconvenience to the public.
Any specific complaint of unlawful behaviour by troops which is supported by a statement or other form of evidence is referred to the civil authorities for investigation. The Army gives all

703
possible assistance to the civil authorities in their investigations.
In addition the Army is most ready to develop a dialogue with representative community leaders. Among the broad allegations by the group of priests in Belfast was one of lack of approachability and co-operation on the part of the Army. Yet the Army has always been fully alive to the absolute necessity for a closer link with the civil community. It does its best to encourage those with complaints to discuss them with the Army, which often produces useful results.
In a few cases complaints have been found to be justified after investigation and the soldiers involved have been brought before the courts. It is regrettable that even isolated instances of bad behaviour should occur but understandable in view of the considerable provocation to which the troops have been subjected in carrying out their difficult duties. The troops as a whole must be strongly commended for the tact and restraint which they have shown and continue to show in trying circumstances.
As I explained, the Royal Navy now comes within the scope of this annual debate for the first time. My noble Friend drew attention in another place to the Committee on Naval Welfare under the chairmanship of Lord Seebohm which has been set up to review welfare provisions for Royal Navy and Royal Marine personnel and their families, including, in the light of problems created by service conditions, ways of anticipating and preventing social difficulties, which have an important bearing on discipline and morale. I echo my noble Friend's confidence in the existing Navy Family Welfare Organisation. But I believe that the outcome of this study in depth will ensure that we are not left behind by the general advances of welfare services.
I should mention the catering fraud while talking about the Royal Navy. As I announced on 20th November, we are setting up an independent inquiry into these matters. The main object of the inquiry is to ensure that the systems of financial and stock control in the service catering organisations are as foolproof as it is possible to make them against
704
the sort of malpractices that have given rise to the recent criminal cases.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. I have been listening carefully to what he has to say. I am sure that it would not be his wish to be out of order, but he is sailing a little close to the wind at the moment. Perhaps I should read the ruling as it has been made on several occasions in past debates of this kind. It is as follows:
"We are debating on this Order whether the Army Act should be renewed for one year. The only speeches which are in order are those which advocate that the Army Act"—
and the Navy and the Air Force in this case—
"should be renewed for one year or should not be renewed for one year, giving reasons in the Act why it should or should not be renewed. This debate is very narrow".
Mr. Speaker went on to say:
"It may have been broadened"—
he was referring to an occasion in the past—
"but the right hon. Gentleman is right in assuming that to raise other matters would not be in order."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th December, 1965; Vol. 722, c. 972–3.]
In 1970 Mr. Speaker said:
"… I should have to confine the debate on the Army Motions and that on the Royal Air Force Motion within very strict narrow limits."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th November, 1970; Vol. 806, c. 1452.]
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order. It is not my normal rôle to help Ministers on points of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, what the Minister was saying was directly related to Sections 38 and 42 of the Armed Forces Act 1971, which we are discussing. If this is to be a useful debate, some hon. Members may wish to raise points that arise from what the Minister has been saying.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Provided the hon. Gentleman adheres to the Act, I am sure he will be in order. I felt that it would be better to say something now rather than to let matters go on and perhaps get very badly out of order.
Mr. Roy Hattersley: On a point of order. It has been regarded for many hundreds of years that this debate is one of the

705
opportunities for the House to exercise its control over the Armed Forces. It is difficult to understand how that can be done unless we assume, as it has been assumed in the past, that matters concerning pay, conditions, recruitment and terms of engagement are related to discipline.
I hesitate to quote "Erskine May", but there is a quotation on page 729, which deals with the procedure of debate after the 1955 amalgamation of the two Acts, which makes it clear that this should be an opportunity for parliamentary control. I do not know how that is possible if the sort of speech which the Minister has begun to make is not in order.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Further to that point of order. May I respectfully point out that only last week the other place was able to debate the very matters which my hon. Friend was bringing before the House? It is the duty of this House—and, indeed, its onus—to debate the matters which my hon. Friend was bringing, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to your attention.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have to see that the rulings of the Chair are carried out to the best of my ability. I felt that it was my duty to point out how I felt the rulings of the Chair should be interpreted. I am sure I can leave it to the good sense of the hon. Gentleman and that of the House to keep the matter within bounds.
Mr. Ian Gilmour: I am grateful for your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The House will be relieved to hear that I have truncated my speech a good deal to bring myself somewhere near the rules of order.
I was talking about the distasteful subject of the catering fraud, which I feel must unfortunately be closely related to discipline in the Armed Forces. My right hon. and noble Friend has agreed provisional terms of reference for the inquiry into the catering of all three Services. However, lie would like to discuss them with the chairman of the proposed committee before they are published. We hope to announce shortly the names of the chairman and the members of the committee to undertake the inquiry.
Mr. Dalyell: As the Minister knows, I represent South Queensferry, in part of which is Port Edgar and the Royal Elizabeth Yard at Kirkliston. Could it be made clear while the inquiry is proceeding that there is no assumption that the many establishments within Navy discipline have in any way indulged in malpractice? To put it bluntly there are some people, who have been honest throughout their lives, who are feeling a little sore that they are being tarred with a broad brush. It is not the fault of the Ministry. Nevertheless the Press publicity is a bit hard on those against whom no malpractice can be alleged and who one imagines have been honest for many years.
Mr. Gilmour: I entirely agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said. I was about to make a similar point and I hope the House will forgive me if I make it, because I think it is very important for both Government and Parliament to place on record that we have great confidence in the overwhelming majority of the members of the Royal Navy, who have great pride in their past and look forward with great confidence to the future. I am sure that neither the House nor the country as a whole will be misled by the actions of a tiny minority into having a lesser opinion of the Services in general and their standards and reputation. That applies to the hon. Gentleman's constituents as well as to those in all other naval establishments.
Mr. Dalyell: What is the time scale of these inquiries?
Mr. Gilmour: It is difficult to answer that question with any degree of clarity. I cannot give such information until the members have been appointed and the terms of reference have been published, but obviously it is in everyone's interest to do this job as quickly as possible. But it will depend on the convenience and activities of those taking part.
I turn now to the Royal Air Force—with some trepidation. My noble Friend last week outlined the difficulties we are having in achieving the right balance between expenditure on men and on other things. An economy programme in two successive phases has been put under way. In view of your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will not dwell on that, but as

707
it was mentioned by my noble Friend in another place perhaps I might be permitted to say briefly that a detailed study in headquarters and in all commands to try to get existing jobs done with fewer staff produced considerable savings in the numbers of officers, airmen and civilians required. In the second phase, which is not yet complete, ideas for changes in the task and organisation of the Royal Air Force were invited and as a result the whole structure is being examined in detail.
Finally, after another considerable piece of truncation, I would like briefly to mention recruitment and re-engagement. The factors which cause both recruitment and re-engagement are complex, but one of the most important is what people think is the Government's attitude towards the Services and it is significant that in the context of the stable defence policy we have pursued since we took office satisfactory levels of recruitment and re-engagement have been achieved. This is also illustrated by the fact that, despite the problems I have outlined, morale and discipline in the Services remain high, and that is something for which we can all be grateful.
7.13 p.m.
Mr. Roy Hattersley: All of us are in some difficulty on this first occasion of debating the amalgamated discipline Acts. Therefore, like the Minister of State, I shall make only part of the speech I would otherwise have made. So the House has at least one reason to be grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that I remain in order if I begin with a very necessary comment on the procedure adopted for the submission of this order. Two weeks ago today, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition explained the view of the Opposition that for very good constitutional reasons the order should have originated in this House and not in the other place.
Mr. Gilmour: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman so early, but he is under some misapprehension as between the order and the Act. There is nothing new about the order being moved first in another place. It was moved there
708
under the Labour Government in 1967 and 1968.
Mr. Hattersley: The difference is that this is a new order. We are talking about a totally new set of events, in that we are discussing naval discipline for the first time in these circumstances. The subject of naval discipline has never been started in another place. We regard this order, therefore, as we do the parent Act, as an opportunity to exercise constitutional control which the House of Commons should have over the Armed Forces.
It was not simply constitutional propriety which led us to believe that the order should have been introduced here first. There are sound constitutional precedents. They came not only from my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes) when we debated the Bill but also from the right hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden). They both discussed this very point. We believe also that there is a more practical and perhaps in a sense more contemporary reason why the order should have originated here. It concerns what I must with reluctance describe as the "devaluation" of the defence debates in the House of Commons over the last two years, as witnessed by the hour and by the day and therefore by the numbers of people who now take part in that kind of debate.
In direct relation to the presentation of this order, there is a strong and resentful feeling on this side of the House that at no time in the last two decades has there been less defence information supplied to the House than during the last two years. It is no coincidence that the situation was much better in those two decades in the period between the then Minister of Defence being in the House of Lords and the present Secretary of State being in the House of Lords. There is considerable deficiency of defence information coming our way and we regard the fact that the order began in another place as indicative and symptomatic of that fact.
Our complaint about the paucity of defence information coming to the House is underlined by the procedure laid down for the order. The core of the complaint is not that the House of Lords is getting information first and we are getting it second—that would be a trivial complaint—but that under this procedure no one is

709
getting information at all. That is the main complaint.
I draw an example from the other place's debate on this order. There, the Secretary of State said—and got away with it—that this was a traditional opportunity for discussing personnel matters in Parliament. He made two speeches, the first lasting 13 minutes and the second six minutes. In them he produced three sets of figures for the House of Lords. He was able to tell it the number of school leavers in 1973; he told of the increase in unemployment in 1966; and he gave a number of figures for RAF redundancy which had been leaked to the newspapers a few days earlier.
If, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you allow us to pursue matters raised by the Minister of State, we hope to have more precise and adequate answers than those offered by the Secretary of State in another place, and we have a number of questions on a number of the topics which the hon. Gentleman has explored and which I therefore assume one is in order in pursuing.
The first point concerns recruiting, and therefore, with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and realising that in this area we all proceed with some difficulty on thin ice, I have a number of questions which will enable the hon. Gentleman to explain certain things which are apparently within the terms of the order. In the Defence White Paper of last April, the Government warned the House and the country that there would be an inevitable reduction in the number of men coming forward for service in the Armed Forces. A series of figures suggested that in each of the three services recruitment is in decline. In the Royal Air Force, where it is explained that there are special reasons for limiting the recruitment figures, recruitment almost halved in the last three quarters of 1971 compared with the last three quarters of the preceding year. In the case of the Army, the figures in the last two quarters were smaller than in the last two quarters of the previous year. The position in relation to the Royal Navy is almost exactly the same. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will tell us whether the fall-off in recruitment is what he expected but has arrived earlier than expected, or whether the fall is more drastic than was expected.
The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Lord Lambton): I want to put the hon. Gentleman right. The lowness of Royal Air Force recruiting is intentional. We are striving to get fewer but better people at this time so that the teeth are stronger.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Does all this relate to the Discipline Act? As far as I can see, recruitment is not a question of discipline.
Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May we return to this question? If Bills are to start their life in the House of Lords—[Interruption.]—and we then find that the Lords are lax but that in this House the Chair in its wisdom applies much stricter rules, surely it is a matter of the goose and the gander.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thought I had explained the position to the House. I quite see how aggravating this situation is. But I have read to the House the rulings of Mr. Speaker, and we are bound by them. If I think that hon. Members are going beyond the terms of those rulings, I have to point it out. What happens in the other place is no concern of ours. That is why we call it "another place".
Mr. Dalyell: Without wishing in any way to be impertinent, are there no "usual channels" between Mr. Speaker and the Lord Chancellor?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: If there were, it would not be proper for me to talk about them from the Chair.
Mr. Hattersley: I shall not pursue my questions on recruiting, though, as a matter of Ministry of Defence experience rather than as a matter of parliamentary procedure, I suspect that discipline and recruiting are directly related and that, by implication, it is very difficult to discuss one without discussing the other.
I appreciate that there were special reasons for the Royal Air Force recruiting at a small level. That was a matter of intention. But that is not the position with regard to the other two Services. Therefore, if possible I should like to know whether the fall-off in recruiting which was anticipated is moving at about the speed and at about the rate anticipated.

711
I turn now to a subject which, though related to recruiting, is palpably related to discipline, because it is related to morale. It concerns the pay of Her Majesty's Forces. The Minister of State will recall that the Pay Review Body set up by his Government reported in April and in the last paragraph of its report both summarised the present pay position and made suggestions about the future. It said that between the military salary and now the average pay increase in Her Majesty's Forces was about 9 per cent. For adult men it was rather less—about 7 per cent. It went on to say that if an increase is postponed more than a few months or a year the average increase will decline proportionately as the postponement goes on.
Let me draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to two points specific to the Pay Review Body and therefore directly concerned with morale and therefore discipline. The Pay Review Body said that if pay increases in civilian employment were to continue at a high level it would be a matter of injustice to Her Majesty's Forces were Government policy of a pay review every two years rather than every year to be adhered to strictly. It said that not only would it be a matter of injustice to Her Majesty's Forces but that the Pay Review Body, should it think it right, would feel free to make a recommendation after one year—in April 1973.
Two questions arise which were not only allowed as being in order in another place but which are, since they are concerned with the prospect of pay, involving service morale and discipline. The first is this. Can we be absolutely assured that what the Pay Review Body described as its freedom to make an interim report at the end of one year rather than two will not be impaired by the Government, incomes policy notwithstanding, that the Pay Review Body will not be subject to pressure not to make an interim report, and that if a report is made it will be implemented? In another place, the Secretary of State gave an answer which, to do it all justice possible, was less than precise. I hope that the Minister of State will give an answer of staggering precision when he winds up the debate.
712
Secondly, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will say something about the future of the pay structure of the Armed Forces, and not simply about a review which might come out in April. There is a feeling which has an influence on morale and discipline that in a time of decreasing real funds being available to defence some provision should be made to make sure that getting the Armed Forces into line with civilian employment which was done with some success in April 1970 will be maintained.
I turn to the next point which I can discover that it is possible to argue is related to discipline. It involves re-engagement rates in the Armed Forces. As I understand it, there is a direct and obvious connection between discipline, morale and re-engagement, and there is an obvious connection between all those and the level of the Armed Forces in the future.
Looking at the re-engagement rates in all the Armed Forces, comparing 1971 with 1970, in almost every category of recruitment re-engagement improved over the second year as compared with the first. There were 19 possible categories of recruitment. In 1972 there were more re-engagements in 17 of them than in the previous year. That is a spectacularly successful figure. But looking at the few months' figures available for this year, re-engagement rates have deteriorated as compared with the full year 1971. When the Minister of State replies, could he comment on the re-engagement rates in all the Armed Forces and say whether he is worried about the willingness or reluctance of Servicemen to sign on for a second term, and whether there are categories in which there is a problem.
I am in part referring to the problems raised by short-term service. The Government of which I was a member instituted a short period of service in the Royal Navy. Again, looking at the figures, without wearying the House by quoting them, I see that in all three Services there has been an increase in the number of men signing on for the shortest possible time and a decrease in the number signing on for longer periods. If that is the case and improved recruiting is strictly related to shorter engagements, the re-engagement rate is a crucial factor in terms of the size of the Army, Navy

713
and Air Force in 10 years' time. Can the Minister relate recruiting, re-engagement rates and length of service and tell us what he thinks estimated strength will be in 10 years or even in five years compared with the need for men and the service that they have to perform?
I make two comments about Northern Ireland. I want first to echo the tribute paid by the Minister of State not simply to the discipline but to the morale and the courage of the Armed Forces in Northern Ireland. I was last with the Army in Northern Ireland on the day before Operation Motorman. It was a period of maximum depression for the Armed Forces in Northern Ireland, if maximum depression there was. Even on that day, when there was certainly a feeling that there were areas of Northern Ireland into which the Army could not go but into which it ought to be allowed to go, the spirit of the troops, their understanding of the problems of politicians striving for a political settlement, their willingness to take risks on behalf of politicians striving for a political settlement, their devotion to their task and their extraordinary acceptance of the obligations of their uniquely unpleasant task were a privilege to witness. On behalf of the Opposition I pay my own tribute to what was done and what continues to be done in Northern Ireland by all the Armed Forces who serve there.
I want also to make a point about complaints and about how those complaints should be processed. As the Minister of State said, it is inevitable that from time to time there will be complaints about the conduct of individual soldiers or units. I suppose that it is equally inevitable after two and a half years that occasionally those complaints are justified. I believe that it is very much in the interests of the Armed Forces that whenever a complaint is made, no matter how apparently frivolous, no matter how apparently malicious, same sort of inquiry is made into it. The Army in Northern Ireland, not with great enthusiasm, is performing a task which is basically a policing function in intolerable circumstances.
The civilian police are inevitably subject to complaints of one kind or another, some frivolous, some malicious, and occasionally justified. They have learned
714
that the best way of combating those complaints and preserving the good name of the police force is to treat them all with a degree of seriousness and to refute the overwhelming majority which can be refuted.
Therefore, I hope that when from time to time the Opposition, who, like the hon. Gentleman, admire what the Army is doing in Northern Ireland, suggest to him that this or that complaint ought to be treated with a degree of seriousness, he will understand that we do so because we believe it to be in the interests of the forces that matters should not be swept under the carpet, but should be investigated and usually disproved. I say that, as I said at the beginning, in the light of the Opposition's continued admiration for what our forces are doing in Northern Ireland and in order that their morale and discipline may remain as high as it is.
We know that all these personnel matters, which are traditionally debated on this day, have in some way a relationship with the performance of the forces in the field. The things I have said and want to know about recruiting are related not only to pay and conditions of service, but to the esteem with which the Services are held in the public mind. No greater tribute can be paid to the way our forces have performed in Northern Ireland than that the increases in recruitment have been coincidental with the period of severest strain which shows that the tribute which the hon. Gentleman and I have paid to our forces in Northern Ireland is echoed by most families in England.

ROYAL ASSENT
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act, 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. Counter-Inflation (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1972.

2. Pensioners and Family Income Supplement Payments Act, 1972.

3. Aberdeen Harbour Order Confirmation Act, 1972.

4. Scrabster Harbour (Vehicle Ferry Terminal &c.) Order Confirmation Act, 1972.

ARMY, AIR FORCE AND NAVAL DISCIPLINE ACTS
7.32 p.m.
Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: From these crowded benches this evening I hope I shall manage to remain in order if I start by saying that I believe these Acts should be continued.
The discipline of the Armed Forces is central to the splendid reputation of the Royal Navy, the Army and the Royal Air Force. We should pause to note that this reputation is particularly valuable to this country when some of our allies, even within NATO, have conscript forces whose discipline does not reach the high standards which our Regular volunteer forces achieve.
Again relative to order, discipline does not come from an Act of Parliament; it comes only from a high state of morale, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) mentioned.
I should like to mention one or two points affecting morale. First, the military salary—all tribute to the Labour Government for introducing it—seems to be good. It may be said that soldiers and sailors are now properly paid, perhaps for the first time in centuries.
Leave and welfare arrangements are good. This morning I telephoned the Royal Green Jackets in Winchester to discover whether there were any difficulties about men on leave from Ulster flying to rejoin their families living in Germany. I understand that generally the arrangements are satisfactory.
It goes without saying that the officers and men in all the Services are most conscientious and idealistic about their jobs. Otherwise they would not work all the hours God made in the way they do, under conditions which would astonish most civilians.
To maintain morale it is absolutely necessary that the forces should have the weapons and equipment which they, as professionals, know they need.
I turn now to the Royal Navy. I am glad to see the new First Lord in his place. One thing which any naval man knows is that the principal task of the Royal Navy is to protect our trade. It was, is and always will be. Our trade is world-wide, but arrangements for its pro-
716
tection only even pretend to be adequate within the NATO area as defined.
It is a sad fact that the present Government have done very little to improve the state of affairs since the Labour Government changed their policy from the 1966 White Paper in which the definitive sentence was that
"No country with a sense of international responsibility would abandon its commitment east of Suez",
and so on, to the 1967 White Paper where it was all scuttle, all come home, leave the Gulf and so on.
Specifically the morale of the Royal Navy—I was just going amidships, Mr. Deputy Speaker—is very much hazarded by the lack of proper arrangements for air support at sea. My hon. Friend the Minister of State's answer to me at Question Time today about Harriers is as vivid an example as I can give of the fact that there are not sufficient arrangements for air support at sea.
Recruiting is marvellously good, but for heaven's sake let us keep it that way. One thing which has always worried me about recruiting is that the Royal Navy has largely depended in the past on the 15-year-old entrants to HMS "Ganges". Many ratings have been recruited as 15year-olds. Their discipline and morale have been fine. They have made a splendid leavening throughout the Service. The Donaldson Report on Boy Entrants and Young Servicemen makes the point in paragraph 8 that
"The Services should be seen as a tine career which a boy is lucky to get into, not as a second best to industry."
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. I gather that there has been difficulty in the debate earlier. I should emphasise that the debate should be extremely narrow. It seems to have exceeded its bounds considerably.
Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I will of course abide by your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am doing my utmost to keep purely to discipline and morale subjects, but it is difficult to separate morale from discipline.
The morale of our soldiers in Ulster is wonderful, as has been said and will no doubt continue to be said by other hon. Members. A soldier's first tour in Ulster must be exciting. The bugles blow

717
and the young men are told that this time they will fire their guns for real. The fourth or fifth tour cannot be so wonderful. One of the Royal Green Jackets units from Winchester is about to start its fifth tour of duty in Ulster. Therefore, it is up to the Government to see that the wonderful work which the troops have done there is not put at risk by being kept on this job too long. It is desperately necessary, if only for the sake of the Armed Forces, that the Government should reach a political decision as quickly as possible.
I want to make one last point affecting morale and discipline. The Select Committee which reported upon the Armed Forces Bill dealt with standardisation, which is always liable to crop up from time to time. The report said:
"Your Committee does not wish to recommend the expenditure of further time and effort in an attempt to achieve standardisation for standardisation's sake".
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I did not hear the word "discipline" in that passage.
Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: That is the end of my speech, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
7.40 p.m.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: The hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) assured you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that he was amidships. My speech will be in the steerage, but never fear it will be on the right side of the bulkhead, I hope.
I join in the tributes that have been paid to the morale of those who serve in most difficult circumstances in Northern Ireland—my constituents and everybody else's—but may I raise one question with the Minister. Some of us were unhappy this afternoon when my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) raised the question of the way in which the Ministry of Defence gave information to bereaved people who were the kin of those who had been killed on active service.
I must say—as I told my hon. Friend I would—that I should not have put it in anything like that language. My experience is that when these accidents happen the Ministry is extremely good with relatives and goes to an enormous
718
amount of trouble. But this exchange having taken place, perhaps the Minister who is to reply to the debate should say something about how relatives are informed in these most depressing and often sad and macabre circumstances.
Because of what has gone on earlier in the debate, and because of what happened this afternoon, it is reasonable to ask what is the philosophy of the Ministry of Defence and what rules are applied in bearing the news to relatives of those who have been either seriously injured or killed. In my view a telegram is a bad way of conveying the news, because it ought to be broken personally.
It may be that the view is taken that as soon as possible relatives should be informed of what has happened, and I do not disagree with that, but it would be better if a policeman or some other public official went to the house, knocked on the door and broke the news gently. I say that because if someone living alone receives one of these telegrams he could suffer a considerable shock, to put it mildly. All I say is that when people have this disastrous news broken to them it is important that they should not be alone, and I hope that we may have some comment from the Minister about the Minister's philosophy on this subject.
Secondly, I echo the thoughts of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) about the other place. I do so not in any sense of malice, or of being unjustfiably rude to the Minister, but because I think that there are problems for the House of Commons when the Secretary of State for Defence is in the other place, and I shall say why.
On talking to previous junior Ministers, in both Labour and Conservative Governments, one finds that the defence set up in this country is such that only the Secretary of State for Defence can give answers on certain questions. This inevitably means that his junior Ministers stall. It may be greatly to their own disadvantage that they do so, and it cannot be pleasant to have to stall, but this happens because the Cabinet Minister responsible for defence is in a unique position.
That being the situation, it is unfortunate from the point of view of the House of Commons that for a comparatively long time the Secretary of State for

719
Defence, with all his authority, has not been in this House. I shall not stray out of order. I propose just to touch on a matter raised this afternoon and mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester. He and I take different views on the Five-Power agreement in the Far East, but I think we would agree that this is a question of vital importance involving our relations with Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia and Singapore, and that it should be answered at the level of the Foreign Secretary in this case the Secretary of State for Defence.
Mr. Gilmour: The hon. Gentleman's question was hypothetical, and whether I had been the Secretary of State for Defence or the Foreign Secretary it would have been impossible for me to have given a definite answer on the South-East situation three days before the Australian election.
Mr. Dalyell: I have to concede that, but events have taken place in New Zealand. The assurance that one would like is that the Government are looking at contingency plans, because if they are not there will be a muck-up in that area of the world.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook said that the presence that is given to another place has certain side effects. I shall give a concrete example of something that bothers me greatly. A very important Bill has started in the other place. It is almost being slipped in. It is the Atomic Energy Weapon Authority—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. I think that the hon. Member is over-estimating his optimism about the rules for this debate.
Mr. Dalyell: This involves civilian discipline in the Armed Forces and the whole set up at Aldermaston.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Dalyell: Perhaps what I have to say will be taken across the ether by some kind of transmission. I am sure that the Ministry of Defence has taken the point, but I give notice that when it comes to the House there will be a tremendous miniscule interest and I hope that I shall be a member of the Committee.
720
I now propose to raise a matter about which I have had helpful correspondence with the Minister. This is the question of civilian discipline and the discipline that is intertwined with promotional prospects. I shall not name the individual, but I think the Minister will recall from the correspondence that he was in BAOR. Either the Minister or his private office have taken a great deal of trouble over the case but, on reading the correspondence, I am bothered about whether the Ministry of Defence, having given its word in one direction to rather senior civilian members of staff, has kept its word in a moral as opposed to a legalistic sense. I think that in the matter of promotional prospects it should be said that a Government Department—and the Ministry of Defence more than most—has an obligation to honour its word morally and legally. I leave it there.
Just to keep the right side of the bulkhead and not to earn any more ferocious looks I choose as my text Section 38 of the Armed Forces Act 1971, coupled with Section 42. This is on naval discipline. Other Government Departments know that I am very interested in the question of pollution, particularly from discharges into estuaries.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is a bad beginning, unless the hon. Member is going to improve very quickly. He is out of order.
Mr. Dalyell: The report of the Royal Commission on Environmental pollution says in paragraph 27(c):
"the amending legislation should remove the present exemption from control of discharges of sewage from all vessels, including Naval vessels, in 'controlled waters'."
The question that I have to ask is bang in order. It is bang amidships, to use the hon. Gentleman's words.
What kind of discipline will be applied to naval officers who are found guilty of not having carried out the recommendations which we hope will be made by the Department of the Environment on the discharge of sewage and pollution into estuarial waters? There is a wide range. Is it to be:
(a) death, (b) imprisonment, (c) dismissal with disgrace from Her Majesty's service, (d) dismissal from Her Majesty's service, (e) detention for a term not exceeding two years, (f) forfeiture of seniority for a specified term or

721
otherwise, (g) dismissal from the ship or naval establishment to which the offender belongs, (h) disrating, (i) fine, (j) severe reprimand, (k) reprimand, (l) in the case of an offence which has occasioned any expense, loss or damage, stoppages, that is to say, the recovery, by deductions from the offenders' pay, of a specified sum by way of compensation for the expense, loss or damage"
Or
"(m) such minor punishments as may from time to time be authorised by the Defence Council"?
Concerned though I am about the estuarial coast of West Lothian and its pollution, I would not go for (a), (b) or (c)—death, imprisonment or dismissal with disgrace—because I am, on the whole, a humane man.
Serious, we should like to know the thinking of the Department, if it is to take Sir Eric Ashby and his Committee seriously, as it has said it will, on how that report can be implemented. The Ashley Committee is very concerned about the possible exclusion of naval vessels from the general code of conduct which will apply to all the merchant fleet.
Therefore, how are we to ensure that the Navy—I am not saying that they are the worst offenders, but there is some circumstantial evidence that they are offenders—will comply with the national and international agreements into which this country has entered in implementing the ideas of Sir Eric Ashby and, now, numerous Government committees? When a Government boast, as this Government did at the recent conference, about what they have done on dumping, they must be sure how they will implement the policy about which they have been boasting.
So it is absolutely in order, I think, to be given some inkling of how discipline should be applied to those found guilty on naval ships of breaking the pollution laws. This is a very important matter. If we have ships of the size of a £62 million through-deck cruiser—or more than one, as the hon Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) would have it—it becomes a very important problem.
That is my major point and an important one. Although I put it a little frivolously, I mean every word I say. It is very important tonight to have some sketch of departmental thinking on what is to be done about polluters in uniform, if there are such.
7.52 p.m.
Mr. John Wilkinson: This debate is an important constitutional occasion, although, judging from the constraints of order, one might be forgiven for doubting it. I shall seek to support the continuation of the Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts and in doing so I shall refer to the relevant disciplinary, morale and personnel matters.
First, any hon. Member must pay a tribute at this time to the discipline and conduct and morale of Her Majesty's Forces in Northern Ireland. I should particularly like to do so as a West Yorkshire Member on the day after the day which brought the tragic announcement of the 100th death of a British soldier this year on active service in Northern Ireland—especially so as he came from West Yorkshire. The restraint, discipline and understanding of our troops, and the forbearing of their families as well, must be very widely welcomed and highly applauded by this House.
I should also like to pay a tribute to the discipline and bearing of the Ulster Defence Regiment, which also comes under these Acts. It has a particular burden and an especially difficult one. It does not return at the conclusion of its duty to guarded barracks. Its members take the dangers of their obligation back home with them and share them with their families. Few complaints have been levelled against their conduct on disciplinary grounds. Attempts by the terrorist organisations to intimidate Roman Catholics in particular to leave the regiment have also been manifest, but the regiment's conduct has been exemplary.
On the naval side, we have all been apprehensive at the implications of the fraud revelations. I welcome the very wide-ranging inquiry, extending to catering in all three Services, which my right hon. Friend has instituted. It has also, sadly, been a year marred by the Bingham spy affair. This is not an inappropriate occasion to re-emphasise the importance of good discipline and vigilance in the field of security. It is crucial to the defence of this country.
I had the honour to visit HMS "Ark Royal" just after Strong Express, one of the most significant and large-scale

723
NATO exercises conducted in recent years, and I was impressed by the discipline of the Fleet Air Arm in its operations. Nothing calls for more discipline and efficiency than air operations at sea. I am sure that this has been brought home not only to my hon. Friend and his colleagues but to the NATO staffs as well.
I turn now to the Royal Air Force, and would like to refer to one aspect of its activities which is well known to the general public. It might not be so widely remembered, however, that, at the beginning of this exercise season for the Red Arrows there was a tragic accident which involved loss of life. None the less, the discipline of this Central Flying School team and the way that it carried out its training throughout the succeeding part of the season was exemplary. I believe that the general public appreciated it, and it was in large measure due to the morale and discipline of the Royal Air Force.
Both the Minister of State and the Secretary of State referred at some length and in detail to the redundancy scheme which is to affect 6 per cent. of Royal Air Force personnel. I will concern myself in this debate only with that part of the redundancy scheme which affects officers, because in supporting the continuation orders, we must know the strength of the Services to which the orders are to apply.
A matter as important as redundancy will affect the morale and discipline of the Service profoundly. The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, in the other place, asked whether those officers made redundant would have a reserve liability. My noble friend, the Secretary of State, replied:
"My Lords, I think they would, but if I am wrong, I will certainly let the noble Lord know."
This is a very important aspect, because the reserve elements of the Services are subject to the Discipline Acts just as much as the regular element. It is therefore important to know whether these personnel will have a reserve liability.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will be aware that I would welcome it because they are personnel with an experience extending over many years, which has been acquired at great cost to the taxpayer. If this ex-
724
perience were not utilised to the full in a reserve capacity, we should be anxious about it. I would therefore ask my hon. Friend to clarify this.
There was also some exchange about the terms of the redundancy, on which also there is need for clarification. The Secretary of State was not very clear on this point when he said:
"The pension rights will be unaltered. The pensions will be smaller because of their shorter length of service, but they will get pensions."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, House of Lords, 21st November, 1972; c. 919, 929.]
What I am asking my hon. Friend is, what happens to those who opt for the redundancy who have not yet reached the 38/16 year point of service? As my right hon. Friend knows, in normal circumstances they are not eligible for pension.
I should also like to ask about the lump sum which will be available for those who are made redundant. The lump sum is normally three times the annual rate of retirement pay. This time I believe that it will be that amount plus about 80 per cent. of 21 months' salary. I should like my right hon. Friend to clarify that point because it is important that the public and the Service men should know exactly the terms on which they should or may seek redundancy.
As this will affect the discipline of the Armed Forces very much over the next few years, I should also like to know how long a process my right hon. Friend considers that this redundancy will be. I am certain that it is a continuing process, one which will probably last about five years. My right hon. Friend suggested that we were only at the beginning of a process of rationalisation. Therefore, upon which branch of the Service will these redundancies impinge most heavily?
I am certain again that they will impinge most heavily upon the general duties branch, that is, the Flying Branch, which in peacetime has the greatest burdens in the disciplinary sense because its activities impinge most upon the general public. Here again, it is very important to know roughly how many general duties officers are likely to be made redundant over the next five years and in what categories of specialisation those redundancies will fall. The greater preponderance, I am sure, will be in the pilot

725
category. I should like more information about this.
Looking beyond these categories, the discipline of the Service will be very much affected according to the seniority of those who will seek redundancy. In other words it is vital for Service men to know that they have an assured career. I should like my right hon. Friend to say whether the specialist aircrew scheme has proved a success and whether specialist aircrew are to be asked whether they wish to take advantage of this redundancy scheme.
I am certain that the greatest burden of redundancy will fall on the junior officer ranks, that is, those below the rank of Squadron Leader. If that is so, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that these are people who normally have several years potential active service ahead of them? Will he, therefore, consider using their experience in some productive reserve capacity?
This has been a useful debate. I regret, however, the limitations which have been imposed. We have had a number of hints about personnel matters and morale matters that very profoundly affect all three Services. One, the Royal Air Force redundancy scheme, which formed the heart of the speech of my noble Friend the Secretary of State in the other place, has not received much amplification in this House.
8.3 p.m.
Mr. J. D. Concannon: In view of the limitations drawn on the order and of my serving on the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, I have been tempted to try my luck in seeing whether I can remain in order for at least five minutes.
I am glad to see the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) present. He is now elevated to higher climes. I remember his speech at the beginning of the debate on the Address when he was taking a trip around Colchester. He did that very nicely, but he omitted the part of his constituency I knew best. I think it is now called a corrective establishment. It was known differently in days past.
The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. Antony Buck): May I just say what a good job seems to have been done at the MCE?
Mr. Concannon: Many would not agree. However, we are debating matters related to discipline. The debate could have been broader and about the forces as a whole, as it used to be. I have been trying to recollect what I was being disciplined for at one time or another in my service. I should have thought that anything went then. At one time or another I was in trouble over various matters.
We are discussing whether the Acts should be continued for a further year, and obviously no one would disagree with that. I concur wholeheartedly with all that has been said in the House today about our forces in Northern Ireland and the disciplinary situation there. As a young guardsman involved in the situation in Palestine and Egypt and places such as those, I know what a terrific strain these situations can put on young Servicemen who are in them for the first time. When troops are at full stretch, they become irksome and tired. To a great extent, however, they are not always trained to the highest pitch of performance.
I recollect some of the nasty accidents that used to happen in places overseas, accidents not only between civilians and troops but also between the troops themselves. These were things beyond the normal machinations of the day. They were attributed to complete over-stretch, at times when the forces were having two hours on duty and two hours off, sleeping where they could, in their uniforms, with rifles tied to them, and so on. In such circumstances their ability to think and react 100 per cent. is impaired.
I am glad that the tour of duty of our troops in Northern Ireland is for only a short spell; the shorter the better. I do not think it could be shortened any more than it is at present. But there will always be a few incidents. What surprises me is that there are not many more. All the offences being alleged against our troops in Northern Ireland concern the normal thing one expects in this sort of confrontation. I am glad the Minister said the number of offences occurring in Northern Ireland is steadily decreasing. I think he said that they had decreased by half.
What worries me is the disciplinary end afterwards. I am becoming perturbed about the manner of the discipline that soldiers are having to take

727
in these circumstances. Many young men join the Army intent on making it a career. At the tender age of 18 they are thrown into a situation such as that in Northern Ireland. For one mistake, through tiredness or irksomeness, they find themselves in trouble.
Mr. Robert C. Brown: I am glad that my hon. Friend has mentioned the strains and tensions, particularly in a place like Northern Ireland. Would he not agree that the young soldier, aged about 18, who was fined £30 by his commanding officer for swearing at a civilian who had been taunting him was treated in a manner which was a little over the edge?
Mr. Concannon: These may be isolated cases, but they are part of the symptoms I have mentioned.
I am more perturbed about the ending of a young man's career at the age of 18 or 19, and that of the long-serving soldier who has, perhaps, seven or eight years' service and who suddenly finds himself accidentally, through the pressures in Northern Ireland, on a charge. I am amazed that such men are now being discharged from the Army for offences which the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) would agree at one time would have meant a belt on the ear from the RSM or a fortnight in the guardroom. I am worried about the number of people whose careers are being ended through this kind of thing.
Quite a few of my friends are still in the Regular Army and give me information about morale in Northern Ireland. I have encountered and spoken to our troops there. The morale of our troops serving in Northern Ireland is of the highest order. It always has been and it probably always will be, following the long tradition of the British Army.
I repeat my point that during difficult times such as these I should like to see generosity exercised towards a man who comes up for punishment and whose Army career is at stake because of one slip.
8.10 p.m.
Mr. Ian Gilmour: Some of the points which have been raised in this debate will be better dealt with in correspondence. If
728
I tried to deal with some of the other points now, I should be unduly straining your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in view of the remarks you have made about the rules of order.
The most charitable explanation of the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) is that he felt hard up for something to say because of the strict limitations on this debate. It is not true to say that less information has been given on defence matters over the last few years. Much information has been given. Much more information is being given by the present Government to the Sub-Committees on Defence and Foreign Expenditure than has been given by any previous Government.
Both the hon. Gentleman and I have studied the constitution. For the hon. Gentleman to try to make a constitutional point about this matter having been debated a week ago in another place is carrying matters very far. The fact that the rules of order in another place are more lax than those here is nothing to do with the Government and does not affect the House of Commons.
The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) found from talking to Ministers in the Labour Government that they had difficulty in knowing what was going on because the Secretary of State was the only one who knew. The communications are much better in this Government than they were in the past evidently.
Mr. Dalyell: I did not say that the communications were bad. I said it was a question of the authority with which Ministers in this peculiarly sensitive Department felt entitled to speak. That is rather different point.
Mr. Gilmour: I appreciate that. Equally the Secretary of State, knowing the realities in the House of Commons, is prepared to delegate his authority for making announcements and answering questions to his representative in the House of Commons.
Mr. Hattersley: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the point I made was not made in any frivolous spirit or in terms of party debate. The complaint I made at the opening of my speech was the same one that I made at 2.40 p.m. on

729
behalf of some of my hon. Friends who felt that they had received less than courtesy in one of the Minister of State's replies. A similar complaint was made by one of his hon. Friends. The only thing that unites the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and me is our belief that the information coming from the Minister of State and his colleagues has been inadequate.
Mr. Gilmour: It has been a recurrent complaint under every Government that the Defence Department and other Government Departments do not give the House enough information. The facts bear out my contention that the present Government have given rather more information than previous Governments.
I assure the hon. Member for Spark-brook that recruiting was down by only 10 per cent. on last year. The decline is roughly what we expected. It would be silly to make an exact prediction of our expectations month by month. We neither strive for nor achieve exactitude.
The hon. Gentleman was unduly alarmist in talking about re-engagement rates. I do not think they have fallen. The hon. Gentleman may have been misled by the Royal Air Force, which has purposely reduced its re-engagement. The hon. Gentleman is on to an important point, however, because we all agree that re-engagement and reduction of wastage are every bit as important as maintaining recruitment.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about pay, a subject on which, in deference to the original ruling, I did not embark. The hon. Gentleman asked me to be staggeringly precise. This is what I will aim to be. The hon. Gentleman asked me to say that if the pay review body recommended a pay increase next April we would certainly implement it, whatever the Government's pay policy was at that time.
The full two-year period will not be up until 1974, so we cannot be sure that in 1973 the pay review body will recommend a pay increase. As we do not know that and as we do not know what the position will be with the Government's pay policy at that time, I cannot be more staggeringly precise in my answer.
730
The hon. Gentleman also talked about complaints, as did the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) from a rather different angle. The hon. Member for Mansfield talked in an understanding and experienced way about the over-stretch from which our forces in Northern Ireland are likely to suffer.
The Army is in a difficulty about investigating them. We understand the considerable importance of investigating complaints. The analogy with the police force has been used. Where possible we like to act on that analogy, but there is a considerable legal difficulty.
We investigate individual complaints. I draw a distinction between the individual and the general complaints. The general complaints are sheer propaganda and nonsense. A minor incident is normally exaggerated by people who magnify it into a great drama. It then becomes an alleged civil offence. It therefore has to be referred to the civil authorities and the Army cannot investigate it because it becomes sub judice. Some of the propagandist attempts by people complaining about the Army take matters out of the Army's jurisdiction.
I entirely agree with what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) said about the high standards in the forces, though I do not think I can follow him into East of Suez and Harriers.
It will be best if I write to the hon. Member for West Lothian about the case to which he referred without naming it.
Mr. Dalyell: Certainly.
Mr. Gilmour: On the question of the discharge of sewage, I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Royal Navy will have no difficulty in determining the appropriate penalty for any convicted polluter.
Mr. Dalyell: Do I detect any note of complacency? The Ashby Committee has specifically drawn attention to the naval requirement that for some reason it should be excluded from the pollution laws that are to govern the rest of shipping. If that is the situation the case must be made out, at any rate in peacetime, for excluding the Navy. It should be for the committee, not an individual hon. Member, to make that point. When it comes to the debate on the Third

731
Report of the Environment Committee I shall be raising the matter and I hope that the Ministry of Defence will take avoiding action.
Mr. Gilmour: That is an important point and no one will seek to dispute it. I was seeking to suggest, however, that it was not a subject suitable for detailed scrutiny in tonight's debate.
The hon. Member spoke about informing next-of-kin of casualties and he suggested that the news should be broken by a personal call on the next-of-kin. That is often done. We take great trouble in these distressing cases and sometimes a policeman or a member of the unit calls personally. It is impossible, however, to avoid casualties being reported, and once they have been reported great anxiety is naturally created for other families. There is therefore a real difficulty here. We are doing what we can and we are taking into account everything that has been said.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson) asked about the reserve liability of officers who are made redundant. Those officers will have the same reserve liability as other officers who leave the Service. They will get a proportion of their pension, that proportion being related to their length of service. As my hon. Friend suggested, this is a continuing process and it will take a number of years. If there are any further points which I should have dealt with but have not taken up. I shall write to the hon. Member.
Mr. Wilkinson: Can my hon. Friend, with the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force, consider expanding the training commitment of the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve in case some of those who have such a reserve liability want actively to be able to pursue at least some of their former RAF skills?
Mr. Gilmour: I take note of what my hon. Friend says, but I cannot pursue the matter now.
The debate was concluded on a very good note from the back benches by the hon. Member for Mansfield, who spoke most understandingly about the difficulties of our forces in Northern Ireland and the troubles they have to deal with. I
732
believe that he exaggerated the number of people who have had to end their army service because of what has happened in Northern Ireland. I shall, however, compute the figures and let him have them later.
Mr. Concannon: I was not directing my remarks on this aspect specifically to our troops in Northern Ireland. The same thing happens to a great extent in BAOR and places like that. I was outlining the stresses and strains generally for all our Armed Forces.
Mr. Gilmour: I thought the general drift of the hon. Member's remarks was that the stresses and strains were greater in Northern Ireland than elsewhere.
Although it has been a narrow debate and there has been criticism of the Government and the Ministry of Defence, there has been no criticism of our Armed Forces. I believe this to be indicative of the general esteem in which they are held.
Mr. John Morris: I was unable to hear the Minister's earlier speech, but I do not want to let the occasion pass, having sat through 10 or 12 Sessions of the Select Committee, without taking up one of the questions we asked in the Committee. I refer to the situation in the Armed Forces in relation to drugs we were given assurances in the course of our inquiries. In my experience offences in the Armed Forces do not run exactly parallel with those in civil life which I have to deal with from time to time, but there is a certain degree of parallel. I am sorry to give the Minister such short notice, but I believe that there is a problem and I do not think the matter is as happy as I was told it was in the Select Committee.
I have just returned from speaking to Servicemen in distant parts of the globe. Is the Minister entirely happy about the situation? Can we declare a clean bill of health or has the Minister applied his mind to whether there is a full and proper knowledge about whether a problem exists? The armed forces of other countries certainly have a problem on a major scale. If the Minister is able to tell us that there is no problem in our Armed Forces, I shall be perfectly happy with that.
Mr. Gilmour: I should be making an exaggerated claim if I said that I had

733
applied my mind very closely to the problem. I have not. As far as I know, we have a considerably smaller problem than some of the armed forces to which the right hon. Gentleman has probably been referring. I should like to give him a considered reply but as far as I know there is no reason for undue concern. I should be very surprised if the situation was not very much better in the Armed Forces than it is anywhere else.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 1972, a draft of which was laid before this House on 31st October, be approved.

ARMY, AIR FORCE AND NAVAL DISCIPLINE ACTS
  ADJOURNMENT
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. John Stradling Thomas.]

CAROLINE DESRAMAULT
8.26 p.m.
Mr. Robert C. Brown: I am grateful to Mr. Speaker for having allocated the time to me to raise again the scandal of the case of baby Caroline Desramault. When I took the matter up on 29th March 1971 little did I think that here tonight, exactly 20 months later, I should have to go once more through this painful business.
The inhumanity heaped on the head of Linda Desramault and baby Caroline started on that dark day of December 1970 at Gosforth magistrates' court when Mrs. Peile, Chairman of the Bench, and Mr. Mitchell, her fellow magistrate, perpetrated what is now regarded by many of my fellow citizens as being as great an injustice as has ever been perpetrated in the name of justice. Mr. Mitchell has had the good sense as a magistrate to refrain from comment on the case. Mrs. Peile has been brash enough to give an exclusive interview with a national daily paper and then addle-headed enough when interviewed by Mr. Dan O'Neil, of the Sunday Sun, Newcastle, in reply to his question
"If you had this case before you tomorrow, Mrs. Peile, what would you do?"
to say
"I would do exactly the same again."
734
That was clearly a deliberate snub to the Lord Chancellor, who had condemned the magistrates' decision out of hand. We can possibly overlook a snub to the Lord Chancellor. But worse, it was a direct snub to the Court of Appeal in London, which had reversed the magistrates' decision.
It is reasonable to assume that the Lord Chancellor sought from Mrs. Peile a denial of the statement, to avoid the necessity of removing her from the Bench for gross contempt of the High Court. I find it remarkable that, having denied the veracity of the Sunday Sun report of her remarks—only after I had publicly stated that I intended to seek for the Lord Chancellor an undertaking that he would remove her from the Bench as an unfit person to sit in judgment on others—Mrs. Peile has taken no action against the newspaper or Mr. O'Neil.
I know both Mr. O'Neil and the editor of the Sunday Sun personally as highly respected journalists. I have no reason to doubt the truth of what Mr. O'Neil caused to be published on that Sunday a few months ago, with the full consent of his editor.
After the High Court decision giving custody to the mother, Mrs. Desramault flew to France in February 1971. There she was met by a defiant René Desramault, who said that the baby was his to keep. He started divorce proceedings in April 1971. On 7th May at Versailles we had the judgment of Solomon, custody being awarded to mother and father on a three-monthly basis. But on 17th May, the day that Linda was to have her three-months' custody, René took the child into hiding.
On 8th July 1971 the Paris High Court gave full custody to Madame Desramault, the baby's grandmother, with an instruction that social and background reports be prepared for a further hearing at Versailles to decide finally on the custody of the child. I thought, "This is it. Now we shall have progress to a just decision." But months went by with no indication of any request to the authorities to prepare the reports demanded by the Paris court.
On 27th January this year I wrote to the Prime Minister, saying:
"No doubt you will recall the case of the baby Caroline Desramault who is at present in the custody of her French grandmother.

735
In July, last year, a Paris court ordered social and background reports on Caroline's parents to be prepared for the consideration of the court in a future hearing as to the custody of the child.
To date, no instructions have been received from France by the French Consul in Liverpool. It really does smack to me of almost inhuman disregard for the feelings of this very brave British subject, Linda Desramault, that the French authorities should be so callously treating this very serious matter so completely frivolously.
I really do think that the human suffering inflicted on Mrs. Desramault should not be prolonged longer than need be. I hope that you would agree and that you would use your good offices to bring some pressure to bear on the French authorities to get some movement in this very sad case."
The Prime Minister replied that even discreet inquiries could give the appearance of interference by us with the French courts, and might produce the wrong result. Really! It is almost unbelievable that a British Prime Minister should allow a foreign State to be so lacking in basic humanity in the dispensation of justice for one of our own subjects, and not be prepared to make a discreet intervention on her behalf.
I possibly had a little sympathy with the Prime Minister then, because I realised that he was desperate to get this country into the EEC, and he did not want to run the risk of causing any offence to President Pompidou on any issue.
I then had an audience at the French embassy with the No. 2 to the ambassador, and protested at the lack of action. Finally, the necessary reports were prepared. I am not suggesting that my intervention with the French embassy brought that about, but that might be the case, because I had quite a favourable hearing by the ambassador's deputy.
Dame Irene Ward: I was worried about the length of time taken. People were inclined to say that our consul in Liverpool was being slow, so I rang up the French embassy and spoke to the counsellor. He explained to me something that I did not know, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not know, that the arrangement in the French courts is that before a request can be made to a consul it must go from one court to another, and that that had caused the delay. It was also suggested to me that perhaps some solicitors in France take
736
longer to get a case from court to court than others do. Therefore, the delay was nothing to do with our consul at Liverpool, who acted as soon as he could.
The hon. Gentleman has taken a great deal of trouble over the matter. I also rang up, only to be assured for myself and Mrs. Desramault that there was no delay on our part. I was very glad to discover the reason for the delay, distressing and disturbing though it was.
Mr. Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention on behalf of my constituent. There was no question of any delay by our consul, it was the French consul at Liverpool who was at fault. The hon. Lady can talk from now until the cows come home about solicitors to-ing and fro-ing, but nothing can excuse the fact that it took 12 months to obtain the social and background reports on these two parents, ordered by the Paris High Court. It was 12 months before the Northumberland County Council Children's Department received the request from the French consul in Liverpool.
I have talked to many lawyers in this country and every one of them has assured me that had such instructions been given by the British High Court, six weeks at the outside would have elapsed before the reports were with the court. If it can happen in this country, then no matter how different the French system may be, nothing can account for the 12-month delay.
Dame Irene Ward: I am sorry to intervene again, but that was not the advice that I was given by the French embassy. I do not want to repeat what I was told but it was said that the French solicitor who had been employed by Mrs. Desramault had been very slow. I have always been on very good terms with the French embassy and the French consul could not have been nicer and more co-operative. He said that that was the law of France and it had to be observed. I was not talking about solicitors in this country but about French solicitors, who must follow the French routine, which is very unfortunate.
Mr. Brown: I feel that the hon. Lady and I are getting at cross purposes.
Dame Irene Ward: Not at all.
Mr. Brown: If the hon. Lady catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, she can make her point.
Following my intervention at the French embassy I was still awaiting the hearing at Versailles. I was so angry by this inactivity of the French that I wrote to the French President on 14th May as follows:—
"Dear Monsieur Le President,
You will no doubt have heard about the case of the baby Caroline Desramault.
I will not waste your time in recriminations about the disgraceful delays in dealing with this case by the authorities in your country, which have angered many people in the United Kingdom.
Now that social and background reports on the parents of Caroline which were called for by the Paris Appeal Court last year have at long last been completed I appeal to you in the name of humanity to use your good offices to expedite a custody hearing at Versailles Court in order that the future of this child may be finally settled.
I do assure you that any action on your part to bring to a conclusion the long saga of events in the life of this very young child will be very much appreciated by a great many British people."
Whether M. Pompidou ever received my letter I do not know, for I have yet to have the courtesy of an acknowledgement. However, lest I am accused of being discourteous to the French President, I accept that through the vagaries of the GPO or the French postal system he may never have received my letter.
On 4th July Linda Desramault had the joy of a hearing in France awarding her the full custody of Caroline from 7th August. In the interim period her husband appealed and lost, and on the day of the hand-over he again went into hiding with the child, only to be traced on 8th September in Switzerland. It is to the credit of the Swiss that they, unlike the French, have provided Caroline Desramault with some security, which she has never known since December 1970. Nevertheless this judiciary took over two months to decide not to decide; in other words, to leave it to the Court of Cassation in Paris to make the final decision on the appeal—which is an appeal on an appeal. That was an almost inhuman decision. Had the Swiss court upheld the decisions of our High Court and a French High Court, both of whom had awarded full custody to Linda, there the matter would have ended.
738
Instead, there is now the outrageous position that a man, in clear contempt of the High Court of his own country, having kidnapped the child to avoid acceptance of the court order, is to be allowed, blessed as he is with the Swiss court non-decision, again to appeal. It is outrageous that this situation should ever have been allowed to develop. This position has been reached as a direct result of the idiosyncracies of the law and lawyers in three countries. This sad child has lived in three or four countries, in numerous houses, with numerous people, in her short two-and-a-half years. No one can say with certainty that she will not be severely psychologically scarred or maladjusted in later life as a direct result of the inhumanity of man.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Edward Short)—the deputy Leader of my party—for agreeing to go with me on a further visit to the French embassy last week. I am grateful, too, to His Excellency the Ambassador for meeting us personally. He was most helpful and I sincerely hope that out of his intervention there may be some progress.
On the day I went to the French embassy—a fortnight ago today—I tabled a Question for the Prime Minister for reply today. Before tabling the Question I spent a great deal of time wading through Questions, correspondence and my last Adjournment debate—and the First Assistant clerk at the Table also spent a considerable time—to be sure that we could clearly pin the Question to the Prime Minister. The Question is:
"To ask the Prime Minister if, following his earlier undertaking to find out what help and advice could be made available to Mrs. Linda Desramault in France, he will, in the light of recent developments in the case, make further inquiries both in France and in Switzerland."
The First Assistant Clerk at the Table is far more expert than I am at pinning a Question to a particular Minister, and we were quite sure that the Question was pinned to the Prime Minister. At the end of eight days he announced that he was switching it to the Foreign Secretary, so the Question now reads:
"To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, following his earlier undertaking to find out what help and

739
advice could be made available to Mrs. Linda Desramault … he will make further inquiries …"
But the Secretary of State had never given any earlier undertakings to find out what help and advice could be made available to Mrs. Desramault. It was the Solicitor-General who, in replying to my Adjournment debate 20 months ago, undertook to see that his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister would seek to find out what was requested in the Question.
I take a dim view of the fact that the Prime Minister sought to wriggle out of a Question because of its embarrassing nature. Nevertheless, I do not want to create any animosity towards the Prime Minister personally. I wish to appeal to him in the interests of simple humanity. The answer given to that Question was a stereotyped one which read as follows:
"The matter is one for the courts."
I am not prepared to accept the reply that the matter is one for the courts. I am prepared to believe that if this regrettable case had happened in this country, the Lord Chancellor would have had a word in the ear of the Lord Chief Justice and said, "Public opinion is absolutely outraged at the delay in this case. Get the case brought forward quickly." I have no doubt that this would not have been a case of the executive interfering with the judiciary because, in the final analysis, the judiciary has to decide the matter. I am suggesting that the same thing could be done as between Prime Minister and Prime Minister.
I want to put to the Prime Minister that, in the interests of simple humanity, he should show some compassion and make a diplomatic intervention with the French Government so that a special hearing of the Cassation Court can be heard quickly, so that little Caroline Desramault can be reunited with her mother in Newcastle for Christmas, 1972. Let us not allow this appalling case to drag on for one day longer than is necessary.
8.47 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Anthony Kershaw): We know the sad history of this child. It started, as the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Robert C. Brown) said, on
740
7th December, 1970 when the justices at the West Castle Ward Petty Sessions in Northumberland awarded custody of Caroline Desramault, then seven months old, to the French father and, furthermore, in such a way as to permit him to remove her forthwith from the jurisdiction of Her Majesty.
I appreciate that there is some conflict of evidence as to whether or not an application for a stay of execution was properly made. However, much of the trouble would have been avoided had a stay been granted. It cannot be too often stated or too widely known that the desirability or otherwise of granting or rejecting a stay of execution pending appeal should always be canvassed at the close of proceedings involving the physical control of a young person.
Mr. Brown: I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned the stay of execution. This morning I was up at the crack of dawn at the Public Bill Office and just missed obtaining a Ten-Minute Bill. I intend, if I possibly can, to introduce a Bill to make it mandatory for magistrates to impose a stay of execution of 14 days so that the child concerned will not be allowed to go outside the jurisdiction of the British courts until there has been time for an appeal. I hope that the Government will support me in this matter.
Mr. Kershaw: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will be very interested to hear that, and I have no doubt he will take note.
It should also be borne in mind that an appeal from a refusal to grant a stay can be made to the High Court, even by telephone. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for calling attention to this matter in case it could be overlooked.
However, those things did not happen. We now know that the justices were wrong. I do not question their good faith. The hon. Gentleman with his involvement in the matter, seems to attack one magistrate in particular almost as a matter of personal vendetta, though I do not suppose that he means to give that impression. But save that, of course, he differs from the decision, he has not been able to give any example or instance of impropriety or incapacity

741
on the part of the magistrate, and I think that his interpretation of the magistrate's action, under the absolute privilege which we enjoy in this House, begins to be—how shall I put it?—a bit much.
The court's decision was reversed, but too late to affect the result, as Caroline was by that time in France. Once in France, Caroline is for all purposes a French citizen. Technically it is correct that only the French authorities can state definitively whether she is a French citizen. But, so far as we can tell, she has dual nationality from her French father and from the fact that she was born in this country, so that while in France she is French, and while in the United Kingdom she is English.
We have no right under international law and custom to make any representations to the French about jurisdiction over Caroline while she is on French territory, any more than we have about any other French citizen.
The hon. Member said that Mrs. Desramault is one of us. So she is, when she is here; but equally I have hardly any doubt that, when in France, she is French by virtue of her marriage to a Frenchman, unless—I have no exact information about this—she specifically renounced French citizenship before her marriage.
We have, therefore, a situation in which both the mother and her child are French citizens while in France. All we can do is what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said he would do, and what was done, namely, to arrange for the embassy in Paris to give general help and, in particular, to advise Mrs. Desramault on a choice of lawyer in France.
The hon. Gentleman has rightly rehearsed some of the chronicle, but I think that it would not be otiose if I did the same. In April 1971 Mrs. Desramault instituted proceedings in the French courts at Versailles. In May, 1971 the court made an award giving to each parent alternate three-month periods of custody—a judgment of Solomon, as the hon. Gentleman described it. Mr. Desramault appealed and in July 1971 Caroline was placed in the custody of Mr. Desramault's mother.
Mr. Brown: A delightful lady
Mr. Kershaw: I am sure she is. In May 1972 Mr. Desramault quarrelled with his mother and took the child away from her. In June that year the children's court at Bethune gave him the custody of the child, with visiting rights to the mother. However, in July 1972 the court at Versailles gave custody to Mrs. Desramault, with the right to take the child to England, which seemed to be all Mrs. Desramault wanted. The father appealed to the Paris Appeal Court, which upheld the decision of the court at Versailles, but, as is well known, he then disappeared with the child and later reappeared in Switzerland.
When Caroline was found, the Swiss authorities placed her in a children's home. Mrs. Desramault applied to the Swiss court in Lausanne to enforce the order of the French court in her favour. But on 14th November last the court decided to await the verdict of the French Court of Cassation to which Mr. Desramault had meanwhile appealed.
It is not for me to make any comment about the legal systems of other countries. It is a luxury which the hon. Gentleman was able to allow himself. Perhaps I should say that we often in this country complain of the law's delays, but it will be admitted that other legal systems seem also to have their delays. It seems that we have little of which to be ashamed.
Both France and Switzerland are parties to The Hague Convention of 1961. France has ratified the convention. It came into force between the two countries on 10th November 1972, only four days before the decision of the Swiss court. One purpose of the convention is to give primary jurisdiction in cases relating to the custody and protection of children to the State where the child habitually resides—that is to say, in this case France. No doubt the Swiss court had regard to the convention. This country is not a party to the convention because in our law the welfare of the child is the first and paramount consideration. We have our doubts whether the convention is compatible with that consideration.
The increasing number of cases relating to the custody and wardship of children which arise across frontiers in these days of international travel and of marriage between spouses of different nationality

743
have made it appropriate to examine the matter. The House may have noticed that the Law Commission established a working party in May, 1972 to consider the difficulties arising on custody orders, both in the British context and in the international context. Its terms of reference enabled it to consider the administrative problems involved in the enforcement of custody orders across jurisdictional boundaries. The working party has started work and the Law Commission will probably produce a paper sometime in the middle of 1973.
Her Majesty's Government have taken another initiative in the custody and wardship of children. At the seventh conference of Ministers of Justice held in Basle in May, 1972, the United Kingdom proposed an item for the agenda of the conference, which read as follows:
"Ways of improving co-operation in the guardianship and custody of children with particular reference to the mutual recognition of judicial decisions."
After discussion, including an interesting proposal from the French delegation for a form of "mixed arbitral tribunal" with judges from the two countries concerned, the subject was referred for further examination to the European Committee on Legal Co-operation, which is called CCJ. The CCJ is meeting next week and will consider further action.
The position now is that there is no provision for the reciprocal enforcement of custody proceedings. The differing social habits and views of family life held in different countries have up to now prevented such provisions from coming into being. However, a start is being made and Her Majesty's Government are active in the matter.
At the moment, therefore, there can be no doubt that this is a family dispute which is being legally and properly pursued in the courts of the appropriate countries.
Mr. Brown: I am not suggesting that the case has not been properly dealt with while in court, nor that the Prime Minister should play this matter up into an international incident and break off diplo-
744
matic relations with France or anything else of the sort. But I am suggesting that it is not too much to ask for a discreet Government-to-Government inquiry to guarantee that the hearing which is necessary by the Court of Cassation in Paris takes place and takes place quickly. Surely that is not too much to ask.
Mr. Kershaw: The hon. Gentleman is very persuasive. But I am sure he will recognise that in international and diplomatic relations it is necessary to abide by the rules. I can assure him that if we officially approached the French—we cannot do it unofficially, since one cannot divest oneself of one's capacity as a Minister in these matters—they would be perfectly entitled to think it a slight on their way of doing things, quite apart from the fact that they themselves may feel that they too are not entitled to influence their courts as to the way they conduct their business.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that his words tonight and his calls on the French Embassy in furtherance of his case have done far more good than it is possible for the Government officially to do in such a matter as this. This is why I welcome the debate, in which the hon. Gentleman has been able to express himself so frankly and freely. I have no doubt that the French authorities will take serious note of what he has said, but it would not be appropriate and would be counter-productive if Her Majesty's Government were to make any official démarche about this matter.
The question of whether one would be influencing the courts was dealt with in the previous debate on the subject by my right hon. and learned Friend the present Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs, who was then Solicitor-General. I do understand that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting a tactful word and not an attempt to tell the French their business. Nevertheless, this is perhaps a slippery slope upon which I would prefer my right hon. and learned Friends the Law Officers to comment rather than myself. We all hope that those who now have the jurisdiction and have the power to shape little Caroline's life and happiness will judge well.

LONDON TRAFFIC CONGESTION
9.2 p.m.
Mr. James Wellbeloved: The tragic subject of the Desramault family has been ably put to the House, and I join with the Under-Secretary of State in paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Robert C. Brown) for the tenacity of his fight for justice for Mrs. Desramault. My hon. Friend will understand the reasons why, under parliamentary procedure, I do not follow him in talking about that case.
I want to pursue another matter on the Adjournment. My subject is something which has leaped into the headlines of the evening papers tonight—the traffic congestion in the central London area and the extraordinary behaviour of the Prime Minister. I must say that I am amazed that the Prime Minister is not in the House to take part in the debate. If in the middle of the night he can snatch up a telephone and get through to Tokyo, surely he could have dragged himself away from whatever function he is attending to be present in the House to give expression to his new-found concern for the people of London.
Every day for years the people of this great metropolis have suffered. I say this in no party political sense, because they have suffered under successive Governments. They have suffered because of inadequate public transport facilities. They have waited patiently for bus and train in cold weather and in wet; they have waited patiently in the queues for transport to work and back home. This is to say nothing of the housewives, their shopping bags brimming over with the family food, with both themselves and the food being thoroughly soaked while they wait in growing anger and frustration for the bus to arrive.
The Prime Minister and I both represent constituencies in the London Borough of Bexley. In the right hon. Gentleman's constituency, Bexleyheath suffers from the same disadvantages as my own. It has an inadequate, overcrowded train service on the Bexleyheath and Dartford line and on the North Kent line which runs through my constituency and takes in the new town of Thames-mead. It is no secret that the sudden
746
creation of the new town will put an even greater burden on the already overburdened North Kent railway line and, despite all the promises made from 1965 until now, there appears to be no new provision being made for those additional travellers who are being brought to live in Thamesmead.
The Prime Minister and I suffer from another disadvantage. Those who use the train services to London seem unable to get from their homes to their nearest railway stations without using their private cars for the journey. Once they have got to railway stations they park their cars outside other people's homes. Around Bexleyheath station in the Prime Minister's constituency and around Barnehurst station, the roads are crammed with commuters' cars which are parked there all day.
Mr. Robert Cooke: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will concede that the railways, both the Metropolitan and Southern Region, are making tremendous efforts to provide more parking for those who prefer to leave their cars at railway stations and travel by train. Great progress has been made in recent years.
Mr. Wellbeloved: Certainly progress is being made. It is surprising, however, that the Prime Minister has not taken an earlier interest in the matter with a view to making progress a little faster. It appears to have taken the situation in which he found himself yesterday to produce his sudden late conversion. In his constituency there is a tremendous amount of car parking in residential streets near railway stations providing train services to central London. All our constituents who live near those stations know the frustration and anger that the Prime Minister must have felt last night when he could not get from this House to his other house just along Whitehall.
Mr. Robert C. Brown: I commend my hon. Friend's initiative in raising this important issue. But he must be aware that the Southern Region of British Railways has quite major plans for the South-Eastern area which will bring badly needed improvements. However, those plans need finance. If the article in the Evening Standard is to be believed,

747
should not my hon. Friend be questioning the liberal lashing out of public money—the squandermania at £1 per minute—to telephone Sir Desmond in Tokyo?
Mr. Wellbeloved: My hon. Friend is just a few sentences ahead of me. I shall be coming to that important point very soon in my brief remarks. However, I wanted first to impress upon the House and the Prime Minister—assuming that he condescends even to read the report of this debate—the difficulties and frustration from which those whom he and I represent have suffered for a very long time.
Sir Elwyn Jones: My hon. Friend will be aware of the additional anxiety that is created in areas like West Ham by the parking of huge commercial vehicles, their accumulation on our roads, and the danger of many tragic accidents, which do occur, with children rushing out from between parked vehicles. This problem constitutes a major nuisance in our areas.
Mr. Wellbeloved: It does indeed. My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. I have no doubt that the Under-Secretary will say something about heavy lorries using the roads of London and causing the dangers and delays to which my right hon. and learned Friend referred.
It is sad that the Prime Minister has only just awakened to this problem because he suffered personal inconvenience. That is the tragedy of the situation. He wanted to get from this House to Downing Street and, because of congestion outside, was unable to get there by car. If reports in the Press are correct, the poor chap had to do what lesser mortals who inhabit this great metropolis do each day if they cannot get to their destinations by wheel—walk. As a result, the Prime Minister flew into a fit of rage.
I wonder what the Under-Secretary, in his former position as spokesman for the Police Federation, would have said if somebody who had been frustrated because of traffic congestion blew his top and tore a strip off the first available policeman. The hon. Gentleman would quite rightly condemn that member of the general public in this House. I hope that tonight the hon. Gentleman will
748
express regret that the Prime Minister vented his anger upon a serving police officer—the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police—[Interruption.] If he did not, I am sure the hon. Gentleman will make it clear that the Press has got it wrong. I am relying for the claim that this is what he did on reports which have already appeared and are no doubt correct. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will put us right.
Mr. Robert Cooke: The hon. Gentleman has already admitted that the only evidence he has is a newspaper report. He will know that newspapers are not always quite accurate in what they say. If I catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, perhaps I might say something about that.
Mr. Wellbeloved: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to make whatever condemnation he wishes of the Press. In my view, the Press serves a useful purpose in defending the rights of individual citizens against the type of Government from which we suffer today.
Mr. Cooke: The hon. Gentleman knows that we all defend the freedom of the Press to say exactly what it likes; but the Press sometimes gets its headlines crossed. I shall seek to prove that the Press can be very wrong, even on a matter like this.
Mr. Wellbeloved: The Press certainly have not got the facts wrong about the telephone call. I hope that no one will dispute that that took place.
What an example this kind of behaviour by the Prime Minister is to the people we represent in this House. The Evening Standard, one of the papers that no doubt the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) dislikes—
Mr. Robert Cooke: No. It is a jolly good paper.
Mr. Wellbeloved: —states:
"Angered, frustrated and inconvenienced the Prime Minister demanded that Sir Desmond should make an explanation and take quick action to improve conditions."
Angered, frustrated and inconvenienced has been the lot of our constituents for a very long time.
I find the Prime Minister's behaviour quite extraordinary. This is the Queen's First Minister, the man who, if this

749
country were faced with a grave international crisis that called for an immediate response, would have his finger on the trigger, the man who can blow his top, grab a phone and make a call to Tokyo. This is the kind of man in whom we have to repose our trust to react to a crisis.
Mr. Robert Cooke rose—
Mr. Wellbeloved: I shall not give way again. The hon. Gentleman can make his own speech in his own time without being provoked too much by me.
The Prime Minister is the man on whom this nation has to rely to respond in a moment of crisis. What about poor Sir Desmond? What a flutter must have gone through his breast when, in his hotel room in Tokyo, the phone rang, he picked up the receiver and a voice said, "Sir Desmond, I have a call for you from the United Kingdom, from the Prime Minister himself." Sir Desmond must have thought, "What honour is about to be conferred upon me? Am I to become a member of the Government? Do they want yet another lame duck to join them? Or am I to become a peer in the New Years Honours List?". Poor Sir Desmond. With great expectation he picks up the phone and says, "Yes, Sir, it is I, Sir Desmond. I am here" and then, Voomph! the Queen's First Minister tells him the facts of London life and the troubles—
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): I hate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman's romance, but he should know that the Prime Minister himself made no telephone call.
Mr. Wellbeloved: Indeed! Perhaps it was some poor unfortunate civil servant or, worse still, perhaps it was the hon. Member for Richmond, Surrey, (Mr. Anthony Royle) phoning on his behalf. We know not. Whether Sir Desmond heard the voice of the Prime Minister himself or that of one of his servants matters little. Poor Sir Desmond. How distraught he must have been to discover that the call was only from the Prime Minister's Office, if that be the fact.
That is the purpose of having an emergency debate of this nature. When one reads in the Press about this sort of thing happening, and when one finds
750
that the Prime Minister appears to have taken leave of his senses, the purpose of raising the matter in the House is to give one of his Ministers the opportunity, if there has been a misunderstanding or a misquotation, to come to the Dispatch Box and put forward the official version of what happened, and I hope that the Minister will be able to do that this evening. If the facts as reported in the Press are incorrect, I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that I am doing a service to the Prime Minister by giving his junior Minister this early opportunity of putting on record the facts of the situation.
I hope that the Government Whip sitting alongside the Under-Secretary of State will not have the kind of difficulty that the Prime Minister had and blow his top because of inconvenience or frustration at having to sit silent while this debate takes place.
Mr. Gordon A. T. Bagier: The Under-Secretary of State said that the Prime Minister did not make the telephone call, or that he had nothing to do with this. I wonder whether my hon. Friend would invite the hon. Gentleman to accept responsibility for somebody very important in 10 Downing Street, because, according to the report in the papers
"Sir Desmond telephoned orders to County Hall soon after his brush with Number 10. Metropolitan Police and GLC traffic experts immediately started preparing recommendations for action."
All this because the Prime Minister could not walk more than 400 yards. I wonder whether my hon. Friend would invite the Minister to say whether that was the reaction to some junior person, or whether the call was made on behalf of the Prime Minister himself.
Mr. Wellbeloved: The hon. Gentleman will no doubt reply to that when he winds up the debate. I do not envy him the task of replying on behalf of the Prime Minister. I suppose we should say that the Prime Minister's sudden conversion to the problems of London traffic congestion and his irrational response to it are matters of humour, but the difficulties which Londoners face every day are not humorous—they are very serious indeed.

751
I want therefore to leave the Prime Minister for a few moments—no doubt some of my hon. Friends will want to come back to him—and examine some of the solutions to this problem which we all face in the London area. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) has already referred to heavy lorries. The vast increase of container traffic passing through London and to premises in London has contributed dramatically in recent years to the ever-increasing chaos and congestion in the Metropolis. I am therefore delighted that the House agreed, without a Division, this week to oppose the European Community's desire to inflict even greater monsters upon us.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Did my hon. Friend notice that, according to the newspaper he quoted, the report of the police was that at the junction of Bridge Street and Victoria Embankment a lorry breakdown caused long delays to traffic in Parliament Square and the Westminster area generally? Is he aware that not only lorry delays but loads which fall off lorries are a major cause of congestion in London? It was unfortunate, or perhaps fortunate, that the Prime Minister was delayed by that sort of incident yesterday.
Mr. Wellbeloved: We await with great interest the Minister's version of the facts of the delays that we in London, and the unfortunate Prime Minister in particular, suffered yesterday. It may have been primarily due to the lorry which broke down just round the corner. I have heard another version—that the chaos this week has been due to the experiment in Oxford Street conducted at the express wish of the GLC. Perhaps the Minister will be able to throw some light on that.
These monster lorries have been the major cause of the increasing congestion and chaos. I hope that the Government will stand by the clear wish of this House that if the Community's desire for 40-tonners should be resolutely resisted and that if the Community is unwise enough, two weeks before we join it, to impose this regulation, the Government will make it clear that we will not operate it and that it will be unacceptable to the British people and to this House.
752
I turn to the other major factor in our considerations tonight, the delays and the costs involved in public transport. It seems that we shall never even begin to solve the problems, to remove the frustrations and to quell the anger of Londoners unless we radically review the system of public transport in the metropolis. The Greater London Council has been considering this matter and has put forward some very novel ideas for discussion. One of those ideas has been that public transport in London should be free.
A major contributory factor to congestion is people—I plead guilty to this myself—who travel to work by car, with only one person in the vehicle. We congest the roads. But why do we have to use our cars? We have to use them because of inadequate transport and because of the delays suffered by public transport—delays to which we contribute and which we worsen by the use of our private cars. Many people are using their private vehicles because, if they are fortunate enough to have a parking place, it is sometimes cheaper than travelling by public transport. So there is much to be said for the idea that travel by public transport should be free. This would have the great benefit of maximising the number of people who would return to the use of public transport and forgo their private motor vehicle.
Mr. John Hall: The hon. Member will be aware that an experiment with free public transport was carried out in Rome not very long ago and that it proved to be a dismal failure.
Mr. Wellbeloved: We may not share all the characteristics of our new-found friends in the EEC. I should want to see an experiment conducted in this country before I was prepared to say that it was not a good suggestion that we should have free, or at least heavily subsidised, public transport. It may be that, rather than making transport free, as a public service it should have a contribution from public funds in order that it may have both low fares and high efficiency without having to depress the wages of those who serve in the industry.
I am always frightened that if we move into these new areas of trying to deal with London's traffic problems, and if we are to have a free or heavily subsidised

753
service, it may well be those who are employed on the service who have to contribute to that subsidisation. That would be an unacceptable scandal.
I want briefly to refer to the Press reports this evening, and in particular to the response of the Greater London Council to the Prime Minister's outrageous outburst. Mr. Horace Cutler, the Deputy Leader of the GLC, said in a Press statement today:
"The trouble is that we have asked for stronger enforcement powers and while the Government agree in principle, they say that because the parliamentary machine is congested they cannot find time for the necessary legislation."
It may well be that the hon. Member for Bristol, West is right and that the Press has got the GLC and Mr. Cutler wrong.
Mr. Robert Cooke: I never said that.
Mr. Wellbeloved: That is the impression the hon. Gentleman is giving.
Mr. Cooke: Only to the hon. Member.
Mr. Wellbeloved: For the purposes of the Under-Secretary's reply, let us assume that the Press is accurate and that that statement is a correct statement by the Deputy Leader of the GLC. Let us apply the test to the Prime Minister's sincerity. The anger the Prime Minister reflected last night may well not have been based upon his response to personal inconvenience. It may well be that in the short walk from the Houses of Parliament to No. 10, he underwent a conversion to the understanding of the suffering and the problems of Londoners.
If so, the Prime Minister must give time for the House to debate and approve the legislation which the Greater London Council says it requires. If the Government do not provide time this Session for the Council's proposals to be considered, they will be showing that they do not care for the frustration and the suffering that Londoners have endured with a patience that appears to be completely foreign to the Prime Minister.
The Government's duty is clear. If the Under-Secretary is to put any gloss upon the Prime Minister's extraordinary behaviour, he must tell the House that time will be found to respond to the Greater London Council's plea for legislation to be considered in this Parliament.
9.32 p.m.
Mr. Robert Cooke: I rise to address this packed House of eight, supported by a large number of hon. Members who are waiting to catch their trains to their constituencies for further work at the weekend, and to comment on one or two things that the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) said and, I hope, to follow him in some of his suggestions for relieving the traffic difficulties in central London on which we would all like to see progress. Indeed, certain progress has been made.
Some of the hold-up that occurred yesterday may have been due to an experiment in other areas having adverse effects elsewhere.
Because I interrupted the hon. Gentleman at the beginning to ask him how he could justify some of the wilder things he was saying about my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the hon. Gentleman tried to attach to me all kinds of things which, first, I did not say and, secondly, I do not believe. Without wishing to go over again the newspaper report which the hon. Gentleman flourished at the House, I should say that it is obvious that several of the inferences which the hon. Gentleman drew even from the newspaper report could not in fairness possibly be drawn by anybody except someone who wanted to make a good knockabout turn, which the hon. Gentleman certainly did—and I am sure that we greatly enjoyed it. I hope that those who read the reports of it will keep their sense of humour about the whole thing, certainly about the way the hon. Gentleman handled the matter.
I do not wish to get involved in going over again what is alleged to have happened with regard to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, except to say that it is quite inaccurate to interpret the alleged reactions of a Minister of the Crown, if indeed the Minister of the Crown reacted in the way the newspaper suggested and the hon. Gentleman alleged, by suggesting that the person was reacting merely because of personal inconvenience. I cannot believe that any Minister or any hon. Member, certainly not the hon. Member for Erith and Cray-ford, reacting in a case of public frustration has ever reacted because of his own

755
personal attitude. It has always been because of the greater good of the greater public.
The hon. Member sought to suggest that I, because I have questioned the accuracy of certain things which he read out or to which he referred, was suggesting that the Evening Standard is a thoroughly inaccurate newspaper. I did not do anything of the sort, except to say that all newspapers are inaccurate at times. The Evening Standard is a great paper and it has done an enormous amount to make people better aware of the environmental problems of central London.
Last week I had the privilege in an Adjournment debate to speak on the subject of the improvement of the whole of the area of Whitehall and Parliament Square, the creation, as I hope, of a greater Parliament Square and a traffic-free precinct. I made a brief speech and the Minister for Housing and Construction replied to the debate and he conceded gladly all the points which I and my hon. Friend were making, points which are supported by a large number of people outside. As a result of what he said, all of historic Whitehall is now to be preserved.
I do not complain that when the Evening Standard reported this matter it did not even mention my name. It is glory enough that these buildings are not to be destroyed. The Evening Standard devoted a centre page spread to the subject. It said "Saved" and there were pictures of the buildings. We hope that the Evening Standard will conduct admirable campaigns in the future and I look forward to its support. But, oh, misery! This week, continuing the Whitehall saga on page 31 of the Evening Standard of Tuesday 28th November 1972, the headline said "Whitehall Disaster". It said:
"While delighted with the Department of the Environment's decision to preserve new Scotland Yard, Richmond Terrace and other famous Government buildings, I think the character and appearance of the Embankment will be altered disastrously by the proposed demolition of Whitehall Court ".
Everyone knows what Whitehall Court looks like. It has the appearance of French chateau and it can be seen across St. James's Park. It has a magnificent
756
skyline and is listed as a protected building and there are no proposals for its demolition. Yet the Evening Standard said that it was to be demolished. As if that were not bad enough, the article appeared under a picture of the War Office. This little story illustrates how easy it is for a newspaper, bent on publicising a matter of public interest, to seize upon a particular thing and to make a magnificent story out of it.
I have no complaint about it. It is all good clean fun. It is good journalism. Newspapers can print what they like, thank heaven, although many Labour Members would wish it otherwise, and a lot of them would wish that the television and broadcasting media were more closely controlled.
Mr. Wellbeloved: I hope that in his excursion from Bristol to London the hon. Member will not get the idea that this is meant to be a humorous debate. It is very serious because the GLC has said how it believes the traffic problem can be eased and it has said that this would be possible if the Government provided parliamentary time. I hope that before the hon. Member resumes his seat he will join London Members in demanding of his Government that time should be provided for these essential matters.
Mr. Cooke: The hon. Member said all that in his own speech. He is perfectly entitled to say it again because we have plenty of time and he knows that I am serious about the matter. I have referred to the less serious aspect of his speech and he must realise that the rest of his speech was hardly serious and deserves to be treated with a certain amount of humour. I have made the point that last week we won a great victory and that now we shall see a great enhancement of the Whitehall area.
I return now to the serious point about the unfortunate state of the traffic, although yesterday there were exceptional reasons for it. But the lesson to be learnt is that an unexpected happening can cause difficulties, as we all know. This happens in our other cities, including Bristol. What I shall say in a moment has a bearing on every great city's problems. An unexpected happening can result in great trouble for many people, not just for those who have to walk a few yards. It will not do anyone any harm to have to walk a

757
few yards; most of us walk a few yards to this Palace many times during the week.
There is one serious point to be made about the traffic congestion, which has a bearing on last night. I happened to traverse—if that is the right word—Parliament Square at about the time when the alleged action might have been initiated because of the conditions that existed there. There is no question of their being merely alleged. I counted 10 large, friendly London omnibuses, and I looked carefully inside each one. I had plenty of time to do so, because I was in a motor car stuck in the Square. Not one of those buses contained more than three passengers, and some were empty. It is no good certain people—I shall mention no names—complaining about lack of parliamentary time or of funds to deal with the matter, because parliamentary time is not required to reschedule the buses.
Mr. Bagier: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the Prime Minister should have caught the bus?
Mr. Cooke: That intervention is not worth referring to.
The point is—here I return to the question of inconvenience to the public—that a certain amount of reorganisation is obviously necessary. We have all seen what happens in our big cities with heavy vehicles. The public services are much at fault. Even if they are free of charge, people do not seem to use them. We see the public service juggernauts blocking up the roads. It does not require more money or parliamentary time to examine that problem.
Mr. Robert C. Brown: The hon. Gentleman asserts that public service juggernauts, as he calls them, are blocking the roads, and that even if they were free people would not make any more use of them. How can he make that assertion? We have never tried free public transport, even experimentally, in London.
Mr. Cooke: It has been tried elsewhere. I do not think that the GLC requires parliamentary time to make the buses free on a particular day. There have been experiments, and the lesson has been that people do not necessarily use the services.
758
I come to a concluding point, because there are no doubt other hon. Members who want to catch the eye of the Chair and, I hope, to make a serious contribution. I am sure that on one will disagree with this last point. We all want to see the area of Whitehall, Parliament Square, historic Westminster and its surroundings greatly improved. We all know that, whatever the argument about what is said in a certain newspaper, the area is being destroyed for the people who try to live and work here, and, perhaps even more important, for the millions of visitors from abroad who come to the area, the heart of the Commonwealth. It is being destroyed by traffic, both heavy through traffic and local traffic.
There could be more co-ordination of the efforts to deal with the problem. That would not require parliamentary time. It would eventually require money, but only when the right decision had been made. The people concerned must be the GLC and the Westminster City Council. Although successive Governments have believed in local authority freedom to decide local matters, perhaps the time will come for the Government to give more of a lead, because we cannot get rid of the traffic from the area without making adjustments elsewhere, without producing a number or underground routes to take it away from the surface and separate it from the pedestrians.
A number of suggestions have been made. One was a riverside tunnel along the side of the Palace of Westminster. It does not seem to be much in favour now. A tunnel buried in the centre of the river might be a possibility. Perhaps we might have a debate about it before very long. Certainly, we are making a little progress in building the highly controversial underground car park on our very doorstep. This is not a selfish whim of Members of Parliament. It is part of a series of underground car parks and roadways which could remove a great deal of the surface traffic. It would be a valuable contribution to the amenities of the neighbourhood.
Somehow we have also to provide a through route for the traffic which now surges through the Square. Often we are stymied in our considerations by the position of the underground railway. I do not believe that sufficiently serious considera-

759
tion has been given to the possibility of following the railway route for the vehicles and diverting the railway in perhaps a rather tighter curve.
Possibly we could have the road route on the same site as the railway but at a different level. There are a number of studies which ought to be done to see what can be achieved. Obviously it would be fatal for the nation—I do not say Parliament—to say that Westminster and Whitehall is so historic and splendid that we must push the traffic out of it and make everyone else's life a misery. We have to try to get something to go underground.
That could be carefully and successfully done over a period but at present there is perhaps not enough detailed planning. Here the Government and the local authorities can help us. If necessary, we could have a triumvirate. I do not expect my hon. Friend to say very much about this, but perhaps he can give us a little encouragement. We never get anywhere in this House if we try to do something on our own. We need a certain amount of support, perhaps even across the Floor of the House. Perhaps hon Gentlemen, when they have forgotten about this imaginary incident over which they are so excited, will combine with us in pressing those concerned, through local authorities and the Government, to take seriously this question of traffic, particularly in these historic areas. Who knows, perhaps all of us together may yet in this century achieve what we would all like to do.
9.47 p.m.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: All hon. Members will agree that the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) had a great success in the Adjournment debate last week. I too am sorry that the newspaper which reported this at length did not have the courtesy to say that the subject was raised by the hon. Gentleman. Who knows, but for the fact of the Adjournment debate the announcement may not have been made. The Adjournment is one of the great freedoms of this House, a freedom which I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) for taking up so avidly tonight.
The hon. Member for Bristol, West spoke of buses, with which I will deal
760
later. Perhaps, seeing those empty buses in the square, it did not occur to him that they might have been empty because they were returning to garages to be taken out of service after being fully loaded in the rush hour, or alternatively, having got gummed up in the square, like the Prime Minister, the passengers had decided that it was quicker to walk. Perhaps the point was not as valid as the hon. Gentleman thought.
Mr. Robert Cooke: I will not interrupt again because I must now catch my train to the West Country. If London Members study the London omnibus, that friendly juggernaut, they will find that all too often, not just in the evening—or for all I know the early morning—but on many occasions during the day, these delightful things are virtually empty. Something must certainly be done to reschedule them.
Mr. Spearing: I will deal with the buses later, perhaps when the hon. Gentleman has left to catch his.
My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford said that the Prime Minister had suffered this frustration. Perhaps he did not realise when he mentioned the question of time that in the Evening Standard report the matter to which Sir Desmond Plummer or his colleague was referring was that of fines for cars that are towed away. I cannot see why the House should be concerned in terms of time with an increase in these fines.
Many orders are passed by the House "on the nod" and I doubt whether it would be necessary for such orders to be taken on the Floor. The Government could make the orders almost immediately if the matter of fines for tow-away cars was important, as I fancy it is.
I should declare an interest in that I am a co-opted member of the GLC Environmental Planning Committee, whose responsibility it is to see that London traffic flows properly. In 1966 I was co-opted to the Highways and Traffic Committee.
I am glad that the Prime Minister has experienced something which ordinary people experience. He might be a much better Minister of the Crown if that experience were extended to many other frustrations which affect ordinary people.

761
The Prime Minister lacks knowledge of how ordinary people live; otherwise he would not have said and done many of the things he has said and done in the last few years.
In the next few months the Minister and his right hon. Friends will have to take important decisions on London planning, London traffic, the degree of support that should be given to public transport and road plans. The Greater London Development Plan panel report will be on their desks between now and the New Year and they will have to take many important decisions.
The policy of the Government and the GLC is that if anything can be done as well outside London as in it, a firm wishing to move should be allowed to go. That policy leads to a great deal of difficulty which is not unconnected with traffic congestion. I am glad to say there will be a wide-ranging debate on the future of London on 15th December because I have been fortunate enough to draw a place in the Ballot for Private Members' Motions that day. Representing as I do a London constituency, I shall initiate a debate on London matters, which many hon. Members will welcome.
The Prime Minister does not realise that, by and large, congestion in London is not continuous. For most of the time the traffic flows relatively freely. There is congestion, which may be serious, at certain places at certain times, sometimes predictable, sometimes unpredictable. It is unpredictable because most congestion in London is not caused by traffic. At first hearing that sounds an extraordinary statement, but six or eight months ago the GLC published a technical paper on the congestion of the West London traffic area, which is controlled by a computer in Scotland Yard physically connected to all traffic lights within an area of between three and four miles. The conclusion from that study was that most congestion was caused by incidents such as broken-down lorries, lorries which lose their loads, causing part of the road to be closed, traffic lights which go wrong and emergency repairs to roads, gas mains and water mains. Those are the things which cause traffic build-ups and congestion that floods back.
The GLC has been relatively efficient in its traffic management schemes. Traffic
762
moves faster, although it may have to go slightly further through one-way streets. But the more efficient is the use of road space, the greater the difficulty when something goes wrong. If something goes wrong, the capacity of the road cannot be made up. Therefore, an incident that occurs at three or four o'clock in the afternoon may have repercussions all through the evening, particularly when the weather is wet and the traffic goes more slowly.
The unfortunate experience of the Prime Minister last night—by no means new to Londoners—may not be able to be avoided, however many computers are installed. It is a rule of life that some lorries and cars will break down and that some traffic lights will go out of order. The more efficient the road system, the more serious the delays become.
This does not disguise the seriousness of the problem outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Cray-ford. We all tend to forget that the car has to fit into an area which was built hundreds of years ago, or much of it in Edwardian times when people used horse-drawn carriages when they wanted to move about. Too many cars are trying to get into a small area and it will not work. This problem was perhaps burked and not tackled properly by Professor Buchanan in "Traffic in Towns"—a report which I believe was not as good as it was made out to be. It is not just a question of motor cars or traffic in towns but is a question of human movement in towns. If some people are to be privileged by parking policies to be able to use their cars, other people must be able to use other means of transport with equal facility. This has not happened in London because neither the Government nor the GLC are wedded to a policy which would make this possible.
Mr. Maurice Edelman: This is an interesting point. Perhaps I may tell my hon. Friend that I was involved in the problem last night because I was trying to proceed to the House of Commons along Park Lane. The habitual problem in that thoroughfare is that the road serving a whole sequence of hotels is used to set down and pick up visitors and for parking by privileged people. In other words, instead of the road being an artery it is a blocked

763
and congested passageway which has no direct relevance to the passageway that it should be, with freedom of movement for through traffic. This is a purely administratively matter which I believe could be prevented by the intervention of the Minister.
Mr. Spearing: I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman), but the problem is not that simple. It is not only a matter of the size of the road, because I am informed that even a large motorway can take only about 3,000 passenger car units per hour—perhaps 4,000 if one is lucky. The problem mentioned by my hon. Friend about parking control has now been brought to the Prime Minister's attention. In London at present we are controlling by parking policies, perhaps with only partial success, the number of vehicles in the centre. This presupposes that parking policies can be enforced. At the moment this policy is not being enforced as well as it might. For that reason we have heard much about parking fines and tow-away fines.
My hon. Friend has not yet grasped the point. Generally speaking, it is only the privileged who are able to ride around in cars in London. The Prime Minister was privileged, as are many hon. Members, in being able to drive out of the gates of the Palace of Westminster from what was our car park into the street. A high proportion of people who drive cars in London are not doing so entirely at their own expense. A recent study carried out by London Transport showed that a high proportion of drivers were driving their cars aided by some form of business expenses. Certainly very few people who travel on buses and other forms of public transport are on expenses most pay for their travel out of taxable income. Therefore, to begin with, anybody who is using a car in London is a privileged person, and this is something which the Prime Minister might like to consider—although he perhaps takes his privilege almost for granted.
The alternative to public transport which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford will work only if the differential cost between public and private transport is favourable to public transport—and it is not favour-
764
able at present. A man can take his wife and children with him in a private car in London much more cheaply than if lie travels by public transport, particularly by rail, the cost of which is penal. We are encouraging people to travel by car because, once a car has been acquired, travel by it is cheaper.
It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Goodhew.]
Mr. Spearing: That is the problem to which both the GLC and the Government have not yet addressed themselves. Until recently, Sir Desmond Plummer, despite his protestations to the Prime Minister, has tried to run London Transport on a commercial basis, and only in the last few weeks, I believe, has he seen the light. He is performing some sort of somersault, if we are to believe the Press reports. He has waived the £2 million profit which he wanted London Transport to make, and he is relieving it of certain costs. Also—I speak subject to correction—I believe that there is a Press statement to the effect that fares will not go up next year.
I am delighted to hear it. Sir Desmond Plummer takes a bit of time to educate, like the Prime Minister, but he is learning. I hope that the Government will learn from him, for their attitude to the transport problems of London has so far been as illogical as Sir Desmond's We cannot run a healthy city society unless people can move about with relative ease, with relative cheapness, and with regularity and reliability. Certainly, the buses have not got that, whatever the hon. Member for Bristol, West may say, and, in my view, London Transport is grossly at fault in that respect. However, I shall not develop that point now.
We cannot, as I say, run a healthy community unless free and relatively cheap movement is possible. There are ways by which it is possible to fund public transport, particularly the railways, ways which would make it much cheaper to travel by public transport, albeit slightly less conveniently, perhaps, and at a slightly longer travelling time, so that we could have a physical balance between

765
public and private transport, so that the pressure to use one's vehicle would be less than it is today, and the sort of difficulties of sudden congestion as experienced by the Prime Minister last night would not become more frequent but would remain much the same or, perhaps, even decline in frequency.
To that end, hon. Members opposite will have to change their political philosophy regarding movement in towns and cities. If I am right in my impression, I discern signs that Sir Desmond Plummer in County Hall, with his responsibility for London Transport, is now being a little more realistic about it. If that be so, if he changes his policy before next April—which he will have to do if he has any hope of returning to power—he will also have to change the policy so far exhibited by his friends in the Government.
I am delighted that the Prime Minister has tasted a tiny bit of the frustrations of London life. My constituents have to wait an hour for a bus. They do not know when they will see a bus. This is the sort of frustration which not thousands but hundreds of thousands, or even millions, experience. On the tape tonight, the Prime Minister is quoted as saying that he intervened personally on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of people who experience these terrible delays. He ought to know that many more times the number who experience occasional delays in cars, most of which they are not paying for, experience delay by bus. They are the people for whom the right hon. Gentleman should be concerned.
I hope, therefore, that our Prime Minister's difficulties will have contributed to the conversion not only of Sir Desmond Plummer, who is already half converted, but also of the Government, for without a healthy city life and without healthy transport we cannot have the healthy community life which all hon. Members on both sides want.
10.5 p.m.
Mr. Gordon A. T. Bagier: I hesitate to enter the debate at this stage, being a North-Easterner, but I confess to an interest in the matter slightly different from that of my hon. Friends who come from London. I was amazed at the instant reaction, so to call
766
it, which took place because our Prime Minister experienced some delay.
Because of the accident of timings in this place, we now have a debate on the very disturbing feature of transport in London. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will take note of the fact that probably the main cause of the delay last night was perhaps that a lorry had broken down. Part of the problem that we have in London and throughout the country is that lorries are gradually snarling up our roads and making progress difficult, while British Rail operates with great line capacity available. During the five days in which I am in London each week, I have cause to know that the problems in London are very disturbing. The delights of travelling by car in the North-East should prove a great attraction to anyone who wants to go there.
However, I am disturbed by some of the remarks which have been passed and the headlines in tonight's Evening Standard. I am not calling in aid as being the gospel truth everything that appears in the newspapers. We have all had our moments from them. But two eminent journalists, Robert Carvel in London and Simon Jenkins in Tokyo, get together to produce a headline which says
"Snarled-up London—Heath blows his top."
I wish I had been there as I should have liked to see it happen.
The hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) said that we must not believe everything that we read in the press. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will see the article which says:
"Angered, frustrated, inconvenienced, the Prime Minister demanded that Sir Desmond Plummer should make an explanation and take quick action to improve conditions."
The Prime Minister made his demand at midnight, which is 7 a.m. in Tokyo. He got in touch with Sir Desmond because he could not get by car from the Palace of Westminster to No. 10 Downing St, a distance of all of 400 yards. Poor soul!
I can understand the frustration of the Table when some of us have tried to table Questions asking whether we might have a chiropody service in the House or whether the area can be flooded so that we can have a yacht freeway between

767
the two places. The Prime Minister's anger was caused because he was prevented from making the great walk from here to there. I do not suggest for one moment that he is too idle to do so. But the fact is that at that time of night—we must also consider that some poor old-age pensioners do not have such money available—the Prime Minister can spend £1 a minute, or somebody else on his behalf can do so, in telephoning Tokyo. I hope that the Under-Secretary will say whether he made the call himself or whether he got somebody else to do so.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: A telephone call was made costing £1 a minute, yet the same Prime Minister, whose uses taxpayers' money for that purpose, refuses to allow those who have complaints against price rises to be allowed the cost of making a telephone call to report those rises. Will the Prime Minister now change his mind about that? Will he let these people have transferred charge calls to London to make their complaints?
Mr. Bagier: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. No doubt he is quite right. It is a question of getting activity. If the personal frustrations of the Prime Minister result in activity, so much the better. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman gets stuck in a queue of unemployed people in my constituency. If he does, he may do something about it. He may activate matters by making a telephone call and doing something about it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved), probably introduced the frustrations of the Prime Minister in a light-hearted manner. But with all his frustrations and with all the important matters in the world, the Prime Minister can suddenly seize upon a matter like this and get on the telephone to Tokyo. It is a sad reflection on a Prime Minister who has to do that.
Is it true, as reported by those two eminent journalists, that the Prime Minister was so frustrated and inconvenienced that he made this call or initiated a call? It is also true that the reaction of Sir Desmond was to telephone orders to County Hall soon afterwards and give orders that the Metropolitan Police and
768
the GLC traffic experts should immediately make recommendations for action? If this is the effect of such things on the Prime Minister, the sooner we see him in the unemployment queue in Sunderland, for example, the better, and the sooner we get him in traffic congestion in Birmingham and elsewhere, the better.
10.10 p.m.
The Under Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): The hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) moved the House by his great concern for the poor people of London. The House is always moved by his anxieties. He spoke about the housewives with their brimming shopping bags soaking in the rain. He spoke about long lines of his constituents waiting for buses. As always, the House was deeply moved by his eloquence.
I wondered why it was, when his heart was bleeding for the housewives with their soaking shopping baskets, that he did not raise this matter before. I pondered for some time on why it was that on this particular evening he felt he must come to the House and share his distress with the rest of us. Then he gave me that answer. He said he had been forced to bring the matter to our attention because the congestion of London had leaped into the headlines. I would not like to suggest for a moment that he seeks to get into the headlines, I know that he himself would have no wish to do so. He is a shrinking violet. But it happened on this particular evening that his concern and anxiety for the housewives with their sopping shopping baskets rent his heart and he came here to raise the whole matter.
Mr. Wellbeloved rose—
Mr. Griffiths: I must get on for a little while. The hon. Gentleman based his speech on what he has read in the newspapers.
Mr. Arthur Lewis rose—
Mr. Griffiths: I will give way in a moment. I have had some little experience in journalism myself, and I am bound to say that as I listened to the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford I thought that I would prefer him, if I were an editor, to be writing fiction and not news reports. What he had to say—

769
and I think he knew it himself—was largely fiction and romance, although he put it in a very fetching manner.
In replying to the many points, serious and comical, which have been made, I must start with an expression of regret that so many of our fellow citizens are inconvenienced by traffic delays. We all of us regret this undesirable side effect of an affluent society, where the very motor cars which have given us mobility and a certain measure of liberation, also cause us a great deal of frustration and annoyance. So I start by expressing my regret to those people in London last night and, indeed, on any night that they should suffer inconvenience from traffic delays.
Secondly, I must say at the outset that in indicating his dissatisfaction with the traffic congestion in the centre of London, and in particular in the area of Parliament Square, Whitehall and the West End, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was quite properly expressing the sentiments of millions of people. Certainly he was expressing the views and feelings of all of us here who live and work in this part of London.
The hon. Member said that my right hon. Friend was a London Member. So he is, and a very good one. I think that many Londoners will share his feeling that something needs to be done to improve the traffic situation which Londoners suffer.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: Will the Minister now give way?
Mr. Griffiths: Yes.
Mr. Lewis: I support the Prime Minister in his action. I only wish that he had acted 12 months or two years ago. The Minister is aware that hon. Members on both sides of the House for years have tried to get his Department, the Home Office and the Government to carry out the present law, which would help relieve the position. Persistently they have refused. Lorries are parked on the pavements outside the front doors of my constituents' homes. I take the matter up with the police, the Home Office and the Department of the Environment. Nothing is done. Millions of pounds in fines are outstanding. Nothing is done about it. A third of the total number of cars on the road should not be there because they
770
are neither taxed nor insured. Nothing is done about it. If only the Government would put 0·1 per cent. of the effort that they put into, say, industrial relations into doing this part of the job they are paid for, they would solve the problem tomorrow.
Mr. Griffiths: I promised the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) that I would give him an opportunity to intervene if he did not catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, before I did. I think that the hon. Gentleman has done that—
Mr. Lewis: Deal with my point.
Mr. Griffiths: I shall come to the hon. Gentleman's point at an appropriate stage in my speech.
I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, together with my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Minister for Transport Industries, will have the backing of the whole House in seeking, together with the Greater London Council, ways and means of resolving or at any rate ameliorating what successive Governments and successive London council's have found a most intractable problem. The hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing) very properly indicated some of the parameters of this problem and I much appreciated his speech.
However, I must make clear the exact legal responsibility. The Greater London Council is the traffic and the highway authority. My right hon. Friends the Minister for Transport Industries, the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Home Secretary have no powers given them by this House to manage traffic or to build roads in the greater London area. They do not have responsibility for traffic management. It rests with the GLC. But it has not always been that way. There was a time when Ministers of Transport had responsibility for traffic and roads in the London area. However, this was taken away from them in 1969 by the Labour Government. Since then the clear statutory responsibility has lain with the GLC. Therefore, in putting questions to me hon. Gentlemen opposite should remember that it was their own Government which removed from Ministers the ability to control traffic in the London area.

771
I happen to agree that it was right to do that. It is appropriate that the Greater London Council should control traffic in London. But it comes ill from hon. Gentlemen opposite to seek to place responsibility on my right hon. Friends when it was their own Government which placed that responsibility upon the Greater London Council.
I want now to answer the points made by—
Mr. Wellbeloved: May I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Deputy Leader of the Greater London Council, Mr. Horace Cutler, made it clear in his Press statement today that he requires more powers? Will the hon. Gentleman make it clear that his Government will provide time for those powers to be granted by this House?
Mr. Griffiths: I shall come to that in a moment. I want to turn to last night's incident. I can give a first report of the information available to me about what happened to bring about this heavy congestion in Central London. It is subject to correction because there is still a good deal more information coming in from the police—
Mr. Lewis: Why the police?
Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Member for West Ham, North must listen—
Mr. Lewis rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister must be given a chance to reply.
Mr. Griffiths: I am giving the House the best information available from the traffic authority, the Greater London Council, and the Metropolitan Police. I have the police records before me and if the hon. Member for West Ham, North will do me the kindness of listening I shall tell him what the police have reported.
There were, as there always are when large congestions arise, a number of factors. One was rain. In rain more people use cars, they tend to drive more cautiously and therefore traffic bunches up. Secondly, it was rush hour. Unfortunately, in all rush hours there is a peaking of traffic demand. It was also a Wednesday evening. For a variety of reasons, with which I need not detain the
772
House, there happens to be more traffic in the West End of London on Wednesday evenings than on most other evenings of the week.
I have here the detailed traffic reports from the Metropolitan Police. The hon. Gentleman who asked what happened might be interested in what they say. There were 12 police units in the general area of Park Lane, Hyde Park Corner, Marble Ach and the West End. The report states:
"Heavy weight of traffic and the wet roads caused severe congestion in this area generally, centred on Hyde Park Corner. No specific cause was located, although during this period many parked vehicles were removed at police direction from Park Lane southbound. … Units assisted at junctions until traffic returned to normal. … All minor roads in the West End became congested."
—That is the report from the police units in that area.
Mr. Arthur Lewis rose—
Mr. Griffiths: No, I will not yield again. There are 12 police units reporting from Park Lane, Hyde Park Corner and the Marble Arch areas.
I turn now to those in the Vauxhall Cross area where there were eight police units. The report from those units—I read from the central traffic control report—states:
"Heavy weight of traffic and the wet roads caused severe congestion. … The southbound flow along Vauxhall Bridge Road tailed back into the Victoria system, causing congestion there which was not helped by the tailback from the Park Lane situation above. Westbound flow following the line of the River Thames was continuous and stationary for long periods. The majority of vehicles were making for the south and south-west and there was little tailback in the opposite direction. All bridges, therefore, tailed back for each southbound flow. In the case of Westminster Bridge"
—this is a crucial point—
"this was complicated by another situation causing a northbound tailback".
It arose from a traffic accident the specific accident which has been mentioned by hon. Gentlemen.
Mr. Lewis: Will the hon. Gentleman now give way?
Mr. Griffiths: I said to the hon. Gentleman that I would allow him to intervene if it happen that I caught your eye, Mr. Speaker, before he did. I think the House

773
will agree that I gave him the opportunity of a very long intervention. I hope he will now do me the courtesy of allowing me to answer the debate.
Mr. Lewis: May I ask one question?
Mr. Griffiths: No. I will not give way.
The particular incident concerned an articulated heavy goods vehicle which broke down in Bridge Street at the junction with the Embankment. I am sure the House will recognise that that is a critical point in the West End traffic. It caused considerable congestion. The police report states:
"This combined with the congestion stemming from Vauxhall Cross, resulted in the entire area becoming severely congested. Foot duty officers attempted to alleviate the situation at 1740, but by 1800 all traffic stopped. Foot duty officers manned all junctions under the command of Commander 'A' and other units assisted where necessary until traffic returned to normal."
The BBC was informed and was able to tell motorists not to proceed into that area. There can be no doubt that a very large traffic jam, caused by a variety of circumstances, brought much of the traffic, though not all, in the West End to a stop.
I must now try to deal with some of the points which have been put.
Mr. Lewis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Griffiths: I must get on. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was returning from this House to No. 10 to welcome guests at an official reception beginning at 6.30 p.m. He had to return to the House to vote at seven o'clock, and hon. Members will know that that is a very short time. The Prime Minister made no telephone calls himself to the police, to Sir Desmond Plummer or anywhere else. A call was made by a junior official, and these are the reasons why it was done. The Prime Minister has been concerned for a very long time with the conditions of traffic in the West End of London. Having seen these for himself on this occasion he asked of his staff where the responsibility lay. Thereafter his staff quite properly got in touch with the Metropolitan Police and asked for a report. That report was provided and the Prime Minister asked that the GLC should be informed of his concern.
774
The Prime Minister's staff did as they were bid, and I think the House will recognise that it is a normal courtesy of a senior Minister of the Crown, when he is making inquiries about the functions of a statutory body, to ensure that the head of that statutory body is informed of this concern. [Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite may shout as they wish but the important point is that the Prime Minister thought that the GLC as the traffic authority and the Metropolitan Police should be asked to look into what had happened and how it could be prevented from happening again if possible. He thought it right that Sir Desmond Plummer should know of the inquiries he had made.
It seems to me that the House will accept the Prime Minister's view that we simply cannot have a situation where the centre of the Metropolis is brought with increasing frequency to a standstill in this way. Plainly something has to be done and my right hon. Friend felt it right to make known his concern on behalf of the many thousands of people in London and the South-East who will be far more pleased that my right hon. Friend has expressed his concern on their behalf than they will be impressed by the interjections of the hon. Member for West Ham, North.
I must now deal with some of the more fundamental questions which the debate has thrown up. One of the reasons why there is congestion is that there are more motor cars. Another is that there are more lorries and more buses, particularly those bringing in tourists. There are many more people who are shopping and there is generally more pedestrian congestion in central London.
A number of proposals have been made to relieve this. One is that more should be done to assist public transport. I think the House will be glad to know that the present Government have been able to provide in the London area no less than £66 million to the LTE, plus more than £50 million to British Railways to assist in moving people and goods round the metropolitan area. No other Government have come remotely close to making such efforts and providing money in those terms.
There are no fewer than 30 bus priority lanes at various stages of planning in the GLC area. This Government

775
have provided new bus grants at the rate of 50 per cent. and a measure of fuel tax remissions as well. Beyond that there has been the Greater London Development Plan which provides for a substantial number of motorways and ringways. These have produced more than 20,000 out of 28,000 objections and I am interested to discover that the Labour Party has said that it would not have any of these ringways in order to reduce the traffic impact on central London. It is the Labour Party's privilege to say what it would not have but the plain fact is that its policy simply is non-existent.
With regard to lorries, we have taken substantial steps to reduce fumes and noise, to provide lorry parks and to provide recommended routes. I am sure that everyone in the House agrees that conges-
776
tion in our urban areas is a serious matter. I hope we can all agree that it is the duty of this House as a whole and of individual Ministers to seek to take steps to resolve the problem. But it cannot be solved overnight. Successive Governments have not managed to wave a magic wand and move the traffic. What is the fact is that this Government are concerned about congestion. We are doing more about it than any Government before, we have the support of the GLC just as it has ours, and a debate such as this, while it has helped to air the problems, has demonstrated—
The Question having been proposed at Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.

DEFENCE
  Armed Forces (Republic of Ireland Citizens)
  Armed Forces (Republic of Ireland Citizens)
  Berlin Airlift (Award of Decoration)
  Berlin Airlift (Award of Decoration)
  Ceremonial Occasions (Cost of Ammunition)
  Ceremonial Occasions (Cost of Ammunition)
  Army Pensions (Giro)
  Army Pensions (Giro)
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
  Low-flying Aircraft (Wales)
  Low-flying Aircraft (Wales)
  Honest John
  Honest John
  Nuclear Military Information (Exchange)
  Nuclear Military Information (Exchange)
  Pay
  Pay
  Aircraft Sales (Singapore)
  Aircraft Sales (Singapore)
  Nuclear Submarine Bases
  Nuclear Submarine Bases
  Research and Production Establishments
  Research and Production Establishments
  Sound of Raasay
  Sound of Raasay
  V/STOL Aircraft
  V/STOL Aircraft
  Warships (Waste Disposal)
  Warships (Waste Disposal)
  Egypt (Military Supplies)
  Egypt (Military Supplies)
  Defence Projects (Cancellation)
  Defence Projects (Cancellation)
  Polaris Fleet
  Polaris Fleet
  Catering
  Catering
  Deaths Overseas (Notification)
  Deaths Overseas (Notification)
  Showing the Flag
  Showing the Flag
  Royal Navy (Catering Fraud)
  Royal Navy (Catering Fraud)
  M.V. "Lasham"
  M.V. "Lasham"
  Nuclear Disarmament
  Nuclear Disarmament
  Catholic Ex-Service Men's Association
  Catholic Ex-Service Men's Association
  Royal Ordnance Factories (Machine Tools)
  Royal Ordnance Factories (Machine Tools)
  Helicopters
  Helicopters
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Probation Officers (Training Course)
  Probation Officers (Training Course)
  Magistrates' Courts (Interpreters)
  Magistrates' Courts (Interpreters)
  Not Guilty Pleas and Acquittals
  Not Guilty Pleas and Acquittals
  Deportion
  Deportion
  Commonwealth Immigrants
  Commonwealth Immigrants
  Greater Manchester Council (Electoral Boundaries)
  Greater Manchester Council (Electoral Boundaries)
  Scientology
  Scientology
  Artists' Materials (Lead Content)
  Artists' Materials (Lead Content)
  Licensing Laws (Erroll Report)
  Licensing Laws (Erroll Report)
  Police (Press Information)
  Police (Press Information)
  Ugandan Asians
  Ugandan Asians
  Stateless Persons (Permanent Residence)
  Stateless Persons (Permanent Residence)
  Homelessness (Newham)
  Homelessness (Newham)
ENVIRONMENT
  Building Contractors (Defence Contracts)
  Building Contractors (Defence Contracts)
  Roadbuilding Materials (Carriage)
  Roadbuilding Materials (Carriage)
  Housing Authorities
  Housing Authorities
  Bridges (Design Studies)
  Bridges (Design Studies)
  Council Houses (Purchase)
  Council Houses (Purchase)
  Betterment Levy
  Betterment Levy
  Thames Crossing
  Thames Crossing
  Housing Cost Yardstick
  Housing Cost Yardstick
  Labour-only Sub-contracting
  Labour-only Sub-contracting
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  France (Nuclear Tests)
  France (Nuclear Tests)
  Mrs. Linda Desramault
  Mrs. Linda Desramault
  Icelandic Fishing Dispute
  Icelandic Fishing Dispute
  Canada, Australia and New Zealand (Immigration)
  Canada, Australia and New Zealand (Immigration)
  Pakistan and Bangladesh
  Pakistan and Bangladesh
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  Uganda (Loan)
  Uganda (Loan)
  Overseas Aid
  Overseas Aid
  International Women's Year
  International Women's Year
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Legislative Programme
  Legislative Programme
PALACE OF WESTMINSTER
  Telephone Directory
  Telephone Directory
CIVIL SERVICE
  Departmental Information
  Departmental Information
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Retirement Pensions
  Retirement Pensions
  Welfare Foods and Health Charges Exemptions
  Welfare Foods and Health Charges Exemptions
  Hainault Lodge, Ilford
  Hainault Lodge, Ilford
  Retirement Pensioners (Rent, Heating and Lighting)
  Retirement Pensioners (Rent, Heating and Lighting)
  Lead Pollution
  Lead Pollution
  Commonwealth Immigrants (Births)
  Commonwealth Immigrants (Births)
  Census (Privacy)
  Census (Privacy)
  Thalidomide Children
  Thalidomide Children
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Concorde
  Concorde
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  North Sea Oil
  North Sea Oil
  Gas and Electricity (Connection Charges)
  Gas and Electricity (Connection Charges)
  Industrial Reorganisation Corporation (Investments)
  Industrial Reorganisation Corporation (Investments)
  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT
  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT
  TRANSPORT RESEARCH
  TRANSPORT RESEARCH
  CORRUPTION
  CORRUPTION
  IMMIGRATION (CORRESPONDENCE)
  IMMIGRATION (CORRESPONDENCE)
  REPUBLIC OF IRELAND (PRIME MINISTER)
  REPUBLIC OF IRELAND (PRIME MINISTER)
  FISHING INDUSTRY
  FISHING INDUSTRY
  PRIME MINISTER (GUILDHALL SPEECH)
  PRIME MINISTER (GUILDHALL SPEECH)
  OFFICIAL INFORMATION (DISCLOSURE)
  OFFICIAL INFORMATION (DISCLOSURE)
  WAGES AND SALARIES (ARBITRATION)
  WAGES AND SALARIES (ARBITRATION)
  WELFARE TRIBUNALS (LEGAL AID)
  WELFARE TRIBUNALS (LEGAL AID)
  NATIONAL EXHIBITION CENTRE
  NATIONAL EXHIBITION CENTRE
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Lamb Prices
  Lamb Prices
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Playing Fields
  Playing Fields
  Turner Collections (Admission Charge)
  Turner Collections (Admission Charge)
  Dearnley Primary School, Littleborough
  Dearnley Primary School, Littleborough
  Union of Women Teachers
  Union of Women Teachers
  London Allowance
  London Allowance
  Schools (Immigrants)
  Schools (Immigrants)
  School Buses (Inter-Borough Journeys)
  School Buses (Inter-Borough Journeys)
EMPLOYMENT
  English and Foreign Firms (Scotland)
  English and Foreign Firms (Scotland)
  Wales
  Wales
  Loddon Bridge, Berkshire
  Loddon Bridge, Berkshire
  Construction Industry
  Construction Industry
  Edinburgh and The Lothians
  Edinburgh and The Lothians
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Gross National Product (EEC and United Kingdom)
  Gross National Product (EEC and United Kingdom)
  Dollar Parity Depreciation (Compensation)
  Dollar Parity Depreciation (Compensation)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Hijacking
  Hijacking
  Motor Cars (Entry Permits)
  Motor Cars (Entry Permits)
  Emergency Services
  Emergency Services
  Casualties (Co. Armagh)
  Casualties (Co. Armagh)
  Visits by Members
  Visits by Members
POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
  Stereo Radio (North-East)
  Stereo Radio (North-East)
SCOTLAND
  Charities
  Charities
  Abortion
  Abortion
  Edinburgh Airport
  Edinburgh Airport

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

FRENCH AND RUSSIAN ARMS TESTS IN PACIFIC
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 they have protested to the Government of the Republic of France, on behalf of British colonial territories in the Pacific, against the projected explosion of a hydrogen bomb of megaton strength above Muroroa; whether they will initiate common action with the Governments of Australia and New Zealand on this matter; and whether representations have been made regarding the current Russian rocket tests in the Pacific involving the daily exclusion of ships and planes from the test area until the end of the year.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE): My Lords, the French Government are well aware of our views. We hope that France, in common with other countries that have not done so, will in due course accede to the Partial Test Ban Treaty of 1963 which prohibits nuclear testing in the atmosphere. It is not therefore necessary to take common action with the Governments of Australia and New Zealand.
Her Majesty's Government have not made representations about the current Soviet rocket tests. It is a recognised practice of countries from time to time to announce danger areas for such purposes on and above the high seas.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I welcome back the Minister and apologise for interrogating her so early? Is the Minister aware of the depth of feeling
1404
in New Zealand and Australia, as indicated by the announcement by the New Zealand Prime Minister that he will send frigates into the area with Cabinet Ministers on board, and a rather surprising endorsement of that by the temporary Prime Minister of Australia? Does this not show that if we wish to associate with New Zealand and Australia we should act with them in this matter?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, we voted for a resolution sponsored by New Zealand, Australia and Fiji at the United Nations which called for the suspension of all atmospheric nuclear tests, and in that way we took action with them.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, in regard to the second Dart of the Question, may I ask whether the Russian decision is not a repudiation of the freedom of the seas and of the air; and is this not a serious matter which our Government should take up?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I understand that international legal opinion tends to regard that particular practice as not unlawful by virtue of customary observance.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, did we hear the Minister aright in her first Answer when she said that it was because we hoped that France would sign the Test Ban Treaty that we were not taking common action with Australia and New Zealand? If so, what is the ground for the Government's hope that France will do that?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, we have no particular grounds for knowing that the French will immediattely accede to the Test Ban Treaty; but we took common action with New Zealand and Australia at the United Nations, and so far as we are aware France has not confirmed those particular tests.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, we are all grateful for the Answer given by the noble Baroness. We are aware of her humane attitude to these problems and of the difficulties that we all are in over this problem of the explosion of nuclear weapons. Would she not suggest,

1405
as a magnanimous gesture of the Western world, that instead of exploding its weapons in the Pacific Ocean and destroying the food and life of some of the people there, we use the Atlantic Ocean for a change?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, having just returned from a certain area of the Atlantic Ocean (and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Brockway for welcoming me back) I do not think, despite the difficulties, that I would go quite so far as has been suggested.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, would not the noble Baroness agree that it is extremely unlikely that the Government of France will accede to the Partial Test Ban Treaty of 1963? Can she tell us whether Her Majesty's Government have made any representations to the French about this latest in the series of nuclear tests in the Pacific?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, we have not made any specific representations because, as I said in my original Answer, our views are well known and because the French Government have not yet confirmed that these tests are to take place. If there were any question of tests taking place, we should certainly do as we have done in the past—consult the French authorities—because we have a duty of health monitoring in relation to our dependencies.

LEAD POLLUTION AND HEALTH
3.13 p.m.
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what new plans they have to reduce pollution from lead.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, the Government have already announced plans for the progressive reduction of the lead content of petrol, for the reduction of the permissible amounts of lead in baby
1406
foods, and for the reduction of the lead content of writing implements and other household articles. All these measures will reduce significantly the quantity of lead to which people are exposed.
Research into many aspects of lead pollution is continuing: there are at present some fifty Government or Government-sponsored projects under way, including surveys of airborne lead at roadside sites in five major cities. The Government are also concerned about the possible dangers of lead contamination in the vicinity of lead works, and have encourage the relevant authorities to investigate the situation around works for which they are responsible. As your Lordships know, my right honourable friend is examining this problem urgently and will be announcing such further measures as may be necessary as soon as possible.
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, may I thank the Minister for that voluminous reply, and may I redirect his attention to the original Question, which asks for the new plans that the Government have to reduce pollution? Could he, for example, illustrate the activity of the Government by telling us what is going to be done for the future protection of children from lead?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, the particular regulation that affects children is the regulation enforcing the reduction of permissible amounts of lead in baby foods.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, as the noble Earl who answered the Question about lead yesterday appeared to take the matter less seriously than the noble Lord who has answered to-day, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, always to answer Questions about lead? It would be much more helpful.
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, could the noble Lord explain why, of the nine surveys of lead pollution announced by the former Minister for the Environment earlier this year, none was connected with children and young people; and whether he really feels that this small token advance in the case of lead in baby foods is enough to protect children in youth from processes which can cause permanent brain damage?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, it may seem a small matter but the fact is that the hazard to human beings from ingested food is much greater in the case of infants; and if you take steps to regulate and reduce the maximum perm content of lead in baby foods you re acting in an important sector.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, is the noble Lord asserting that the only way in which infants imbibe lead is through baby foods? Do they not breathe?
LORD SANDFORD: Yes, my Lords, I believe that they do, and some of the research which I indicated will help us to take action if necessary on airborne lead. Young children also suck pencils, and the regulations which the Home Secretary intends to introduce to deal with the lead content of pencils will also help.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us whether the figure to which the Government are going to reduce the lead level in petrol is a final figure, or if they are proposing to go still further? Can the noble Lord also say what further work the Government are doing to see what is the limit to which the lead in petrol can be reduced without introducing further sources of pollution?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, that is one of the items into which further research is being done. The next step proposed is a reduction to 0·45 grams per litre by 1975.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, can the Minister say whether there has been a complete prohibition on the use of lead paint on children's toys.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, this is one of the matters covered by regulations to be introduced by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, may I ask one final supplementary question? Has the Minister seen the research from Birmingham University which shows that—
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord but we do have a rule against reading supplementary questions.
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, may I ask that supplementary question unread,
1408
as I did the first time? May I ask whether the noble Lord has seen the research by Dr. Stevens, of Birmingham University, which showed that young children could ingest a dangerous amount of lead from household dust alone; and may I ask whether the Government are taking steps to find out whether this sort of dangerous ingestion is stopped?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for drawing my attention to that matter. I shall certainly study it and ensure that it is drawn to the attention of my Department, if they are not already aware of it.

POST OFFICE TELEPHONES AT TAXI RANKS
3.17 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: 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 it is a fact or not that, in London, the telephone authority charge full rate for telephone installations at taxi ranks although these are not available for outward calls, and if so whether they regard this as an equitable arrangement.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, this is a matter for the Post Office, but I can confirm that it charges rental for telephones installed at taxi ranks at the standard business rate.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Would he agree that any facility that would contribute, or tend to contribute, towards the increased use of public transport in London would be a contribution to solving the traffic problem? Furthermore, is the noble Lord aware that up to eight years ago these facilities were provided free; that the cost of an installation to-day is £26 per annum, and that since there are fifty-three of these installations I work out the cost at something like £2,400 a year?
LORD DENHAM: Yes, my Lords, I am aware of the figures quoted by my noble friend. Even if what my noble friend proposes would contribute to a solution of the traffic problem in London it would not be fair, I think, to ask the Post Office to pay for it. I think it would

1409
be a matter for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Department of the Environment, and my right honourable friend does not consider that providing free telephones would help to solve the traffic problem.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether, since the instruments operate only one way, half of the rate would not be a more reasonable charge?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, charges are a matter for the Post Office, but they tell me that the average cost of installing a telephone without outgoing call facilities is little different from that of providing an ordinary telephone. Furthermore, these telephones at taxi ranks are very much exposed to the weather and to vandalism, and the maintenance costs can be higher than normal.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, if the cost of a two-way telephone is virtually the same as for a one-way telephone, why not have two-way telephones?
LORD DENHAM: For two reasons, my Lords. In the first place, it would he very difficult to stop members of the general public from using them, and therefore getting free telephone calls at the expense of the taxi drivers; and secondly, if there were facilities for outgoing calls, every time one wanted to ring up for a taxi the telephone would he engaged.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, may I congratulate the noble Lord on the instantaneous reply which he "cooked up" to that supplementary Question?

IMMIGRATION CONTROL
3.19 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they propose taking for the early introduction of legislation to review and correct the present procedures which would apparently permit a further large inflow of people of alien races.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS): My Lords, the new 1971 Immigration Act, which comes fully into force on January 1, gives the Government more effective control over immigration than has ever existed before.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, has the Minister taken notice of the widespread anxiety, as reflected in the Press, at the possibility, apparently, under existing legislation, of a further large inflow of people of alien races into this country; and the Statement made in this House, I' think, that some 300,000 or more people might suffer the same circumstances as the Ugandan incident and could possibly have a right to cone into this country?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Yes, my Lords, the Government are very well aware of the great public anxiety about this situation. We hope and believe that no such further event will happen. But the best and most satisfactory solution, if people were to find they had nowhere to go, would lie in international co-operation, international understanding, on the widest scale. After all, this has stood us in such very good stead in the case of the Ugandan refugees.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, do I understand the noble Viscount to say that the Government propose a review of the procedure affecting the incursion of people of alien races to this country? And if there is to be a review, will this provide for a revision, or perhaps a modification, of the provision in the Treaty of Rome which provides for the free movement of labour?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, the noble Lord misunderstood me. I did not say anything about a review. As for the control of entry of people from the rest of the Common Market countries, this is a matter which is under consideration at the moment as a result of events in another place.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, recognising the serious situation, may I ask whether it is not desirable that there should be a conference with representatives of the Commonwealth countries concerned, to come to an agreement on this issue?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, I think, has asked this question on numerous previous occasions. He will to some extent be reassured by the announcement quite recently of the fullest consultations which are planned with some of the Commonwealth countries. We are of course in close touch with other Commonwealth Governments on all these matters. I do not think that anything will fail through lack of communications between us and our partners in the Commonwealth.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, would the Minister agree that, in view of his statement just now that the Ugandan incident was unforeseen, it is logical to assume that some other similar instances at present cannot be foreseen? Would he therefore urge the Government to reconsider the position, and review the question of the necessity for some clearer indication of what type of papers give permission of entry into this country? I ask this particularly in view of the repeated statements in another place in the debate last week on the completely confused situation existing to-day. May I also ask him to what the Statement of the Secretary of State on October 23, that no specific undertakings were given, had reference? If it is the wish of the House, I can read out the complete Statement.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, as to the latter part of my noble friend's supplementary question, I am not quite sure to what he is referring. As to the first part, I am all in favour of clarity at all possible points. I have no doubt that my noble friend is right in asking for this. The matter is a little too general perhaps to answer at this stage, but I should be glad to look into it, and I am sure that we can return to it on another occasion.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, is not the anxiety of the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, completely unnecessary because ultimately is it not the right of any Government to control immigration in certain circumstances?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I suppose it is the right of Governments to control emigration and immigration, but I think one has to take account of the real anxiety about this
1412
matter at the moment and not to underestimate it. As I have said, the Government do understand public feeling on this and have it very much in mind.
LORD WADE: My Lords, should not some care be taken in using such expressions as "alien races"? Is there a precise definition of an "alien race"?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I did not use that expression. I answered the Question in relation to the Immigration Act 1971, and I think the House is fully aware that this covers, I think, everybody who wants to come into this country for the first time on a uniform basis. I make no distinctions of wording of this sort.
BARONESS STOCKS: My Lords, in connection with immigration, is any consideration given to the existing and absolutely uncontrolled immigration from Southern Ireland, which in the last war desired to be regarded, and did still regard itself, as a foreign country?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, the position of Southern Ireland is slightly anomalous, even within this subject matter. There is a different procedure under the British Nationality Act for dealing with citizens of Southern Ireland than for any others. It really is another Question from that on the Order Paper.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, may I, with the indulgence of the House, ask my noble friend whether, in view of the confusion that exists, to which his attention has no doubt been drawn, it is to be understood that there is no likelihood of any intention to try to rectify it?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I am not quite sure what it is that I am supposed to be asked to rectify. I do not think I can add to what I have said this afternoon. If my noble friend is not satisfied with that, I am afraid he will have to return to it on a specific Question on another occasion.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, is it not the fact that we are going to debate this matter in a few days? Would it not be better to leave the debate until that occasion?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, from the growl of assent I think that what the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has just said is sage advice. Perhaps, we should now pass on, as we shall be debating this issue next Wednesday.

BUSINESS: ICELANDIC FISHERIES STATEMENT
3.28 p.m.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir will be making a Statement at a suitable moment after 3.30 p.m. about the Icelandic fishing dispute.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, may I ask the Government Chief Whip why, when we have the responsible Minister in this House, we should have to wait until after 3.30 o'clock and wait on another place? I am sure that the noble Baroness has her Statement ready. Would it not be possible for this House to take the lead in this matter?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, this is a Statement which, as I understand it, is basically being made by the Foreign Secretary. The Foreign Secretary is the Head of his Department, and although he may have sent one of his assistants to undertake these negotiations he is responsible for his Department and therefore has the prior claim to make the Statement.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, if I am correct, the Statement is not the same, because it begins, "I met Icelandic Ministers". Perhaps I should apologise to the Government for revealing that; but it is no secret. May I ask the noble Earl whether he is aware that this is a difficulty that used to confront us when we were in Government, and that we used to try to split the difference? Whereas noble Lords opposite usually wait for the Miinster in another place to get up, if the Minister who was responsible for the negotiations was in this House I always used to get up sharp at 3.30, whatever went on in another place; and if I might go on for another thirty seconds I would suggest that the precedent which we established then might well be adopted on this occasion. But if that is going to get the noble Earl the Leader of the House and the Government Chief
1414
Whip into great trouble, we will not press them. However, it would seem that since it is so near the magic hour now—
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition was going a little too far in divulging the fact that he was conscious of the contents of the Statement which was going to be made—
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I apologise for that.
EARL ST. ALDWYN:—but I do not think we should alter the arrangements, certainly on this occasion. I have no objection whatever to going into this question through the usual channels, to see whether we can reach a satisfactory arrangement. Unlike the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, I have not seen the Statement yet so I do not know what it contains and to what extent the words differ from those which will be used in another place; but I suggest that we might carry on as I have indicated and wait for a suitable moment after 3.30, which means when the Foreign Secretary gets up in another place. One cannot guarantee that it will be at 3.30; that will depend on the business preceding the Statement given in another place.

ABERDEEN HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3a, and passed.
SCRABSTER HARBOUR (VEHICLE FERRY TERMINAL ETC.) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3a, and passed.
PENSIONERS AND FAMILY INCOME SUPPLEMENT PAYMENTS BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

COUNTER-INFLATION (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL
3.33 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal, I beg to move that this Bill be now considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be now considered on Report.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 2 [Prices, pay, dividends and rents]:
LORD BESWICK LORD BESWICK moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 5. at end insert—
("This subsection shall not apply to increases in remuneration of £2·60 per week or less to the extent that such increases do not bring the remuneration up to a figure in excess of £22·60 per week.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an opportunity to consider again a matter on which we had a wide amount of agreement on Committee stage. When I moved a similar Amendment on Committee stage there were doubts about the way in which we should set about this matter of making some arrangements for the lower-paid workers during the temporary freeze, but many, if not most of us, felt that we ought to try to do something in this interim, temporary period. There is one point which has strengthened the case which some of us tried to make. Although at the beginning there were hesitations by some people about making exceptions, before we got through the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, made it quite clear that exceptions are to be made to this freeze and he listed some of the categories. May I remind your Lordships of some of the people concerned? He said that exempted from the freeze would be those in white-collar employment, for example, employees in insurance companies, banks and those industrial concerns with large office staffs, as well as civil servants, teachers and others in the public service. All these were to be exempted from the freeze.
I am quite sure that when some noble Lords voted against our Amendment at the beginning of our discussions on the Bill. on the grounds that they thought
1416
the freeze should apply equally to all—that was the phrase used by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn—they were unaware that the Bill made exceptions to the list. The noble Lord himself made it quite clear that a considerable number of people were in fact exempted. I pointed out to him at the time that although he spelt out this list then, which included lower-paid people, he might also have spelt out the higher salary ranges which were included in the list and the fact that we were specifically exempting many people with very considerable salaries.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, before the noble Lord proceeds, would he tell me exactly where I stated that these categories of people were exempted from the freeze?
LORD BESWICK: Yes, my Lords, in col. 1206 of the OFFICIAL REPORT. These exemptions, I must say, make it all the more important that we should try to do something for the least fortunate. May I make quite clear what I am suggesting? It is not that there should be a blanket increase for all earning under £20 a week. The position, if this Amendment is accepted, will be that any wage settlements arrived at after proper negotiation between employer and employee, or awarded by a wages council as was the case with the agricultural workers, will not be caught by the freeze if the employees concerned have less than £20 per week. This seems to be morally and socially right, and it cannot be economically wrong. It cannot be economically wrong, because I hold it to be a principle that what is morally and socially right cannot be economically wrong. In any case, this is well within the limit laid down by the Government itself. The Government itself, in the official package, proposed that, without upsetting our economy, we could afford to make a wage award of £2·60 to all the salary ranges. I am limiting this proposal to those who have less than £20 a week.
The wording of the Amendment has been revised in detail so as to meet the difficulty put by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. It will be recalled that when we discussed this matter before he said that there were difficulties in the transition period, as it were. He pointed out

1417
that—and perhaps I might remind him of what he said at col. 1112—
"… a worker whose earnings averaged £19·50 might go up to £21 or £22, while a worker who averaged £20·50 would remain at that level, and might even fall below £20 if his £20·50 had included overtime."
It was a fair point which the noble Lord made, and I have tried to meet it in the revised wording which I now place before your Lordships. It may still not be perfect, but if the noble Lord has any other point which he feels we ought to include before accepting the principle of this Amendment, we can of course put forward a manuscript Amendment, as we did before on Third Reading. I am sure the noble Lord wishes to meet us on this point. I beg to move.
3.40 p.m.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, I should like to say one word in support of the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, because this Amendment is very much in line with the policy which my Party has been expressing over a considerable period of time. Some of your Lordships may be aware that we have had an extensive campaign on behalf of the lower-paid worker to show how badly he has done in relation to the rest of the community over the past few years. These conditions have been borne out by independent studies, such as that of the Child Poverty Action Group, which showed that during the period of the Labour Government between 1964 and 1970 the relative position of the lowest decile of those people in employment had deteriorated relative to average earnings in industry and employment as a whole—a serious indictment of the performance of the Labour Party while they were in power. But at least they expressed the opinion that over a period of time something should be done to redress the average situation as between the lowest paid and those in employment as a whole. Because we failed to do this when we had a Government in power that was dedicated to such an objective, we now face a situation where it is grossly unfair that the people about whom the noble Lord, Lord Beswick. is speaking should be deprived of the opportunity of redressing their position just a little during the processes of the freeze.
1418
My right honourable friend the Leader of the Liberal Party wrote to the Prime Minister during our campaign on behalf of the lower paid and those with low incomes generally suggesting that we should try to increase wages relatively quickly for those earning below £20 a week. I will attempt to paraphrase the Prime Minister's answer. It was to the effect that if you allowed people who were earning less than £20 a week to receive increases of, let us say, £2 a week, then all the way up the scale you would get the effect of people trying to copy this and asking for a percentage increase equivalent to that which had been obtained by the lower-paid workers. So in the end we would worsen the inflationary situation that we are faced with. That argument does not apply if we are going to have a freeze lasting for 90 days, or some additional period as may emerge in due course. While this freeze lasts, the Government have a splendid opportunity to allow the wages of these people earning below £20 a week to increase without at the same time encouraging other groups of workers to follow their example. I hope that the noble Lord will accept this opportunity on behalf of the Government, and will do something at long last for the lowest paid people in this country who deserve this help.
3.43 p.m.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, unless the Government are willing to accept this modified version of a previous Amendment which they rejected, there are serious doubts about the sincerity of the Government concerning the situation in which the lower-paid workers find themselves. The Government have expressed their desire that the lower-paid workers should have their rates of pay raised to a higher level. There is no doubt about that. No Member of your Lordships' House would challenge that. That was a declaration made by the Prime Minister, and supported by other members of the Government. Then the Government decided to enter into negotiations with the C.B.I. and the T.U.C. They actually offered a norm of £2·50 across the board. This was not acceptable for various reasons (and there is no reason for one to discuss that at this stage) and the Government decided upon a freeze. Nevertheless, their desire to assist the lower-paid worker stands.

1419
Here is an opportunity. Let us be quite clear as to what is being asked. We are not asking in this Amendment that the lower-paid workers, whatever their rates may be, £15, £16, £17 or £18—or even to refer to what was said in the course of the previous debate, £19·50—should have a rise of £2 across the board; all that we are asking is that the lower-paid workers, whatever the rates may be at the present time, should, as a result of negotiations entered into between the employers and the workers, be allowed to have their wages increased proportionately to bring them up to £20 a week. I understand that that is the submission made by my noble friend Lord Beswick. Surely, no Members of your Lordships' House who have expressed any anxiety (if I may use the term "anxiety") to assist the lower-paid workers could object to that. In any event, it does not encourage inflation; if there is any inflationary effect it is surely a modified form. I do not see why the Government cannot accept this Amendment.
I should like to direct attention, looking ahead and envisaging the future after the ninety days' period has expired, to what will happen. Are the Government going to come to a decision which will provoke more resentment? These people earning under £20 a week are affected by the cost of living. There is no doubt about the rise in the cost of living and how it impinges upon the standard of living of those who are described as the lower paid. At the end of the ninety days' period, there is no declaration by the Government that the freeze will be terminated. Indeed, it has been suggested that it may be necessary—and I rather suspect it will he necessary—to continue the freeze. In that situation the lower-paid workers, whom we are anxious to help, are not to receive a single penny by way of increase in the rate of pay, not only for ninety days, but may he for several months ahead. Surely that is not the desire of the Government, or Members of your Lordships' House.
I do not want to indulge in a repetition of the content of the Second Reading debate, but I must confess that I am horrified at the inability of this Government—and I will say a word about the
1420
previous Government in a moment—to create a situation where we can bring together both sides of the industry and come to a decision, either of conciliation or arbitration, which will put an end to the situation in which the lower-paid workers find themselves, and, at the same time, help in a modified way—and I will not say more than "help"—to prevent further inflation. I was very much interested in the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, in the course of the Second Reading debate. The noble Baroness referred to Professor Clegg who had suggested the creation of an economic council, or something of the sort, which would investigate rates of pay for all classes and categories of workers, and make a recommendation.
I think the noble Baroness had conceived the notion that this was the first time that this had ever been mentioned. In point of fact, I do not know whether Members of your Lordships' House are aware that a submission was made to the Attlee Government—and that is a long time ago—on two occasions for the creation of a national wage policy which provided for the setting up of an economic council who would investigate, inquire and probe and then come to a decision. But they would not be vested with the right to decide what the actual rates of pay would be; that would be a matter for the Government to decide. The matter of prices and a variety of other matters associated with a national wage policy was to be considered. In fact I, as a member of the Cabinet, submitted a Cabinet Paper which put forward the proposal for a national wage policy. It contained practically all the proposals Professor Clegg made quite recently. It was rejected, I regret to say, because of the opposition of the trade union members of the Government who thought that this would impinge upon their proprietary rights to indulge in collective bargaining which had been customary for many years. Later on it was rejected by no less a person than Sir Stafford Cripps as Chancellor of the Exchequer because it would promote more inflation. In point of fact, if it had been considered at the time it would have been realised that it would solve many of our problems in relation to rates of pay; it would have counteracted against inflationary effects which perhaps

1421
have been exaggerated to some extent in relation to rates of pay. I do not want to refer to that because it is really part of a Second Reading debate; but the matter has been discussed over and over again.
There is one further point. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has referred to what the last Government, the Wilson Government, did. The Wilson Government in fact left it to the trade unions, along with the employers, to decide whether the rates of pay of the lower-paid workers should be increased. The Prices and Incomes Board postulated a norm; and that norm, if it had been accepted across the board, would have improved the position of the lower-paid workers. Although there were perhaps justifiable criticisms of the proposal of the Prices and Incomes Board, and the principles associated with it (I do not want to enter into that argument), nevertheless it was left to both sides of industry to help. Very little was done in that regard. Now there is an opportunity for the Government to help. They are not asked to do much. It is not a violation of the principle that the Government have laid down in connection with the freeze. A much modified improvement is asked for, and I hope that the Government will give it their consideration.
3.52 p.m.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, may I briefly, but very strongly, support this Amendment? It should apply, as it does now, to all the lower-paid workers, but I want to remind your Lordships once more of the plight of the largest group of those lower-paid workers; that is, the farm workers. I know that it is perfectly true, as the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, pointed out in the Second Reading debate, to say there are some farm workers (I do not know what proportion it is) who in fact have been receiving more than the present minimum of £16·20. Those, of course, if they were receiving much in excess and were over the minimum laid down in this Amendment, would not in any way he affected by it. The Amendment would apply only to the lowest paid and those who are receiving under the £22·60 mark—in my opinion the great majority of farm workers.
Your Lordships know full well the record of farm workers. Not only are
1422
they the lowest paid of all our important workers in this country; not only are they among the most important producers of this country, but they also have the most enviable record when it comes to strikes and industrial disputes. They have, further, the most enviable record, one of which any other industry could be proud, of increases in productivity over the years. It cannot be just that these people should be condemned always to remain at the very bottom of the scale. They have recently received a very modest rise, which was due to come into force on January 22. If this Amendment is accepted that rise will be allowed, and for six weeks before the end of the freeze—a very small amount of time—they will be receiving what they have been awarded and what every person in this country must agree is the minimum, in fairness, that they should have.
This is a time of year when the lowest-paid workers, especially the farm workers, are particularly hard hit. On the farm to-day, because of shortage of daylight, there is a minimum of overtime. Very few farm workers receive overtime at all: they have to subsist on their basic minimum. It is not as in the summer and spring when they can, by working long hours, earn an extra £5, even £6, a week. Not only are their earnings, therefore, restricted to this basic minimum, £16·20, but their costs rise—as indeed do the costs of everybody, but of course the lowest-paid workers are affected most. Food is costing more because of many factors, of which we are all aware, including the seasonal factor which always strikes food prices harder during the winter months. The weather is colder. More has to be spent on fuel for warmth. More has to be spent on clothes for warmth. More has to be spent on electricity because the hours of daylight are shorter. All these factors are of insignificant importance to, I daresay, every one of your Lordships in this Chamber to-day, but they are of overriding importance to the farm worker and his wife living on £16·20 a week.
I beg your Lordships to support this Amendment on grounds of common justice; on grounds of gratitude to a body of people to whom we owe far more than we are ever willing to acknowledge or to pay; and on grounds of expediency for

1423
the Government themselves. Allowing this rise for the lower-paid workers, and so creating a measure of good will, will in no way, as has been pointed out, run counter to the Government's professed and even offered policy in the past. It will have no significant effect upon either the cost of food or the cost of living, but it will make the atmosphere for the vital negotiations and agreements which we hope will come after this freeze far more favourable. So I ask your Lordships, no matter on which side of the House you sit, to ponder these questions and to support this Amendment, if necessary in the Lobby.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, I wish to put the point to the Government that this is a very necessary Amendment. The price of food is going ahead by leaps and bounds. The price of beef and fat cattle in the market has gone up by 10 shillings a cwt. per week during the past two weeks, and by Christmas it is anticipated that the price for fat cattle will be £20 a cwt. I am not disagreeing with the rise in the price of fat cattle—I myself have fat cattle—but it means that my labourer, who is receiving under £20 a week, cannot buy beef; he cannot buy mutton or lamb. I urge the Government to accept this Amendment because it would to some extent ameliorate the vast rise in the cost of food and the cost of living.
LORD MILFORD: My Lords, I should very much like to support this Amendment. May I remind noble Lords on the other side of the House that we in this House, by coming here three days a week, for perhaps half an hour, and "clocking on", earn more in those three days than the lower-paid worker who has to work five or six days a week?
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, while I do not wish to detract from the noble Lord's arguments, I think he should realise that there are also a large number of farm workers in Scotland, and therefore his figures are quite wrong. In Scotland we work on a five-day week, but cows require feeding seven days a week; therefore the argument that, because of short daylight, workers get no overtime, or little overtime, in winter is completely fallacious. The basic wage of a cattleman in Scotland is little
1424
enough—I am not denying this at all. It is too low; but it is £18·50, not £16·50. The other point which I think should be made is that my cattleman has managed to acquire from his pitifully low wages a colour television set. He is not starving. If there is a good programme, he invites me in to watch his television. I do not want to detract from the argument, but I do want us to have our facts right.
LORD LOVAT: My Lords, I do not want to detract from the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Walston, but he did not mention that every farm servant has a tied house. This is worth at least £3 a week to him.

ICELANDIC FISHERIES DISPUTE
4.0 p.m.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, if it is for the convenience of the House perhaps I may now repeat the Statement on Icelandic Fisheries which my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary is at this moment making in another place.
My Lords, I met Icelandic Ministers in Reykjavik on November 27 and 28 in a further attempt to reach an interim settlement on the fisheries dispute. I am very sorry to have to inform the House that our efforts were unsuccessful.
Since our earlier discussions in July, the International Court of Justice has given an interim order, under which Iceland is not to enforce her regulations against British vessels outside the 12-mile limit, and we should reduce our catch to a maximum of 170,000 tons a year. Our policy is based upon this order. However, to reach an interim agreement we did not insist on catching 170,000 tons, and we were prepared to consider any reasonable method of limitation.
The proposal which, with the support of the British fishing industry, I put to the Icelandic Government, was based on a report made by British and Icelandic officials in October. This suggested a negotiating bracket between 17 per cent. and 25 per cent. below the British catch of 1971. We suggested that one-third of the waters round Iceland should be closed to British vessels at any one time. We also accepted Icelandic conservation areas and recognised that there might be

1425
a need for special arrangements for areas containing fixed gear. Our industry was also prepared to give an assurance on the future composition or tonnage of the fishing fleet. We offered to negotiate on the midpoint of the bracket proposed by officials; namely, a catch of 163,000 tons—about 21 per cent. below the 1971 figure.
The Icelandic Government proposed that half the area should be closed at any one time. They also wanted further extensive areas to be reserved for the smaller Icelandic vessels and pressed for the exclusion of all our freezers, as well as trawlers over 180 feet in length or 750 to 800 tons in size. This would have excluded our most modern vessels and constituted a damaging precedent. We estimated that the total effect of these restrictions would be to cut our catch by at least 60 to 70 per cent.
In an attempt to bridge the gap, we suggested a different approach in the form of a 10 per cent. reduction in the actual fishing effort—the number of days fishing—by British vessels in the disputed waters. We estimated that this would have resulted in a 25 per cent. reduction in the catch, giving us perhaps 158,000 tons, compared with 208,000 in 1971. However, the Icelandic Government was not prepared at this stage to accept this suggestion as a basis for further negotiation, and suggested no alternative.
I offered to extend my stay but the Icelandic Government did not consider we could take matters further at this stage. I hope, however, that when they have considered our latest proposals further, they will recognise that they meet their twin requirements of conservation and coastal state preference. This method would still preserve the livelihood of our own fishermen. For our part we are ready to resume negotiations at any time. Meanwhile we will continue the proceedings before the International Court.
We continued to keep in touch with the Federal German Government throughout these negotiations.
LORD HOY: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating this Statement which she drafted to be made by the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary in another place. One or two items arise from it: first, may I ask the
1426
noble Baroness to make quite clear what the final negotiating figures were? As I understand it, our final proposal was that we were prepared to sustain a cut of some 25 per cent. in our 1971 catch, while Iceland was insisting on making a cut of 65 per cent. If these are the figures (which I worked out rather quickly) then, quite obviously, I think even to the most biased person they appear to be grossly unfair, and I hope she will make this clear to the Icelandic Government.
With regard to the final offer made by the Government, as I understand it this offer is still being considered by the Icelandic Government and rumour has it that Iceland does not want to prolong these negotiations. Is there in tact any hint that the negotiations may be reopened much more quickly than was anticipated when the noble Baroness left Reykjavik? If they are, may I ask her to convey to Iceland, for whom we all have a great warmth and friendship, that we are not prepared to sacrifice either the livelihoods or the lives of British fishermen merely to retain that friendship.
With regard to the conclusion of the Statement I should like to ask what is meant by the sentence,
"We continued to keep in touch with the Federal German Government throughout these negotiations".
Quite obviously the House knows that Germany has an interest in these grounds, just as we have. But does that sentence in fact mean that not only is Germany being informed about the negotiations, but that through Germany her present partners in the E.E.C. are being kept in touch with these negotiations? If the noble Baroness can tell us what response she may have had from West Germany as a result of these negotiations, and what information she may have collected through West Germany with regard to the E.E.C., I am certain that the House will be grateful.
LORD TANLAW: My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness the Minister for her Statement, we have two points that we wish to make from these Benches at this stage. First, is there not a danger that, if Iceland insists on preserving the 50-mile limit, there will be such a weight of fishing by all nationalities just outside

1427
British territorial waters as will deplete the stock to such an extent that the whole future of fishing just outside our territorial waters may be seriously jeopardised? The second point on which we should like clarification is this. If Iceland is successful in preserving, legally or illegally, a 50-mile limit for fishing, would it also affect her mineral and oil exploration rights in these waters?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I wish to thank both noble Lords who have commented on this Statement. In answer to the first question put by the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, he was perfectly correct in thinking that our final offer on what we hoped was a negotiating basis would have amounted to a cut of 25 per cent. in our catch in 1971. We said all along to the Icelanders that one must look at the agreement as a whole and that if we took all four main elements of their proposal it would, on a conservative basis, have amounted to about a 65 per cent. cut in our catch. Therefore of course there is a very wide difference indeed. However, the negotiations were not broken off. The Icelandic Government said that they would like to consider our final offer further, possibly even with a combination of something else which they might suggest. We are therefore hoping that they will communicate with us when they have given more thought to the final offer.
The sentence about the Federal German Government was included because we have kept in close touch with them throughout as their problem is very similar to ours. We both had agreements with Iceland in 1961 and both of us, under those agreements, agreed that where there was a difference of opinion there should be recourse to the International Court. The position at the moment with the European Communities is that they will not bring into operation their special relations provision with Iceland until on this fisheries question there is an agreement which is acceptable to all the existing and acceding States of the Communities.
Turning to the first question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, I should like to say to the noble Lord that of course if we did not dispute this question of Iceland extending her jurisdiction
1428
to 50 miles, and if we kept outside the 50 miles, it would certainly have a serious effect upon our other fishermen because, for example, those who fish off the Farces would find that boats from Iceland would come down to fish there and there would be general pressure on all the fishing grounds. On his second question, this particular dispute is concerned only with fishing rights and not with basic mineral deposits on the floor of the sea.
LORD COLERAINE: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether during this interim period, before the negotiations are, as we hope they will be, resumed, our fishermen will receive protection if they fish within their legal rights?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, they would receive naval protection if they really needed it. I understand they are having a meeting to-day to discuss the question, and I should like to say how much I appreciated the help that was given to us by our two observers, Mr. Hudson from the British Trawlers Federation and Mr. Shenton representing the Transport and General Workers' Union. Our fishermen have, in the absence of an agreement, an absolute right according to the interim order of the International Court to fish within 50 miles and as long as there is no harassment of our vessels there will be no need for naval protection. I would hope that as we are still in a state of suspended talks, if I may put it that way, there will be no question of harassment of our vessels.
LORD HOY: My Lords, may I ask the Minister to take that one step further? In regard to our position vis-à-vis West Germany, do I assume that when these negotiations have been carried out West Germany will in fact accede to an agreement which we feel to be acceptable and will not make a separate agreement? I do not want to cast doubt on the matter, but we are bound to be aware that one other country in Europe did come to a unilateral settlement which has not in any way strengthened our position.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, the noble Lord has asked a very important question. Until now the Federal Republic of Germany has always been perfectly satis-

1429
fied with our negotiating position and so far as I am aware is still so satisfied. I believe that they have asked for consultations with the Icelandic Government before Christmas but I am not aware that any date has been fixed. I hope very much that they would not come to any separate agreement because we are both in a similar position under the 1961 Agreement.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, the noble Baroness is always most helpful and gives full answers at Question and Statement Time. Is she aware that our difference with Iceland is becoming a matter of such broad impact, as the last supplementary question asked by my noble friend Lord Hoy showed, that it concerns not only fishing rights but fish conservation? As any difference with an ally must also concern general questions of foreign policy, may I ask the noble Baroness to agree that this is a matter which cannot be gone into deeply enough at Statement Time and whether there might not be advantage in the House having a short debate on the subject at an early date, perhaps achieved by means of an Unstarred Question?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: So far as I am concerned, my Lords, I should be very glad to have such a debate; but I think I must suggest that the matter be discussed through the usual channels.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness a question on a point of information only? Is there any legal or moral obligation on the Icelandic Government to accept the verdicts of the International Court, because I understand that they are not enforceable? In the event of the Icelandic Government actually refusing to accept the verdict of the International Court in this matter, are there any means at our disposal, as it were to maintain the rule of law in international affairs?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, it is perfectly true that, despite having said that they supported the International Court, the Icelandic Government do not recognise the Court at the moment on this issue. The Court has to decide two things. It gave us an indication of interim measures, which is not a final ruling but which has
1430
I think strong moral force. It has to decide, first, about its own jurisdiction. That decision we would expect at the end of this year or early next year. Secondly, it has, assuming that it has decided that it has jurisdiction in this case, to decide on the substantive issue. If it decided on the substantive issue in our favour and still no notice was taken of its ruling, then I am sure that the noble Lord will know from his experience that there is an Article in the United Nations Charter which provides for a party to a dispute to have recourse to the Security Council.
LORD HOY: And the European Parliament.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BFLHELVIE: My Lords, various methods are open to us.

COUNTER -INFLATION (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL
4.15 p.m.
Report stage resumed.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, perhaps we can return to the question of counter-inflation. May I begin by saying to the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, that having serious doubts about the sincerity of Government is an occupational disease of Oppositions. All I can tell him is that, as he himself said, it is the Government's policy to seek to improve the relative position of low-paid workers, and that is part of the policy which we are at present working out with a view to bringing it into effect without any interval between phase 1 and phase 2—in other words, immediately at the end of the standstill.
The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, started by appearing to quote what I had said. In fact, he was paraphrasing my remarks, because I have carefully studied column 1206 and can find no reference to what he said I had said about exemptions being made and some categories being exempted. It may have been a paraphrase because, for one thing, I have carefully avoided using the word "freeze".
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for allowing me to intervene.

1431
He always gives way when there is a difference of view as to the facts and I am sure that the House will want to know what the facts are about whether certain categories are excluded. Column 1205 is next to column 1206. In fact, it is on the same page. It is therefore easy to make a mistake when giving a column number and to give the number of the column on the right instead of the one on the left. The noble Lord is reported in column 1205 as having said:
"The next subsection states:
' This section shall not apply to an increase in remuneration which is in respect of age, or length of service, or length of service in employment of a particular kind, or in employment in a particular grade.'
I think I should tell the noble Lord what are the areas that are covered by this particular subsection. The numbers involved can be divided into four categories. First, there are employees in the public sector who receive regular increments in predetermined scales. These people include nurses, teachers and the police, as well as clerical workers in the nationalised industries and local authorities. Second, there are comparable workers in the private sector…Third, there are many workers, including large numbers of manual workers…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28 / 11 /72; col. 1205.]
Surely my noble friend was making the simple point, which cannot be denied, that the noble Lord said on behalf of the Government that the effect of the Bill was to exclude a large number of workers.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I thought it only right to say that the words I was quoted as having said I did not say. I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, returning to his place. I am not making a point of this because I shall come to it later in my remarks. I am merely saying that I did not say the words attributed to me. Later in my speech I will make it clear to the noble Lord just where he has misunderstood this whole matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, tried in Committee to persuade your Lordships to accept an Amendment which would have permitted increases in pay for any employee whose average weekly remuneration during the 13 weeks before November 6 was below £20 a week. One of the reasons why I advised your Lordships not to accept that Amendment was because it would have given rise to unfairness between those whose average
1432
remuneration was less than £20 and those whose average remuneration was just over £20. That is not, of course, the only reason; it is certainly not the main reason. The main reason is that the whole purpose of this Bill is to effect a 90-day or at most a 150-day standstill, as complete as is practicable, which can serve as a breathing space in which the policy for the future can be worked out, discussed and carried into effect, so that, as I have just said to the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, it will come into operation immediately the standstill comes to an end. That is the main reason. What the noble Lord plainly wants to do is to exempt from the standstill the lower paid, up to a certain level of remuneration. He has now realised obviously that the particular way of exempting them which he suggested on Committee had flaws in it and would not work out fairly in practice, so he is having another shot. I am bound to show exactly what this Amendment would do and what its effect would be, otherwise noble Lords will not be able to make up their minds about it.
Instead of relating the exemption to average weekly remuneration before November 6, he proposes to relate it to a maximum level of remuneration, namely, £22·60, within which it would be permissible to pay increases in remuneration not exceeding £2·60 per week. I think I have that right. What he obviously has in mind is that the person whose earnings have been averaging about £20—because that is the figure he seems to have very much in mind all the time—should he able to get a maximum increase of £2·60—and that was the overall maximum increase that the Prime Minister indicated could be accommodated within the Chequers proposals, after allowing for wage drift. The across-the-board increase that the Prime Minister proposed in wage rates was, I would remind your Lordships, to be £2. What the noble Lord has not yet grasped is that what the Bill is talking about is not remuneration but rates of remuneration. That is a very important distinction. It is the rate of remuneration that must not exceed the rate paid for the same kind of work before November 6, 1972. If you did not have this sort of provision, it would mean that people who were actually doing more work and earning more overtime would not be

1433
allowed to get any more remuneration, so you have to have some provision of this kind.
The White Paper is quite clear about this, because it says in paragraphs 11 and 12:
"The term ' pay ' covers all rates of pay. In addition to the basic rate, this includes rates al pay for overtime or weekend work, piece rates and all allowances which are normally considered as pay.
The standstill will not apply to increases in earnings resulting directly from extra effort or output under existing arrangements, e.g. increases in piece-work earnings stemming from increased output. Nor will it apply to increases arising from genuine promotion. Where the existing pay is expressed in terms of ranges or scales they "—
that is, the ranges or scales—
"should not be increased".
LORD BESWICK: May I save the time of the House by saying that I will accept immediately what the noble Lord says. and between now and Third Reading we can draft an Amendment between us which will cover this point—that is, assuming that the noble Lord is not against the principle of what I am asking. If he is against the principle of what I am asking would he spare us these detailed arguments.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, Hear!
LORD DRUMALBYN: Noble Lords may say "Hear Hear!" but I must show what this means. Unless I explain this, the noble Lord will not be able to see that a minor Amendment will not cure this problem. That is exactly what I am coming to. The noble Lord's Amendment, as I said, does not refer to rates of remuneration but to remuneration. That in itself would make the meaning of the Amendment obscure and the Amendment itself unworkable. If it is not permissible to bring the remuneration up to a figure in excess of £22·60 per week, there would plainly be difficulties about overtime. The Amendment as drafted would cause serious anomalies between workers in the same employment or industry who are on the same basic rate. One may be working overtime and earning remuneration already of £22·60 or more, so that he would not qualify for an increase under the Amendment. Another, who is perhaps not willing to work overtime and so is earning only £20 or less, could get
1434
up to £2·60 more without any extra effort. It is one thing to suggest that no one should get more than £2·60 a week, but it is quite a different thing to propose that, in the same work force, workers should receive differential treatment in the way that the Amendment implies. That could surely give rise to trouble and dissension and could seriously prejudice the success of the standstill.
If the noble Lord meant not remuneration but rates of remuneration, and if the Amendment were to be interpreted in that way or further amended to give effect to what he meant, as he is now suggesting, we should be widening both the exemption and the possibilities of grievance very considerably. I ask noble Lords to consider the following example: A worker who was previously earning £20 basic plus, let us say, £8 overtime a week, would be allowed to get not an extra £2·60, but an extra £3·60 or more a week, whereas the worker who was previously earning £28 a week without overtime would not be permitted to get any increase at all.
I hope that I have said enough to show that the noble Lord has not been any more successful in devising a workable Amendment this time than he was last time. But I do not want to rest simply on the terms of the Amendment, although it will be clear to your Lordships how difficult it will be to give effect in this Bill to what the noble Lord and Lord Avebury and Lord Shinwell want. Much as we should have liked to be able to put the Chequers proposals into operation now on a voluntary basis, because talks with the T.U.C. and C.B.I. broke down we now have this Bill. We all understand the posture of an Opposition which is that, "We want more and we want it sooner". The Opposition is hound to press for this. We are all agreed that one of the essential ingredients in future policy should be to improve the relative position of the lower paid. This Bill is designed to Ore us the time and the elbow room to give form and content to that policy. The noble Lord, on the other hand, wants at all costs to take the first step in that policy now, however untidily and however inequitably. But he must realise, I suggest, that by making it possible for individual employers to concede or rot to concede increases up to an apparently

1435
precise but actually vague amount, he is opening the way to the sort of dissension that this Bill is particularly designed to avoid; dissension between workers and also between workers and employers. I appeal to the noble Lord not to throw the helmet of discord into the field but to withdraw his Amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Walston, quite properly, spoke about the position of the agricultural workers. The position of agricultural workers has the sympathy of everyone. I entirely endorse what he said about what we owe to them, but we do of course have to consider the fairness of letting them through while holding others back. If we implemented the proposals for farm workers without deferment we should, in fairness, have to implement the many wages councils proposals where the position is similar, and there would be a strong case for allowing all the staged agreements referred to in paragraph 14 of the White Paper to go ahead. That would endanger the whole basis of the standstill. May I say to the noble Lord also that, while he was supporting this Amendment, it would not enable the wages council awards to be paid to all agricultural workers. It would result in a division between those who were earning below the minimum expressed in the Amendment and those who were earning above it. I do not think that that would be very satisfactory. He is really talking on the wrong Amendment altogether. Does the noble Lord wish to intervene?
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, since it has been shown that wages council employees have done relatively worse than the whole community, as I mentioned in my speech, would the noble Lord agree to an Amendment on Third Reading to exempt wages councils from the freeze?
LORD DRUMALBYN: No; I would not agree to that, for the reasons that I have given. The position, what we are trying to do, has been made quite clear in the White Paper. The general principle we adopted in the White Paper is that any increases paid during the standstill must pass two tests: first, that there was an agreement—an arbitration hearing, a wages council or board proposal
1436
before the standstill; and. second, that the operative date was before the standstill, and so far as the wages councils are concerned the last increase was 12 months before November 6. The agricultural awards pass the first test, but not the second or third tests. What I should add now is that the new rates for farm workers will come into operation from the date when the standstill ends.
I hope that I have answered the noble Lord's arguments to the satisfaction of the House as a whole. I do not imagine for a moment that I have convinced him. but the one thing of which I hope I have convinced him is that you are not going to get a satisfactory solution by tinkering about with this Amendment one way or another; you either accept the standstill as a whole or you do not. So far as the debate on increments we had the other day is concerned, I say again that we are dealing with rates of remuneration; and if, because of length of service, age or anything else, the rates of remuneration in the scales provide for an increase, then in that case that increase will be given on the date provided in the agreement or the contract. I said that this was desirable because otherwise those concerned would be penalised twice over, partly through not being able to have their scales or rates increased and partly because they were not getting the normal increases within the scales or rates. It is because we are dealing with rates all the time that this is no exception whatsoever. It is part of the general scheme, and it was in the scheme which the noble Lord's Party introduced in 1966.
4.31 p.m.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, I had not washed to speak in this debate. because I spoke on Second Reading; therefore, I waited until the Minister had spoken. It seems to me that he is still labouring under several illusions. The first is that there are no anomalies in the Bill and that therefore anything proposed in an Amendment creates new anomalies. But, of course, there are anomalies in the Bill. For instance, there is one big electrical firm where wage increases were negotiated just before the guillotine come down for some of the factories but not for others. The other factories always

1437
took the first factory more or less as a leading instance in their wage determination. There you have an anomaly. There is the anomaly of Clause 3(3), concerning certain increases of remuneration which are in respect of age and so on. These are all anomalies. It seems to me that the problem ought to be looked at from the viewpoint of which anomaly is less of an anomaly, and you cannot possibly maintain that an anomaly which corrects low pay or helps to correct it—it will not do the whole job, of course—is not a lesser anomaly than the anomalies we now find in the Bill, especially those concerning promotions, which obviously can be only in respect of the higher paid workers.
Again I return to my old theme, that the Government must begin to learn the consequential policies of their new determination—and I accept that they are sincere in their new efforts—to get a consensus. It seems to me that you cannot get a consensus with this sort of rigidity of attitude. Instead of trying to show that there is a moral purpose in the whole legislative process they are proposing, that impression is absolutely absent. This is what I found so terribly objectionable that it prompted me to speak.
May I also take the indulgence of the House in righting a little "fluff" I made at an earlier stage—perhaps it was not a little one. The other day in the Second Reading debate I interrupted the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack. He had quoted my noble friend, Lord Diamond, asking for the so-called Gini co-efficient of inequality, and the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack said "Wealth" and I interrupted him and said "No, not wealth, income". What I ought to have said is that in this context the Gini co-efficient must be taken as the co-efficient for income. It was quite clear from the speech of my noble friend Lord Diamond, because he asked for the Gini co-efficient which is elaborated each year at the Budget, and the Budget is mainly concerned with income. I should like to apologise to the House and the noble and learned Lord if my explanation is more incomprehensible even than my intervention.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, in his answer said that we are here dealing with rates, not with remuneration. He is wrong. We are dealing with what is usually termed pay, wages, the money which a workman takes home at the end of the week. You can call it what you like, but that is what we are concerned about: the ability of a man to make ends meet, to pay his bills. We must have regard to this.
The noble Lord said that I was being unfair when I quoted the list of workers or employees who are exempted. He said that I was wrong; that be never said this. Really, he must re-read again what he actually said. I maintained in moving the Amendment on Committee stage that subsection (3) of Clause 3 states that "This section", which deals with the freeze, "shall not apply to an increase in remuneration" to certain people. I went on to say that these certain people in fact included the better paid, and the noble Lord's argument was that I was wrong when I suggested that we were not freezing the better paid. He said in column 1205;
"… it is fairly clear that a significant proportion of the working population is covered in one way or another by payments of the sort described".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28/ 11 172.]
He listed them, and I quoted verbatim from the list he gave. The noble Lord says that we must have a standstill as a whole. For a number of people—in his own words "a significant proportion of the working population"—we are not applying a standstill. So there is an additional reason why we should try to deal with the particular class of people covered by my Amendment. The noble Lord has again gone into certain detail which shows that there are difficulties here: but I suggest to your Lordships that in this matter we have to deal with a principle. If the Chequers proposal was workable when it was put forward, it is workable now. I am applying the Chequers proposal only to the lower paid, pending the time when we can get agreement for the whole range of incomes; that is all I am doing.
If to some extent my Amendment is not well phrased, I offer to get together with the noble Lord. Let us get another form of words for the Third Reading.

1439
Unless he can offer to do that, I hope that we shall all seriously consider voting for this Amendment. Let us show that this free House in this free democracy is capable of taking a decision on merits. Let us consider the merits of this proposal, and let us come to a conclusion
accordingly. I invite noble Lords to vote for this Amendment on that basis.
4.40 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 62; Not-Contents, 96.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Rochester, L.Bp.

Airedale, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Royle, L.

Amherst, E.

Gaitskell, B.

Sainsbury, L.

Amulree, L.

Gardiner, L.

St. Davids, V

Archibald, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Seear, B.

Ardwick, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Segal, L.

Avebury, L.

Hall, V.

Serota, B.

Balogh, L.

Henderson, L.

Shackleton, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Henley, L.

Shinwell, L.

Beswick, L.

Hoy, L.

Simon, V.

Boothby, L.

Jacques, L. [Teller.]

Snow, L.

Brockway, L.

Kennet, L.

Stocks, B.

Burntwood, L.

Leatherland, L.

Summerskill, B.

Byers, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Tanlaw, L.

Chalfont, L.

McLeavy, L.

Walston, L.

Champion, L.

Milford, L.

White, B.

Chorley, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Williamson, L.

Citrine L.

Ogmore, L.

Wise, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Pargiter, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Diamond, L.

Phillips, B. [Teller.]

Wynne-Jones, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Falkland, V.

Monck, V.

Abergavenny, M.

Ferrers, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Ferrier, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Fortescue, E.

Auckland, L.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Moyne, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Gainford, L.

Northchurch, B.

Belstead, L.

Garner, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Berkeley, B.

Gisborough, L.

Oakshott, L.

Brock, L.

Gowrie, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Greenway, L.

Redcliffe-Maud, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Grenfell, L.

Rhyl, L.

Caccia, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Rockley, L.

Camoys, L.

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

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Carrington L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Clwyd, L.

Hanworth, V.

St. Just, L.

Coleraine, L.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Sandford, L.

Colgrain, L.

Hawke, L.

Selkirk, E.

Colville of Culross, V.

Hewlett, L.

Shannon, E.

Conesford, L.

Hurcomb, L.

Somers, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Stamp, L.

Courtown, E.

Inglewood, L.

Stonehaven, V.

Craigavon, V.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Stradbroke, E.

Crathorne, L.

Latymer, L.

Strang, L.

Cromartie, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Strange of Knokin, B.

Daventry, V.

Lothian, M.

Strathcarron, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Loudoun, C.

Sudeley, L.

Derwent, L.

Lovat, L.

Teviot, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Lyell, L.

Thomas, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, B.

Eccles, V.

Malmesbury, E.

Vernon, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Margadale, L.

Vivian, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Merrivale, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Milverton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

4.47 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 16, after ("goods") insert ("land and dwellings").
The noble Lords said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 2. The effect of this Amendment would be to give the appropriate Minister power to apply this section:
"to any prices for the sale of goods, land and dwellings … being prices or charges in the course of business,…"
I think I had better start my speech on this Amendment by declaring an interest. I am the father of a daughter who is seeking to acquire a house. If anybody asks me whether that is a financial interest, then the regrettable answer is, "Yes, it is". I daresay that I am in the same position as many fathers to-day who find that their adolescent and adult children are totally unable to enter the housing market, because this is where the hardship exists.
This is a much more limited proposal than the one which was discussed at an earlier stage. We are dealing with discretionary and selective powers for the Minister and powers to affect prices and charges in the course of business. Therefore, what we are mainly concerned with in this Amendment is its application to new houses. I want to remind your Lordships of the background to this Amendment, and what has been happening to the price of new houses.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a question? He has left out one phrase in Clause 2(1), and that is:
"effected by the same person in the course of business …"
Is that not rather important?
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I have said twice "in the course of business". I do not know why the noble Lord says that I have left it out. I have already referred twice to the fact that this is in the course of business.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, by the same person?
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, yes. There is no profit unless it is done by the same person. That is what we are talking about.
1442
Let me direct your Lordships' attention to the facts with regard to the price of houses. In February, 1972, the occasional bulletin, published by the Nationwide Building Society, had the headline, "House prices soar", and it went on to state that house prices rose even more rapidly during the second half of 1971 and that the total increase for the year was 21 per cent. The same bulletin for July, 1972, had a headline, "House price rise continues", and went on to state that house prices, which recorded a very rapid rise in the second half of 1971, continued to rise sharply during the first six months of 1972. The rise for new houses for the first half of the year was almost 17 per cent.—which compared with a rise of 12 per cent. in the second half of 1971; that is, a 17 per cent. rise for the first half of the year, or an annual rate of 34 per cent. That is what has been happening to the price of houses. As we know, this presents particular hardship to those who want to enter the market for the first time, and I know that we are all agreed, on both sides of your Lordships' House, that this is a scandalous situation. It is of course even more scandalous and intolerable for those who have their wages frozen, because they will have to watch the rise in prices, and the profits that will accordingly be made, unless steps are taken to hold back the increase.
But I do not want to deal only with prices. I should like your Lordships to consider what has been happening to house building costs, because it is not the case that they have been rising in a similar way to prices. They were rising in a similar way to prices up to the early part of 1971. Then the costs levelled out somewhat, but the prices of both new and other houses continued to shoot up at an accelerating rate, so that there developed a considerable gap between house costs and house prices—a gap which, according to this graph, had not been there since December, 1965. If costs and prices started off level at 100 in December, 1965, they broadly kept pace with one another until 1971, when this divergence arose. So the situation is that if house prices are frozen, house builders will continue to make a very large profit, a profit which, proportionately, is much greater than they were making in the whole period from 1965 to 1971. So let nobody suggest that there is any hardship on the house builder if house prices are frozen. There

1443
is no hardship on the builder and, therefore, there will he no possibility of houses ceasing to be built and of the market becoming all the more difficult.
The question is: can the Government intervene in order to keep prices down? The Bill mainly excludes houses. As your Lordships know, the Bill freezes prices of goods and services, so that prices of all the building materials going into the house that is being built will be frozen: bricks, piping—everything. So, too, will charges for the services provided by the many sub-contractors—the plumbing subcontractor, the electrical sub-contractor—who are employed to complete sections of the work. They are providing a service, and the charge for that service is caught by this Bill and frozen. The same applies to the wages of all those directly employed in building a house—the bricklayers, the carpenters, the joiners, and so on. Their wages are frozen. So, as your Lordships will see, most of the costs entering into the total cost of a house are frozen, whereas so far the sale price of a house is not frozen. Everybody has admitted that that is a scandalous situation and has said that something should be done about it.
I said earlier that not all houses are excluded—because there are prefabricated houses. If I buy myself a plot of land and say to a sub-contractor, "Will you please lay some foundations and some concrete for me, and do it at the price which was prevailing before November 6?",he will have to do it at that price, because that is a service which is caught. If I then go along to a prefabricated house manufacturer and say, "Will you please put one of those nice houses, which are in your catalogue, on the back of a lorry, drive it to these foundations and fix it to them?" he will have to supply that prefabricated house at the price prevailing before November 6, because it comes under "goods". In those cases the price will be frozen.
As I said when we debated this matter last Tuesday, everybody knows of the typical housing estate where a builder is putting up a number of identical, or very similar, types of house, or two or three different types, which he has advertised for sale at given prices. If the contract for sale was effected before November 6
1444
the houses will be at one price, but if it was effected on November 7, 8 or 9, and the builder and developer so wishes, they can, under this Bill, be sold at a totally different price. That is an intolerable situation because, as I have already made clear, the overall profits of builders are proportionately higher in relation to the cost of building than they have been since 1965, and everybody recognises that the increase in the price of houses creates a scandalous situation.
Do the Government want anything done about this? Indeed they do. When the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, was replying to the debate on Tuesday of this week, he said this:
"But it will be possible for the industry to curb the rise, because the Bill provides for the control of building material costs and wage rates in the building industry. Therefore the Government welcome the initiative of the Housebuilders' Federation in urging its members to observe the spirit of the Bill by stabilising the price of new houses. We look forward to seeing full effect given to these intentions expressed by the Federation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28 /11/ 72; col. 1182.]
So here the Government are saying, "We are facing a scandalous situation. We have done our best by controlling the prices of the materials entering into the house, and the wages of those engaged in constructing the house. We think the price of the house should not rise. What are we doing in this Bill which fixes wages, prices and charges for services? What are we doing in this overall freeze? We are inviting the House-builders' Federation to urge its members to observe the spirit of the Bill". That is how the Government propose to deal with the one aspect of the matter which is scandalous, which is, I suppose, the largest irritant of all irritants at the moment, and which would be likely to prevent the Government from succeeding in their longer-term objective of securing an all-round tripartite agreement. So I am saying to the Government that we are all agreed upon what is desired and we are all satisfied that it is something which should be done. The Government have in fact invited the Federation of Housebuilders to see that it is done. We all want the same ends. I am inviting the Government to accept this Amendment so as to give themselves the means to achieve those common ends. I beg to move.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I think I may owe the House some small explanation because I spoke against a very similar Amendment on the last stage of the Bill, but I did not support my voice with my vote. The reason was that I received a telephone call saying that my house had been on fire, so I rushed home as quickly as I could. But I thought the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, on the previous occasion was quite impractical, and I am afraid—and I emphasise the words "I am afraid"—that this one is equally so. Of course, it could work in certain instances, where an estate had been developed at early-in-the-year prices, where they were all similar houses and where the man had sold, say, half of them at a certain price. In that case he would be prohibited from putting up the price of he others to a higher level. In practice—in my part of the world, at all events—it does not work out that way, because as fast as the houses are built they are sold. Furthermore, the noble Lord left out of account the fact that there was a very considerable increase in all building wages a few months ago.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the noble Lord says that this is impractical in certain cases. May I ask him whether it has escaped his attention that in any case the powers are permissive? It is not mandatory to do anything about everything.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I think the field in which it would be practicable to do anything is so small that it really is not worth while having the powers; it would be so seldom possible to use them. There has been a very considerable increase in building costs in the last few months. That means that any house completed just now must cost the man who built it considerably more than exactly the same house completed in, say, September or October. The noble Lord would say that the builder is making a huge profit and is therefore able to meet the difference out of his pocket. Nobody has ever really discovered what profit builders make, but one can say that it is a trade in which there is a great deal of bankruptcy, as always. It has the highest percentage, I believe, in the whole country. It is extremely difficult to compare one house with another. I asked a very big builder
1446
the other day, "What would it cost you to-day to put up a three-bedroom house on a level site—say, a group of 50?" He told me, "Anything between £5 and £8 per square foot, depending on the specifications". I am aware of differences of this sort because I am on a Church committee that deals with these matters. You get these wide variations, and you get particularly wide variations when you come to the question of site costs: exactly the same house situated on a difficult site will cost a great deal more than exactly the same house situated on a nice, level site. Of course, the Amendment could apply only to such groups of houses.
When it comes to the vast number of secondhand houses which are sold—and there is a tremendous turnover in secondhand houses—it could not apply at all. because, as I pointed out to the noble Lord at the beginning of his speech, it applies only to
"transactions of the same description effected by the same person…"
Therefore it would be impossible, unless the man happened to have sold two houses, to say that he must not charge more than a certain amount for the second. In any case, how does he decide who should buy the house if any limit is put on it? Nobody is keener than I am to see the price of houses go down, but I think the only method by which we can ever achieve that is to curb the money supply and have a general tightening up, to squeeze credit and so on, so that there is less money about to pay. I am afraid the noble Lord's remedy is not one which I think would have the slightest effect.
5.5 p.m.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, I do not propose, in replying to this Amendment, to weary the House with a detailed repetition of the Government's policy on land and house prices. The question has been thoroughly aired in the House: in the debate on the Address on November 8; in the Housing debate, which I myself wound up, on the 15th; and again in Committee on the 28th of this month. The Government's basic position is I think well known. But I feel bound, as this Amendment has been moved by Lord Diamond, and as everyone is properly concerned about land and

1447
house prices, to restate briefly the Government's basic objections to the Amendment.
We believe, as my noble friend Lord Hawke suggested, that there are very real practical problems attached to any attempt to control land and house prices by direct statutory action. In the debate on November 15 I said:
"The Government do not intend to control land and house prices at the present time. We feel that neither land nor houses are sold as standard commodities, like groceries. There is no standard price applicable to individual plots of land or houses."[OFFICIAL REPORT, col. 794.]
I went on to say:
"…if control were applied to home and land prices, it would be necessary to establish a theoretical current value to which prices could be pegged. This would involve a system whereby, if necessary, a theoretical current market value would be established for every piece of land or house offered for sale and caught by the control. This would not be administratively practicable in the time available and would involve a great extension of bureaucratic supervision."
More importantly, we believe:
"It would slow down sales, encourage the establishment of a black market and undoubtedly cause unfairness between individuals."
My Lords, it has been argued that the primary intention of this Amendment as regards houses is to control the price of new houses offered for sale. Perhaps it would be theoretically easier to do this, as new houses form a more homogeneous group than secondhand houses. But, although it was very eloquently argued by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond (and I do not want to be in the unfortunate position of coming between him and his daughter in her quest for a house), I feel that he has slightly over-simplified the position; and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hawke for very clearly, I think, pointing this out. It is true that there may be some new houses offered for sale in the restriction period on developments of standard houses built, say, on the same site, where the same pricing considerations might apply. But I think it can be reasonably assumed that the bulk of new houses offered for sale at any one time are on new sites. For example, about 30 per cent. of private sector houses are built by small builders providing fewer than 21 houses a year. Therefore, as my noble friend pointed out, the degree of diversity is really colossal. Every building site is different, and therefore even a stan
1448
dard house provided by a larger builder can reasonably produce a different market value from that for the same type of house built on a different site quite recently. Many new houses probably will not be standard. They may contain sufficient variations in design, and so forth, to justify altogether different prices.
We feel that the facts of the matter are that, despite the practical objections to control, any system of statutory intervention carries with it the serious risk that it would dry up the supply of land and houses offered for sale. People would simply withdraw houses from the market. The owners of land and houses would defer selling until the end of the restriction period. The net result of this would be to slow down the expansion of owner-occupation and I do not think that any noble Lords are suggesting this. The house market is a complex mechanism made up of sales by existing owner-occupiers and sales of new houses. Any direct statutory intervention would disturb the functions of the market and such a disturbance would not help those in the greatest housing need. First-time purchasers, like the noble Lord's daughter, looking for a home might be worse off if statutory control resulted in fewer houses being offered for sale. Control of house prices would penalise those who of necessity have to move immediately as against those who have some choice in the matter of timing. I doubt whether noble Lords opposite would commend the efficiency, economically, of any reduction of mobility in this country. This would also be grossly unfair because the sale of a house is a transaction of quite a different order of magnitude to the average citizen than any other transaction which he is likely to make at any time in his life. I must therefore ask the House to reject the noble Lord's Amendment.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the noble Earl said that the Government's position is well known when it comes to the control of prices in houses and land; and I must say that he made his case very conclusively. I accept completely what he says: that the Government position is well known. The Government position is that they can do nothing; and he spelled out in considerable detail why they can do nothing. I feel that the Government are not doing themselves justice

1449
in this matter if they hope to get agreement later on.
How can they say that they are in fact controlling prices of all the thousand and one things in retail shops by this economic structure of telephoning the Department in some place in Whitehall? Why is that administratively practicable with these little items, if they cannot deal with the price of considerable items like houses, estates of houses or land? The noble Earl said that it is difficult because the land may be in a different state from that in which it was sold on a previous occasion. I gave an example in the previous debate of a piece of land that had been sold for £200,000. The same plot of land was later sold at £250,000; now it is for sale at £350,000. Why is it impossible administratively to deal with this kind of profiteering? Surely it is easier with matters of this kind than it would be with all the variety of articles which they assure the Trades Union Congress they can control by voluntary agreement.
The noble Earl then made the point (and the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, also made the point, I believe) that if one tried to do anything about houses and land it would dry up the supply. I think that on a previous occasion either the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, or the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said that it would only mean that the land was kept off the market until the end of the freeze period. But that argument, if seriously put forward, means only that the Government do not intend to do anything in the longer term. If the drying-up argument applies in the short term, it applies even more in the longer term. Are we to understand that the Government are not going to do anything in the longer term with land prices?
We have shown that it is possible. In the last six months of the time of the Labour Government we brought down the price of land by 4 per cent. It is possible to do something if there is a will to do it. It may be that we might have done more. I think something more sophisticated than a Land Commission is needed; but we succeeded in bringing down the price of land by 4 per cent. in our last six months in Office—just when the Land Commission was beginning to operate. So far as house prices are concerned there is one thing that can
1450
be done to stop the drying-up process and that is to encourage local authorities to build more. If one takes the figures, one sees that in the worst quarter of the Labour Government's term of Office we actually built twice as many houses as were built by local authorities in the last quarter for which I have figures. This means that we are effectively drying up the supply of houses—again for the lower-paid people. It is possible to do something if you really want to. One cannot get another house building programme in the "90 days plus 60 days"; but cannot we do this as an earnest of intention to do something more later on? Unless the Government are more forthcoming than they have shown themselves to be in the replies given so far, we can only take it that they have absolutely no intention in the longer term in phase 2, of dealing with this undoubted problem.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, by leave, I think I must take up the noble Lord on this point. I do not wish to leave either the noble Lord or the House with the impression that the Government can do nothing. Certainly in my speech I played down the question of practical difficulties. I agree with the noble Lord that practical difficulties can be overcome. I think a more serious objection is the one which I mentioned: that we should create a drying up of supply. The noble Lord recognised in his remarks that we are dealing with a temporary provisions measure, phase 1, and that altogether to change the policy on housing programmes for that period of time would be absurd. As to phase 2, I am not anticipating it and I cannot. The noble Lord will understand that. But what we are doing is trying to counter inflation.
Where the noble Lord and I differ is that I would say that high prices—or, as Lord Diamond, said, "scandalous" prices—of houses and land are the results of an inflationary period. As noble Lords know, and as we are discussing this afternoon, the Government are taking firm and immediate measures to counter inflation. What we are not prepared to do is to set up, as it were, as quack doctors ever ready to prescribe infallible remedies that we believe would not work. It is better to do as we are doing, create a climate in which all sections of our community

1451
can recognise the common need to reduce inflation and the common commitment to a reasonable rate of growth as a long term strategy. That, more than anything else, will ameliorate our present housing situation.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl for everything that he has said and I want to make just one little forecast. When we
Clause 5 [Offences]:
5.27 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, line 33, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is to leave out subsection (2)
come to phase 2 he will be as sorry that he allowed the word "quack" to fall from his lips as was a right honourable friend of his when he allowed the words "lame ducks" to fall from his lips.
5.20 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 39; Not-Contents, 83.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Gaitskell, B.

Nunburnholme, L.

Amulree, L.

Gardiner, L.

Ogmore, L.

Archibald, L.

Garnsworthy, L. [Teller. ]

Sainsbury, L.

Avebury, L.

Gladwyn, L.

St. Davids, V.

Balogh, L.

Hall, V.

Segal, L.

Beswick, L.

Henderson, L.

Serota, B.

Brockway, L.

Kennet, L.

Shackleton, L.

Burntwood, L.

Leatherland, L.

Shinwell, L.

Byers, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. [Teller.]

Summerskill, B.

Chalfont, L.

White, B.

Davies of Leek, L.

Milford, L.

Williamson, L.

Diamond, L.

Moyle, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Norwich, V.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Fortescue, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Mountevans, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Gage, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Auckland, L.

Gainford, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Garner, L.

Moyne, L.

Belstead, L.

Gisborough, L.

Northchurch, B.

Berkeley, B.

Gowrie, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Bolton, L.

Greenway, L.

Oakshott, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Grenfell, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Redcliffe-Maud, L.

Camoys, L.

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

Rennell, L.

Carrington, L.

Rhyl, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Hanworth, V.

Rockley, L.

Conesford, L.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Cottesloe, L.

Hawke, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Courtown, E.

Hurcomb, L.

St. Just, L.

Craigavon, V.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Saint Oswald, L.

Daventry, V.

Latymer, L.

Sandford, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Lauderdale, E.

Selkirk, E.

Derwent, L.

Leicester, E.

Stamp, L.

Dramalbyn, L.

Lothian, M.

Stonehaven, V.

Dudley, E.

Loudoun, C.

Strange of Knokin, B.

Ebbisham, L.

Lyell, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Eccles, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Sudeley, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Margadale, L.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, B.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Merrivale, L.

Vernon, L.

Falkland, V.

Milverton, L.

Vivian, L.

Ferrers, E.

Monck, V.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Ferrier, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

of Clause 5. We are now on that part of the Bill which deals with offences, and subsection (2) describes what is to happen if an organisation of workers takes
"any action with a view to compel, induce or influence a person to contravene any of the provisions of section 2 of this Act …"
The subsection says that an offender will be liable to a fine not exceeding £400. We have already had a short debate on

1453
this word "influence". We thought the word went far too wide and we invited the Government to remove it, but they were not prepared to do so, although it was impossible to say how wide the meaning of the word was, inasmuch as it had not been tested in the courts.
What we are now suggesting is that the whole of this subsection be withdrawn in the interests of achieving the objectives of the Bill as set out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He said that the purpose of the Bill was to provide for the next stage:
"so that the agreed objectives will not be prejudiced while the main legislation is being prepared."
Those agreed objectives are, we hope, to be achieved by a tripartite agreement, if not entirely voluntarily at all events with broad and wide political acceptability. I want your Lordships to examine what is likely to happen if this subsection remains in the Bill for this short standstill period, and what is likely to happen if it is withdrawn as the Amendment proposes.
If the subsection is withdrawn, the rather slow processes of the law will not be able to take effect during the short standstill period. The impact of that will, I suggest, be quite trivial. For a long-term Bill there is something to be said for these slow-working processes; for a very short-term standstill it is unlikely that there will be any great need to rely on a subsection of this kind. So I am saying that admittedly there will be some reduction in the persuasive powers of the Bill if this subsection is removed, but very little.
On the other hand, I invite your Lordships to consider what is likely to be the position if the subsection remains in the Bill, and is used. We all know what has happened under the I.R.A., which, as your Lordships know, stands for the Industrial Relations Act. In that Act there are provisions which might result in prosecutions, fines and imprisonment of trade unionists, just as there are here: and we know that in the case of the Midland Cold Storage Company the provisions resulted in a small difficulty escalating into a national industrial crisis. If there is not broad acceptability, a provision of this kind is not effective.
That is not the only ground on which I make this plea. I make it on the more important and fundamental ground that we want the Bill to achieve its purpose; and it cannot do that unless all parties to the Bill find it possible to get together. As your Lordships know, the T.U.C. found it nearly impossible to take part in the tripartite talks because of the Industrial Relations Act and what was happening under it. No matter what the T.U.C. wanted to do, it was as near as possible politically impossible for them to take part in those talks. If there are difficulties and this clause is relied on, if we have a similar kind of escalation and irritation, then the Government will find that the T.U.C., which is one of the main bodies to the talks, without which phase B will not be possible, will not be able to participate. No matter whether phase B takes on a legal form, a compulsory form or a voluntary form, we now know that it is just not possible. especially where there are some 8, 9 or 10 million citizens involved, for any provisions of this kind, of self-discipline and restriction in the interests of holding down inflation, to be effective. You cannot legislate against the strong will and strong opposition of a mass of citizenry of that kind.
I am saying that this subsection could make it possible for—and I return to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's words—the agreed objectives to be prejudiced while the main legislation is being proposed. I think the damage to the Government's case by the removal of this subsection is small; I think the damage to their case of leaving the subsection there is great and dangerous. Therefore, I invite the Government to agree with us that it should he withdrawn. I beg to move.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, the noble Lord has presented what I would call a very strange argument in respect of this Amendment. I may be naïve, but what the noble Lord appears to me to be saying is that if we make the necessary ultimate sanctions in this Bill bite against employers and employees alike, the latter will refuse to help us with phase 2 of any settlement or agreement. That seems to me to he dangerously close, not of course to the advocation of blackmail, but to acknowledging that blackmail of that kind must

1455
dictate legislation in this House or in the other place, and I think it would be quite wrong in any way to follow the noble Lord along that path.
The noble Lord must realise—I am sure that he does; and I am here quoting my honourable friend the Solicitor General in another place—that the Bill must be applied fairly and right across the board. The whole principle of a freeze, which no doubt involves elements of rough justice, as I should be the first to concede, is fairness for all sections of the community while its provisions are taking effect. This Amendment would remove the principal sanction that exists for organisations of workers who abide by the standstill, while retaining the comparable standstill for employers. As such, I would say that it should not only be quite unacceptable to your Lordships, but would be quite unworkable as well, and I would ask your Lordships to reject the Amendment.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, the noble Earl can use terms like "blackmail" and so on if he wants to, but I thought that on the last Amendment he was very much concerned with what was practicable. As an experienced politician, and having responsibilities in this field of labour relations, I should think he would have some regard to recent events: that he would have some regard to what we said would be likely to happen if the Industrial Relations Bill was pursued, and to what has happened; to the embarrassment that the Government have been in; the damage that has resulted from that Bill to our economic situation, and the additional days off through strikes which have resulted from that Act. I should have thought that he would be able to remember these very recent happenings and would not wish to see history repeat itself. It is on that basis that I invite the Government to reconsider this matter, and seriously to consider whether they would not be better served, in looking towards the long-term solutions for which we all hope, and in taking a minimum risk on the short-term, where the remedy and the sanction involved will in any event be doubtful and negligible, by deleting this subsection. It is on that ground that we intend to pursue this matter.
5.38 p.m.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I do not know whether I am too late, but I should like to approach this Amendment from quite another point of view. I have spent my life in newspapers. I can perceive that this particular subsection might be a powerful weapon in the hands of a dictatorial Government to use against newspapers. For example, it is said that nobody shall attempt to "influence a person". I am not so much concerned with the possible offence of compelling a person or inducing a person, but I am concerned with the expression "influence a person". One of the duties or privileges of a newspaper in a free society is to be able to influence people by force of argument. It appears to me that a newspaper could be prevented from arguing against this Bill, when it becomes an Act, by saying that it is a bad Act; that it is a pity that Parliament ever passed the Act; that it is a pity that certain groups of workers are to be penalised under the Act. If a newspaper used expressions like those, it could be interpreted as though that newspaper was trying to influence bodies of workers, or even individual workers, against the Act and its implications.
A newspaper might also find it difficult to advocate wage increases, let us say, for lowly paid groups of people, because that would be contrary to the Act, and they would be trying to influence those people to renew their wage demands. I might go further and say that if a newspaper tried to criticise this Act, and then took the further step of criticising the Government for bringing about the runaway inflation which necessitated the introduction of the Act, then it might be said that that newspaper was trying to influence people against the Government which had brought about the inflation and which had brought in the Act. I think this is a gross interference with the liberty of the Press in what is supposed to be a free society, and I hope that the Amendment will be accepted.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I was going to say how nice it was to see another face on the Front Bench opposite and to see an equality of sacrifice—someone to share the burden with the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. But I am bound to say that the argument that

1457
we have just listened to was the weakest one that we have heard. The noble Earl was being unfair when he said that we were concerned to deal only with the workers and not with the other side of industry. What we were proposing to leave out applies to both workers and organisations of employers: it applies in terms. Of course we are not suggesting that there should be penalties applied to the one and not to the other. It is quite wrong to suggest that. Moreover, we are not even saying that there should not be penalties for a contravention of the law of the land if this legislation goes on to the Statute Book. Clause 5(1) would still remain, and that subsection provides for penalties. No one is saying those penalties should be excluded. What we are saying is that you are getting on to dangerous ground when you are talking about influencing people. If I go to a factory on Monday morning and read out the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, in which he says that this Act is going to apply to one section of the community and not, to use his words, a significant proportion of the working population, I shall be liable to a fine of £400 because it would appear that I am attempting to influence the people in the factory.
LORD DRUMALBYN: This is distortion.
LORD BESWICK: This is so: and I am suggesting to the Government that here they are dealing with very dangerous legislation. Let us have a law; let us argue it out; let us put it on the Statute Book and have a penalty for breaking the law; but in the present state of politics you will not stop people discussing it. You will not stop arguments on the floor of the shop, and one man will be trying to influence another. Under this Bill, he is liable to a fine of £400 if he engages in the sort of arguments that I hear on the floor of the shop. I suggest to the Government that in their own interests they would do better not to put this on to the Statute Book. They cannot really enforce it. If they tried to do so then, as my noble friend Lord Diamond said, they would have to bring in the Official Solicitor to get them out of trouble. That was the only reason why my noble friend referred to the workers'
1458
side rather than the employers' side, because there have been some unfortunate instances recently in which the Government have got into deeper and deeper water. It is probably impossible to persuade the spokesmen for Her Majesty's Government to change their minds, but I say to them that they will regret this.
5.43 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, without going over ground that has already been covered, I wonder whether I could ask the noble Lords, Lord Beswick and Lord Leatherland, whether they recall the following words:
"If any trade union or other person takes, or threatens to take, any action, and in particular any action by way of taking part, or persuading others to take part, in a strike, with a view to compel, induce or influence any employer to implement an award or settlement in respect of employment at a time when the implementation of that award or settlement is forbidden under the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act, he shall be liable …"
and then it goes on to list certain penalties.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Viscount while he is still on his feet to say that I do recognise those words. I know from where he has taken them. I only say that human beings ought to profit from past experience.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, does the noble Lord and his noble friend also recall those who were liable to be affected by that particular provision? It would be both trade unions and, I should think, employers' organisations, as under the present legislation. They were not prosecuted. I do not think there were any prosecutions under Section 16(4) of the 1966 Act because they had the sense to realise that one does not go around influencing other people to commit criminal offences.
The noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, should consider rather more carefully precisely what it is that a newspaper would be likely to do. I cannot envisage the noble Lord, or any newspaper for which he was writing, setting about trying to influence people to commit a criminal offence. If he looks at the words in Clause 5(2) about which he is concerned, he is talking about influencing a person

1459
to contravene any of the provisions of Clause 5(2). Those provisions bite only when orders are made saying that something is illegal. No newspaper worth its salt, no newspaper that the noble Lord would ever dream of being concerned with, is going to try to incite or influence people to commit criminal offences. So far as I know, no newspaper, when the 1966 Act was in force, would have dreamt of doing that. Indeed, so far as I know nobody ever fell foul of the criminal law on this at all. Therefore I think one can say that to have these sanctions in the background is salutory because merely by being there they encourage people not to take part in extreme action. But on the other hand I do not think for one moment that they are going to prevent people discussing the propriety of what the Government are doing and whether it is wise or not. All we are trying to do is to prevent them from influencing others to take part in activities which are criminal under this legislation. I cannot see that there is anything wrong—
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, may I say that these actions will have to be interpreted in a court of law. They will not be interpreted from these Benches. If a newspaper said that a certain act or action was an outrageous injustice, that newspaper might not have used those words with the intention of deliberately trying to bring about a strike, or some other form of protest. On the other hand, those words might have an influence perhaps on some feather-brained toolmaker in the Austin car factory, and he might have been influenced—and then where does the newspaper stand?
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, while the noble Viscount is still suspended in mid-air, I should like, if I may, to ask him three questions arising out of what he has said. First of all, may I ask him whether he instructed his noble friend Lord Gowrie that the effect of our Amendment was to eliminate organisations of employees but not to eliminate organisations of employers, which is a phrase appearing in the same subsection? Secondly, may I ask him whether it was not the case that the 1966 Act, from which he quoted and which we naturally have in front of us, was there
1460
for the main purpose of setting up the National Board for Prices and Incomes, as will be seen from Section 1(1) of the Act? These words were subsidiary and additional provisions relating to a totally different context. I repeat that it was a totally different context. My third question is: is it his case that the best argument for introducing these irritating and dangerous provisions—dangerous in terms of the relations between the three Parties—into the Bill is that they are not likely to be used?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I think that by now I probably ought to ask for leave. The noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, puts the hypothetical case. The truth of the matter is that when one listens to him putting it, one begins to wonder whether the Attorney General (or the Procurator Fiscal in Scotland) who has to sanction prosecutions under this clause is not going to think that the type of activity the newspaper took part in is not so remote from the area which is intended to be caught under this Bill and the connection between the words printed and the actions of the feather-brained toolmaker is so minimal that really no question arises at all. If the Attorney General makes a mistake and authorises a prosecution, does not the noble Lord, with his experience on the Bench, think that there are courts which might be able to see the same point for themselves? I would suggest that this is so.
As for the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, in the first place I am not in a position, fortunately, where I have to instruct my noble friends one way or the other. I think that probably my noble friend Lord Gowrie appreciated that both sorts of organisations were there, and perhaps it might have been better if he had said so. At any rate, we all now know that this is the case.
The noble Lord asked about the context of the two sets of legislation. I think one can speak with legitimacy about a different background. This may be right, but one is here looking at a specific criminal section. I see the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, shakes his head. This is the creation of a criminal offence. If you look at the 1966 Act we are talking about influencing the implementation

1461
of something that is forbidden under the foregoing provisions of this Act. We have there exactly the same concept, somebody influencing somebody else to do something which is forbidden, prohibited, proscribed, criminal. I do not think that the noble Lord can say that for the purposes of setting up a sanction there is a legitimate difference in the construction and in the wording of this as the creation of a criminal offence.
As for the third point, I do not think the justification is that it will not be used; the justification is to have it there because people, if they are in any way inclined to do something silly, will remember,
Schedule [Supplemental Provisions]:
6.0 p.m.
LORD BESWICK LORD BESWICK moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 7, line 37, leave out sub-paragraph (1).
unless they are wholly and totally irresponsible, that it is after all something which has been made into a criminal offence by Parliament, and surely for 90 days they can restrain themselves from acting in this way. I hope that the House will accept that there are good reasons for having this in the Bill, and that the noble Lord may even see fit to withdraw the Amendment.
5.52 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 26; Not-Contents, 74.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Diamond, L.

Milford, L.

Archibald, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

St. Davids, V.

Beswick, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Serota, B.

Brockway, L.

Gardiner, L.

Shackleton, L.

Burntwood, L.

Garnsworthy, L. [Teller.]

Shinwell, L.

Chalfont, L.

Henderson, L.

White, B.

Chorley, L.

Jacques, L. [Teller.]

Williamson, L.

Collison, L.

Kennet, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Davies of Leek, L.

Leatherland, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Monk Bretton, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Falkland, V.

Mountevans, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Ferrers, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L [Teller.]

Auckland, L.

Fortescue, E.

Barnby, L.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Northchurch, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Gainford, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Belstead, L.

Gisborough, L.

Oakshott, L.

Berkeley, B.

Gowrie, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Bessborough, E.

Green way, L.

Rankeillour, L

Bethell, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Rennell, L

Bolton, L.

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

Rhyl, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Rockley, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Hawke, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Kinnoull, E.

St. Just, L.

Carrington, L.

Latymer, L.

Sandford, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Selkirk, E.

Conesford, L.

Leathers, V.

Shannon, E.

Courtown, E.

Leicester, E.

Somers, L.

Craigavon, V.

Loudoun, C.

Stradbroke, E.

Daventry, V.

Lyell, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Macleod of Borve, B.

Sudeley, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Dudley, E.

Margadale, L.

Vernon, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Merrivale, L.

Vivian, L.

Eccles, V.

Monck, V.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the Schedule I move to leave out sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 4, which says:
"This Act, and any provision mad,: under this Act, shall have effect notwithstanding anything in any other Act or statutory provision passed or made before this Act."
The noble and learned Lord who has gone so quickly from the Woolsack said

1463
he would answer any legal points that were raised. This was one that I raised on Second Reading, and so far I have not had any information about it. I cannot think that this is really intended. The noble Viscount, who answers questions on legal points so well, has a formula which he uses on various occasions that what is said, although it appears to be nonsense, is not really nonsense if it is read in the context. As I see this, there is no limiting context here. This sub-paragraph in the Schedule appears to have unlimited provision so far as the Act is concerned.
I want to ask this question of the noble Viscount, if he is to reply: what effect will this Bill, when it becomes an Act, have on, say, the European Communities Act? We passed, after a certain amount of rather acrimonious discussion, an Act in which it says:
"All such rights, powers, liabilities, obligations and restrictions from time to time created or arising by or under the Treaties, and all such remedies and procedures from time to time provided for by or under the Treaties … shall be … enforced, allowed and followed accordingly."
What will be the effect on this Act if we do something under the Counter-Inflation Bill, or Act, as it will be? Can we override this other Act? That is the question I put to him as simply as I can. Can he really override the European Communities Act by this provision which we are asked to put into the Counter-Inflation (Temporary Provisions) Bill? If we cannot, then what is the meaning of these English words in paragraph 4?
The other question I would ask the noble Viscount is this. To what extent can any provision passed or made under this Bill have permanent effect upon other legislation? If we use the powers under paragraph 4 to supersede some other Act—to annul another Act, for example—are we not then using an Act which is supposed to have a temporary validity in order to make a permanent change in the law of the land? This seems to me a most extraordinary set of words to put in, as I have said, in small print as an after-thought in the Schedule to a Bill. I hope that we may have some explanation as to why it is necessary to put them in; or, if not, I hope that it will be agreed to leave them out. I beg to move.
6.4 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, there is a very good explanation and I shall be delighted to try to give it to the noble Lord. The noble Lord realises—I have told him before and I am sure he appreciates this—that any teeth this particular Bill will have will consist of orders and notices. The Bill itself is enabling, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, said a little while ago. The effect will be done by orders in respect of specific commodities, prices, products, pay, or something of this kind. When one is legislating to deal with standstills or temporary freezes, or whatever one likes to call it, this Government, just as the Government which the noble Lord adorned, have to take account of some provisions in other legislation which would otherwise enable prices to be put up by statutory authorities.
I hesitate to speak about agricultural wages, but in fact there is that particular provision: there is the Wages Councils Act. Agricultural wages were in fact dealt with in the 1966 Act so that we could have the same effect. There are important provisions relating to transport: fares both on the surface and by aeroplane. I think again that if the noble Lord looks at Schedule 3 to the 1966 Act he will find, for instance, that the powers of the traffic commissioners to raise fares, which would otherwise come into effect by virtue of other legislation, can be suspended. Indeed, the Schedule to that Act (I do not know how up-to-date it would be now) sets out a rather large list of previous legislation, both in England and in Wales, and also in Scotland and in Northern Ireland, which one must be able to override for the purposes of holding prices and charges and so on during the freeze. Schedule 3 is one example; and there are Sections 31 and 32 which deal with the Agricultural Wages Act and the Wages Councils Act. They were spelt out specifically in that because it was a longer-term measure. Here we are using a portmanteau phrase in order basically to save time and complication.
The noble Lord asked me whether this measure supersedes the European Communities Act. In itself, of course, it does not. There is the hypothetical possibility of an order being made which

1465
might. If such an order were made—there is no prospect, so far as I know, of this happening at the moment; it is purely hypothetical—then there would be power to do it. The mere passing of this Schedule, with paragraph 4(1) in it, does not override anything. It would be the orders themselves that would have the effect of overriding it. Therefore we are not in this Bill doing anything effective with the European Communities Act.
The noble Lord asked me, lastly, about the permanent effect. On this also I hasten to assure him. The orders that will be made under this Bill will die, as I understand the situation, with the Bill, save for continuing proceedings that have to continue because of any contravention of orders. Supposing, for example, that something had been done—say a criminal offence had been cornmitted—one would not wish the proceedings to stop in mid course because this Bill, as an Act, itself, and the orders with it, had expired. So there is a little tailing-off procedure in the drafting. But certainly orders that overruled the Wages Councils Act, or cancelled for the moment fare increases or anything of that kind, would not last for ever. The matter will revive when this Bill, and the orders under it, comes to an end, and therefore there will be no permanent effect at all. I can reassure the noble Lord completely on that.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Viscount for the explanation he has given. What he has said, however, is no more than an excuse, if I may say so, for hurried legislation. What he is really saying is, "We have had to do this in a hurry and it has not been done so carefully as we should have liked it to be done. "As he points out—and it was kind of him so to do—in Schedule 3 to the 1966 Act the extent to which the powers run is spelt out. That is the way in which legislation should be done. Although he says that not until the order is made does any trouble arise, it could conceivably be, if we had an order that conflicted with something else, that we should have trouble. But, as I say, I can see that the basic explanation of this is the shortness of time in which the Government have had to rush this piece of policy through Parliament.
1466
So far as the European Communities Act is concerned, the noble Viscount said that such a possibility was hypothetical. But, of course, there is the case of steel prices, which may not be hypothetical at all. What would be the situation if the Commission ordered, or required, the steel prices of the United Kingdom to be raised to the level of the Community prices? We should presumably have to argue that the order had been made; but, as I see it, here we have two pieces of legislation, both of which claim to have a superior, overriding power over the other. This does not seem to me to be the way that we should go about our legislative processes. I shall not invite the House to go through the Division Lobbies, but in order to indicate that we do not agree with this sort of hurried legislation we shall content ourselves with just negating the invitation to be content.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
6.12 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 8, line 12, leave out ("annulment") and insert ("approval").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope it will be convenient to take the following Amendment with this because the two go together. The purpose of these two Amendments is to substitute the Affirmative Resolution procedure for the Negative Resolution procedure. I am not sure, now that I look at it again, that I have it quite right. I am not sure that in Amendment No. 6 it ought not to have said "each House of Parliament" rather than "both Houses of Parliament"; but if, as I very much hope, the Government accept this Amendment we can easily deal with that point by a manuscript Amendment. I hope that the Government will accept the Amendment, partly for the argument which I shall put forward shortly and partly to demonstrate that on this, which is the last occasion when they can demonstrate it because it is the last Amendment before your Lordships' House, the Government have been listening to the argument and are willing to have regard to the merit of the argument, and have not been in the posture that in no circumstances can they admit any Amendment, no matter how valuable or worthy. Your

1467
Lordships will have observed that every Amendment so far has been rejected.
I put forward this Amendment for a number of strong reasons. First, however, I want to clear away a possible misunderstanding which exists as between the wording here and the wording in Clause 1. Clause 1(2) says:
Her Majesty may by Order in Council"—
do certain things—
"as may be specified in the Order"—
and the Affirmative Resolution applies there: that is to say, the Order has to be approved by a Resolution of each House of Parliament. That is an Order in Council which is described as "the Order". Now if we look at the Schedule we see the words "an order under this Act". To avoid any possible misunderstanding, the first question I want to ask is whether I am right in assuming that an Order in Council, albeit it is referred to as "the Order" is not an order under this Act for the purposes of paragraph 6 of the Schedule? Assuming I am right in that, then it is the case that all orders under this Act are subject to the Negative Resolution procedure: that is to say, unless a Prayer is raised and succeeds the Order is effective.
We have just been told how important these orders are. We have been told that they will themselves be capable of overriding an Act of Parliament. That was not in the powers which we discussed under the last Amendment, in paragraph 4, sub-paragraph (1), but it is under the Orders which we are now discussing under paragraph 6 that such power will be exercised, and it is these orders themselves which may override Acts of Parliament. It is seriously proposed in your Lordships' House that orders which override Acts of Parliament shall be effective without coming before Parliament. Let me make my words quite clear—"without coming before Parliament". As we all know, an order which is subject to Negative Resolution procedure may or may not be challenged on a Prayer. Of course you can put a Prayer down in the other House, and down it goes, but whether it is debated or not is an entirely different matter. All those who have been good enough to read the Report of the Brooke Commit
1468
tee, on which I was privileged to serve, will know from the evidence there that there are increasing numbers of Prayers which are never heard.
So I am saying, with complete accuracy, that the proposal in the Bill is that orders which override Acts of Parliament—Acts which did not become Acts until they had received approval under the long processes of going through both Chambers, Acts of Parliament of that kind and of that importance—shall be made on the "say-so" of a Minister or a Secretary of State (whoever has the power), without necessarily coming before Parliament at all. I am saying that in the current circumstances, when we know that not all Prayers are heard and that there are no means before either House at the moment to secure that all Prayers are heard—we know that for a fact at the present time and have had evidence which is published and available to your Lordships—it is surely inconceivable that your Lordships would wish decisions which you have made and which have been approved in both Houses on First, Second and Third Reading, Committee stage, Report stage, and all the rest of it, should be gainsaid on the "say-so" of a Minister: as simply as that. Therefore I am suggesting that this must have been a mistake and that it would be far better to change it and instead of having the Negative Resolution procedure, which may or may not result in Parliament having an opportunity to consider the matter, we should have the Affirmative Resolution procedure under which Parliament, of necessity, will have the opportunity of considering the matter. Only if Parliament is consulted should Acts of Parliment be overridden; and I am putting that very strongly to the Minister.
I am almost encouraged to repeat my argument all over again, now that I see the noble Lord who was the Chairman of the Committee to which I have just referred, in his place; but the evidence that was made available to that Committee has been published and therefore one does not need the witness of the Chairman of the Committee to the accuracy of what I have said. I hope, therefore, that the Government will be willing to change from the Negative to the Affirmative Resolution procedure so that—to say it in one sentence—an Act of Parliament shall not be overridden without Parliament

1469
being consulted. I beg to move Amendment No. 5.
6.20 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am bound to admit from the start that there is force in the noble Lord's argument. We have to choose the best course, however, and it is important to realise the short duration of this measure. It will be limited in duration, as will the orders made under it, and the House will want them to be brought into effect as soon as possible in order to check abuses be they on rents, dividends, prices or whatever it may be. Other orders may be needed to ensure that the standstill on wages is observed, and they will be entirely consequential on the Bill itself. As the noble Lord said, if any Member of either House feels that an order is objectionable, he can pray against it. The noble Lord is right to say that not all Prayers that are laid are debated, but I should think that, at any rate in this House, any Prayers that were laid would be debated; and of course in a case like this a negation in either House would suffice. I am aware that it is not normal for this House to throw out orders but I can only state the position as it is. Any responsible Government would in my view be bound, if there were a Prayer in another place, against an order subject to the Negative Resolution procedure in the sort of circumstances the noble Lord has in mind, to allow time for it to be discussed. I cannot conceive that if it were clearly established, even between the usual channels, that there was serious concern about a particular order, it would not be discussed.
I am bound to point out that the Amendment is defective because it does not specify the type of Affirmative Resolution that would apply. It should plainly not be the type which requires to be laid in draft and which does not come into effect until approved by both Houses, because that is not suitable for an order that is to last for so limited a time. I should perhaps make it clear that it is the intention to lay a number of orders as soon as the Bill becomes law. If each of those orders were to be debated at very great length, or if they had to be debated at all before coming into operation, they would of course be delayed.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, would the noble Lord give way?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am well aware of the procedure with an Affirmative Resolution.
LORD DIAMOND: But—
LORD DRUMALBYN: Noble Lords opposite are unusually impatient to-night. I agree that the hour is late, and I hope that we shall not take too long over this. I have instanced one kind of Affirmative Resolution. Another type, of course, is that which does not have to be laid in draft and does not come into effect until approved; and for the same reason that is unsuitable. The third type is an order which comes into effect at once but lapses unless it is approved within a specified period; and the Amendment does not specify any such period.
Apart from that, I recommend the House to reject the Amendment on commonsense grounds. It is true that to achieve the purposes of the Bill, within the limited powers conferred by the Bill, Ministers may frame orders "in any way whatsoever, "but my noble friend has explained the severe limitations on the powers conferred. It is true that the orders can override Acts of Parliament, but in each case the extent to which they do so will be made plain, and one cannot have a standstill without overriding some Acts. The truth is that it will be necessary, as I have said, to introduce a number of these temporary orders, and no doubt some of them will override Acts. Also to be introduced right away are the regulations to be made under paragraph 7 of the Schedule prescribing the form in which notices are to be given; and this will particularly affect prices because notice to restore a price to the November 6 level will be given in accordance with the regulations to be made under that paragraph. Noble Lords may not be so worried about that because it is not covered by the Amendment. There may be more orders to follow, if they prove to be necessary to make the standstill effective.
I put it to the House that it is not sensible that because one or two orders may have to be debated, all orders should therefore have to be approved individually, each having to be brought before

1471
the House. It is much better for noble Lords who either object to a particular order or find it hard to understand it to table a Motion to annul it. It is only reasonable to treat these relatively ephemeral orders in this way.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, introduced two phrases which he has not used before. He began generously by saying that we had a point. Later he urged the House to reject the Amendment on what he called common-sense grounds. That was a curious combination—on the one hand to say that we had a point and on the other to invite noble Lords to reject our proposal on common-sense grounds. The Minister did not use the words "common sense" in relation to our other Amendments, on behalf of which we had some good arguments to adduce. The hurried nature of this legislation has emerged clearly from this discussion. It has been admitted that the Government have had to think up portmanteau phrases to cover all sorts of contingencies. It is dangerous when we are faced with such hurried legislation and portmanteau phrases and it is clear that if this type of legislation is to be carried forward into orders, we must study those orders. I agree that we should have been more careful in the wording of our Amendment, but we are open to suggestions from the noble Lord. Unless we are given an assurance that he will consider a manuscript Amendment on Third Reading to meet his criticisms of the drafting of our Amendment, I shall have to invite my noble friends to press the matter to a Division.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to apologise for omitting to mention the noble Lord's first question, when he drew attention to Clause 1 and asked whether an Order in Council would be an order under this measure for the purposes of paragraph 6. The answer is, No: they are separate. All the others have the Negative Resolution procedure. Obviously there would be substance in the
1472
noble Lord's argument if the number of orders involved were such that within the time-scale it was possible to deal with them. I am arguing that that is not the case and that it is perfectly possible for noble Lords to pick out those orders about which they feel they must protest, or seek further explanations, and call for them to be annulled. This seems to be a perfectly simple and recognised Parliamentary procedure with which I see nothing wrong.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I am surprised to hear cries of "hear, hear!" from the Benches opposite when noble Lords on those Benches have the same interest as I have—namely, in securing democratic procedures in your Lordships' House. The position as we now know it is that the Government propose, once this Bill is an Act, to bring in orders under it, some of which will override existing Acts of Parliament. That is what the Minister said. It is admitted that if Prayers against those orders are not heard, as some of them will not be, then the Acts will be overridden on a Minister's "say-so" without Parliament having been given an opportunity of saying whether or not it wants its Acts overridden. I think that is a totally intolerable, undemocratic procedure. There is no force whatever in the noble Lord's argument about speed, because, as he finally admitted, after getting there in a devious way, that one type of Affirmative order, the most familiar one (and indeed the one provided under subsection (1) by an Order in Council) is one which has effect immediately and ceases to have effect only if it is not voted on within the period laid down. That is a situation which, I repeat, we find intolerable and we cannot allow this to go through. I hope that there will be many who feel as we do that the democratic procedures of Parliament have to be sustained even in the face of a Government that want to bring in orders overriding Acts of Parliament on the say-so of a Minister.
6.31 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution):
6.39 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg to move That this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, may I say, as we come to the end of another Bill, that it has been a concentrated effort and that we have had from noble Lords opposite every consideration and courtesy, falling short of satisfaction. But before we let this Bill go through I think we ought to make a protest about the time in which we have had to consider it. Here we have another example of an important piece of legislation which is being steamrollered through the Parliamentary processes. In the other place it
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 26; Not-Contents, 63.

CONTENTS

Avebury, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Peddie, L.

Beswick, L.

Gardiner, L.

St. Davids, V.

Brockway, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Serota, B.

Burntwood, L.

Jacques, L.

Shackleton, L.

Chalfont, L.

Kennet, L.

Shinwell, L.

Collison, L.

Leatherland, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Davies of Leek, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. [Teller.]

White, B.

Diamond, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Milford, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Margadale, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Monck, V.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Falkland, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Auckland, L.

Falmouth, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Barnby, L.

Ferrers, E.

Belstead, L.

Fortescue, E.

Oakshott, L.

Berkeley, B.

Gainford, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Bessborough, E.

Gowrie, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Bolton, L.

Greenway, L.

Rennell, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Rhyl, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

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

Rockley, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Carrington, L.

Harvey of Prestbury L.

St. Just, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Hawke, L.

Sandford, L.

Conesford, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Selkirk, E.

Courtown, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Somers, L.

Craigavon, V.

Lothian, M.

Sudeley, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Loudoun, C.

Terrington, L.

Daventry, V.

Lyell, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Macleod of Borve, B.

Vivian, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Eccles, V.

Mancroft, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

had the guillotine. There was a whole clause and parts of this Bill which were not considered at all in the other place. Here, we have given a little consideration to the Schedules which were not considered at all in the other place. That is not the right way to deal with legislation.
My noble friend and I have tried to make the point that at the end of this type of legislation the Government succeed in creating an even more unpleasant atmosphere in industry. It was particularly difficult for them to get agreement in those Chequers talks because of the atmosphere which had been created by a previous Act of Parliament, the Industrial Relations Act. Each succeeding Act dealing with this aspect of our nation's affairs creates a worse and worse atmosphere. The difficulty is now going to be that when we come to phase 2 the atmosphere will be even more sour. We have sugggested that for our part we should like to see a credible prices and

1475
incomes policy. The Labour Party has agreed that something like this is essential in a civilised advanced industrial society. But it means that one has to treat those on the other side of industry in such a way as to get reasonable agreement with them. All that noble Lords opposite and Her Majesty's Government have succeeded in doing is aggravating, irritating and frustrating the other side of industry.
In this very short Bill we have seen a formula for profiteering. The provisions of the Bill make it possible to control everything that goes into the construction of a house except the price of it when it comes to be sold. The wages of the men who build it are controlled; the materials are controlled, and those who make the materials are controlled so far as their wages are concerned. Yet the man who sells the houses has no control at all when he is putting it on the market. We have been told that it is essential to control the price of labour, and yet the Government can do nothing at all about land. We have been told that they can do nothing at all about certain food prices. This kind of thing really does not leave a very pleasant atmosphere throughout industry.
There is a particular case that we intended to raise and so far we have not done so. I have given some notice to the noble Lord and I hope he can tell me something about it. It relates to journalists. Some time ago the National Union of Journalists concluded a very reasonable agreement made up of two stages. The agreement would never have been accepted by the National Union of Journalists had it not provided for further moderate increases on the second stage. Under the agreement, that second stage comes into operation at the beginning of 1973. Can I ask what will be the position of this agreement? Is it frozen by this Bill? If so, how can the noble Lord justify an action of that kind? How can he say, as he has tried to say on various occasions, that the intention is to be fair as between one section of the population and another?
We have discussed the agricultural workers' award which has been turned down. We have seen the position of the National Health Service workers who hitherto have always followed the agreements of the local authority workers.
They have been disappointed in both cases. What now about this agreement with the National Union of Journalists? Are we to be told that that, too, will not be able to apply at the beginning of January simply because it was not in a form of words covered by subsection (3) of Clause 3?
It would seem that in this Bill there is a certain spiteful element. That is not a word that I thought up. It was a word I heard the other day in a discussion of people who have some responsibility in industrial relations. It was suggested to me that because the Government had failed to get voluntary agreement of the package in the Chequers talks they have enforced in this Bill part of that package; they have enforced almost everything in the package save that which gave an increase of £2 or £2·60 a week. This, we are told, cannot be possible. The rest of the package that was put forward is applied. I can only think that this has been done in order to teach the T.U.C. that they really ought to have accepted the voluntary deal that was put forward.
My Lords, in this House we do not vote on Third Readings and we are not proposing to vote on Third Reading today. But I think it is necessary to put on the Record what we think about this nasty, brutish little Bill.
6.45 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am bound to say that I regret the tone in which the noble Lord is ending our consideration of this Bill. I am grateful for the way he started. It is very difficult for a Government to give satisfaction to an Opposition; I do not think it very often happens.
LORD DIAMOND: Not one Amendment!
LORD DRUMALBYN: The noble Lord says, "Not one Amendment". But my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack gave the answer to this. We are here considering the national interest and the Amendments must be judged in line with the national interest. Had there been any Amendment where the national interest dictated that we should accept it, we should have done so. But there has been no such Amendment.
The noble Lord talks about our creating a worse atmosphere with this

1477
Bill. Why should things done by us create a worse atmosphere when exactly the same things were done by the Opposition when they were in Government? I fail to understand this altogether. Why should it be so wrong for us to do it when it was right for the Opposition to do precisely the same things when they were in Government? It is true that not everything is the same, because the situations are different. In 1966, the previous Administration was obliged to introduce a freeze as only one of a number of deflationary measures. It was just another phase of their stop-go management of the economy. Their target of 4 per cent. growth—and it was only a target—was never reached and had to be abandoned. To-day the economic situation is very different. Following action in the Budget, output is rising strongly and we are now achieving the target of 5 per cent. economic growth per annum. Unemployment continues to show a marked downward trend. These is no doubt—as Mr. Samuel Brittan of the Financial Times, as well as other independent observers have said—that a reduction in wage inflation could bring with it an unparalleled improvement in living standards for all our people. This is what the Bill is about. This is what we are seeking to achieve.
I should like to put on record one thing. The noble Lord, Lord Archibald, criticised me for representing the improvement in agricultural wages as if it had been brought about by the Government. What I was doing was comparing the rate of increase of agricultural wages under the five years of Labour Government with two years of our Government. I did not mean to say that it was brought about by the Governments. Everyone knows the Agricultural Wages Boards are independent bodies. If I gave that impression I should like to record my apologies for that.
Since June, 1970, real personal disposable incomes per head (incomes after tax adjusted for the effects of price increases; in other words—take home pay in real terms) have increased at an annual rate of 5 per cent. Between 1964 and 1970 the rate was only 1½ per cent. a year—8 per cent. increase between 1964 and 1970, 10 per cent. over the period since June, 1970. At a time when people's expectations of a rising real standard of living are being fulfilled and not frustrated, we
1478
have a very much better chance of establishing arrangements to control inflation on a lasting basis.
What I regret about the noble Lord's approach to-day, and the approach of other noble Lords, is that they are making it more difficult for us to get the kind of consensus that we are seeking to achieve. We genuinely have gone as far as we could possibly go. The noble Lord says that we can do nothing about food prices. If he will look at the White Paper he will see what we are doing about food prices. We cannot control the prices of imported food, but we can see that the margins on it are not increased. This is the sort of step that we intend to take.
The noble Lord asked me about the National Union of Journalists. The answer is—one can only regret it—that it is so: the agreement is caught by the standstill. The reason is quite clearly set out in the White Paper in paragraph 14. There is no doubt about it at all. The White Paper says:
"However, there will be some agreements made before the standstill which provide for specified increases in pay or improvements in other conditions to take effect from an operative date falling within the period of the standstill. The operative date of such increases will be deferred until the standstill conies to an end."
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for looking this up for me. Can he say whether, at the end of this standstill period when the agreement becomes operative, it will be dated as from January 1, 1973?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, such agreements will not be backdated. They will come into effect as from the end of the standstill, although one has to make the caveat that that will depend, as each particular case will depend, on what the next stage should be, which of course we shall be debating in this House.
I must say once again that this has absolutely nothing to do with Clause 3(3). I read out at an earlier stage what the previous Government did on the 1966 standstill. To cut a long story short this read as follows:
"It is not intended that the standstill should interfere with the normal arrangements for increasing pay either with age, as with apprentices or juveniles, or by means of regular increments and specified amounts within the predetermined range of scale."

1479
We have followed that precedent. Obviously there are arguments for and against, and we think that the arguments for following the precedents are more cogent than those against. It is a difficult choice, I quite agree, but we are doing what the last Government thought was the right thing to do, and what we think is the right thing to do in this case, too.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, in relation to the National Union of Journalists, as the noble Lord has just said, an agreement entered into before the relevant date of November 6 will not be operative afterwards because it is caught by the freeze, and yet a dividend declared before the relevant date for an increased amount will be operative after the freeze; that is to say, a dividend declared before the relevant date—which is an agreement between the company and its shareholders—will be payable in cash to the shareholders at the increased rate after the relevant date. How can the noble Lord reconcile the justice in those two propositions?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, simply because of the completely different circumstances involved. Where a dividend is declared, that immediately, as I explained to the noble Lord—and he must know it all too well—has an effect on the market and it becomes irreversible, whereas when something is to be done a year from then, it is of course quite a different situation.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, could we get this quite clear? Here we have an agreement which in fact came into effect on January 1, 1972. There is no doubt about this being an agreement which was reached and which was put into effect on January 1, 1972, well before the November 6 date. The point is that it came into effect in two parts, and this was an act which at the time most people thought was one of great moderation on the part of the National Union of Journalists. It was to come into effect in two parts: the first part as from the beginning of 1972, and the second part as from the beginning of 1973; but the two parts were one agreement which was reached a year before this November 6 deadline.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, that is true; but when you are in a situation where you have a standstill, you cannot take an action at one end which is going to affect other things along the line. If you allow increases in wages during the period this, in turn, is going to cause an increase in prices. It will have a snowballing effect before you know where you are. You must have as complete a standstill as possible. May I say something that I omitted to say earlier when we were talking about increments? I am told that, where increments are paid, the additional increments paid are almost exactly balanced, in one way or the other, by salaries that cease to be paid, because as some people go up others retire, and so forth. I am told that, so far as the quantum of salaries paid goes, it remains the same.
Let me conclude with this remark. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has said that there is a spiteful element in what we are doing. Nothing could be further from the truth. We have, as I said, followed the pattern of the previous legislation. We have not done it in any way in a spiteful way; we have done it purely and simply because there was no alternative to a breathing space during which we could work out the policies for the next stage. It is for those reasons that I ask noble Lords now to give a Third Reading to this Bill.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, and in order to get the Record straight, since he said that his Government were only doing in this Bill what was done in a previous similar Act in 1966, can he tell me to which Act in 1966 he was referring?
LORD DRUMALBYN: Yes, my Lords, the first Act that was passed, I think, on July 31, 1966.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, in that case would the noble Lord make it clear that that Bill, which became the Prices and Incomes Act 1966, had for its Part I a provision for the establishment of the National Board for Prices and Incomes, which was to undertake a continuous review of both prices and incomes. The Board was a most constructive element in our economy, and the Government ought never to have abolished it.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

ATOMIC ENERGY AUTHORITY (WEAPONS GROUP) BILL [H.L.]
6.57 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Transfer of Atomic Energy Authority Weapons Group to Secretary of State]:
6.58 p.m.
LORD WYNNE-JONES LORD WYNNE-JONES moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 10, at end insert:
("(a) the power of the Authority to manufacture or otherwise produce, buy or otherwise acquire, treat, store, transport and dispose of any radioactive substances pursuant to section 2(2)(c) of the Atomic Energy Authority Act 1954,")
The noble Lord said: This Bill has a very simple purpose, but when one starts looking at it carefully one finds that the purpose is not defined with the clarity that one would expect in a Bill which is going to affect quite a lot of people and quite a lot of work. Throughout the Bill reference is made to the transfer of the Weapons Group of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority. Now the Weapons Group is a group which works at Aldermaston and deals, as the name suggests, with weapons, but it also deals with a number of other very important activities in connection with atomic energy which have nothing to do with weapons at all. It deals with the production of radioactive isotopes, which is of tremendous civilian, medical, and industrial importance, and further there is work which is done there in connection with the fast breeder reactor. This was all referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, during the Second Reading of this Bill on November 16 at column 828, when he said:
"Civil work at present carried out at A.W.R.E. accounts for about a fifth of the establishment's effort. Part of this is devoted
1482
to the Authority's research and development programme on the fast breeder reactor, most of which, of course, is carried out in the Authority's Reactor Group."
The fact that such a large amount of work is done in this establishment for civil purposes means that there must be about 1,000 people in the establishment engaged on civil work. The proposal is that all these should be transferred to the Ministry of Defence. That is something which I think will raise complications in the future, and because of that I wish to move this Amendment which would have the effect of retaining the civil work under the Atomic Energy Authority.
In the original Act of 1954, one finds that the Atomic Energy Authority were given very clear and specific powers. They appear in Section 2(2), in which there are six paragraphs, one of which I have repeated in my Amendment in order to make it clear that it remains the right and, indeed, the business of the Atomic Energy Authority to deal with this question of the production and distribution of isotopes. If this is not done, it will mean that the production and distribution of isotopes will be effectively under the control of the Minister of Defence. It is true, as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said on Second Reading, that work could be done under contract for another Department, but the trouble about that is that whenever work is done inside a Ministry of Defence establishment it tends to become secret or classified work. Because of that, even though it may be quite permissible for material to be produced and sold to other bodies, the information is not always clear enough. In consequence, there is a retardation in the distribution of both mater al and information which could be avoided if this activity were clearly transferred to the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority. If the purpose of this Bill is to transfer the weapons work to the Ministry of Defence, it would seem that it should not at the same time transfer other work to it. My Lords, I beg to move.
LORD CARRINGTON: I know that the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, will be glad to know that his Amendment is really unnecessary. First of all, may I tell him that there is no intention whatever to transfer from the Authority their power relating to the manufacture and

1483
disposal of radioactive substances, and indeed nothing in the Bill derogates from this power which they already have. The power of the Authority in respect of radioactive substances is of course only one of many powers which they have under the subsection to which the noble Lord referred. Clause 9(4) of this Bill covers the point, because it makes it clear that nothing is transferred from the Authority, except as provided in Clauses 1 and 6. So there is no need whatever to make a specific exclusion in respect of radioactive substances.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: I am grateful for that explanation. The noble Lord opposite will know that I made a brief intervention earlier—having paid tribute to the work of the Atomic Energy Authority over the years—in regard to isotopes, because of my knowledge of their use in a laboratory with which I am linked. At this late hour there is no need for me to make a long speech, but another matter crops up here. Without sounding as though I am teaching anybody anything, may I refer to the analysis, called Ten Year Innovations, written by Christopher Layton in 1968? The Central Advisory Council for Science and Technology asked Mr. Christopher Layton to explore the reasons why Britain appears to be obtaining a poor return for its large investment in qualified scientists and engineers. Ultimately, the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, took a part in this work and P.E.P. published it.
May I ask whether, when these discussions took place with our future partners about our going into Europe and Euratom—which at one time I attended—there was any discussion about this problem and about the hiving-off? I think that such a discussion should take place. My second question is this. I spent some time on a very important Committee in the other place discussing the distribution of radioactive substances and wastes and safety. May we have a guarantee that the same stringent regulations for safety in the movement, assessing or packing of radioactive substances will be maintained? In view of the Minister's answer, I shall not say anything further, but I should be grateful for a reply to those two points.
LORD CARRINGTON: With regard to the discussions, I cannot say precisely whether our allies were notified; but, as I tried to point out in my answer, all that is happening is that the Weapons Group is being transferred to the Ministry of Defence. So I do not think that that will affect the problem which the noble Lord has in mind. With regard to his second question, I can of course give him the guarantee that the same regulations will apply.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has said that under Clause 9 of the Bill the position which I am trying to safeguard by this Amendment is fully covered. If he can give me positive assurances about that, then naturally I shall be very happy. But I must call attention to the fact that in the Second Reading debate the noble Lord said:
"I can assure your Lordships that this work"—
the work on radioactive isotopes—
"together with the other civil work at A.W.R.E., will continue uninterrupted: the expertise and facilities at A.W.R.E. will be made available to the Authority and the Department of Trade and Industry under contracts which they will place with the Ministry of Defence."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16/11/72; col. 828.]
That does not suggest that the work is being transferred back to the Atomic Energy Authority, but rather that the work will be retained by the Ministry of Defence, who may be gracious enough to allow the Atomic Energy Authority, or any other Ministry or body, to have the work done.
Clause 9 states that the question whether,
"… property of the Authority was held for the purposes of the Weapons Group, or in the course of carrying on any activities of the Group, shall be determined (in case of doubt) by reference to the Authority's books, and entries in those hooks with respect to any property shall he conclusive as to how it was held at the time in question".
If that means that any property that was being used on work for civilian purposes is to be determined as now belonging to the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, then I should be very happy; but it did not seem to me that the statement made by the noble Lord in the debate meant quite the same thing as Clause 9 seems to mean.
LORD CARRINGTON: Perhaps I can reassure the noble Lord and ask him if he will look very carefully at Clause 9(4). That says:
"Except as provided by sections 1 and 6 of this Act nothing in this Act is to be construed as taking away from the Authority any power, right, liability or obligation expressly conferred on them by name by any enactment."
Since neither Clause 1 nor Clause 6 in point of fact takes away that which the noble Lord wishes to restore, the position really is wholly safeguarded. The Atomic Energy Authority would be able to carry on these practices by themselves; they have the power to do so. If they wish the Weapons Group to do it at Aldermaston, then the Weapons Group could do it under contract for them. They have the absolute power to do what they wish.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: Yes, I assumed that they have the power; but, on the other hand, this Bill, if it means anything at all, means that there is to be a transfer of all the property and all the people who are working in this field—that is to say, the field of radioactive isotopes. Am I correct in that?
LORD CARRINGTON: I had hoped that we had got through this barrier at the Second Reading. The object of this Bill is to take from the Atomic Energy Authority the Weapons Group at Aldermaston. Eighty per cent. of the work at Aldermaston is for the Ministry of Defence, 10 per cent. is for the A.E.A. and 10 per cent. for other civil Departments. It has worked very well, the A.E.A. managing the business of the Ministry of Defence. There is no reason at all why the Ministry of Defence managing 10 per cent. of the A.E.A.'s business should not work equally well. If it does not work equally well, the A.E.A. have power under this Bill and under the other enactments to go and make their own arrangements.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: I think the noble Lord is really trying to avoid the issue here, because what he is saying is that the Atomic Energy Authority have the power to do it. Of course they have the power to do it. But what I am saying is that the Ministry of Defence is now going to take over the actual physical assets plus the staff concerned. It is very nice to have the power, but if the staff concerned are 1,000 people, as I believe
1486
they are, approximately, and if there is actual equipment there which is quite considerable, and if this equipment is to be the property of the Ministry of Defence and the staff are to be employed by the Ministry of Defence, as according to this Bill (if I understand it correctly) they are, then it seems to me that whatever rights the Atomic Energy Authority have, the actual fact is that the Ministry of Defence is taking over this work.
LORD CARRINGTON: But the noble Lord's Amendment does not remedy that in any degree. All that the noble Lord's Amendment does is to give the Authority power to do something, which power they already have. With great respect to the noble Lord, I should not have thought that it was really very sensible to say that you should hand over 90 per cent. of Aldermaston to the Ministry of Defence and that the A.E.A. should keep 10 per cent.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: But 10 per cent. is 1,000 people. The noble Lord says it is 10 per cent., but he previously stated it was 20 per cent. We really are getting into the most extraordinary state where, on the one hand, the noble Lord uses a figure of 20 per cent. in order to show how excellent his establishment is. and then turns round and says, "But the baby is really much smaller than this; it is only 10 per cent. "The 10 per cent. is work done for the Atomic Energy Authority directly; but the other 10 per cent. is work done for civil purposes. I am contending that the whole of the civil work should be the business of the Atomic Energy Authority, which is what they were originally set up to do. If the noble Lord says that my Amendment is unnecessary, I should like to point out to him—and he really will have to be patient with me—that according to the terms of the 1954 Act it is quite clear that the Atomic Energy Authority had no right to work on weapons except when they were asked to do so by the Minister of Supply, who is now presumably replaced, under present arrangements for procurement, by the Minister of Defence, and that the Minister of Defence alone can ask the Atomic Energy Authority to do work on weapons. If that was so under the old Act, then there was nothing at any time to prevent the Minister of Defence from ceasing to ask the Atomic Energy Authority to do that work and to

1487
do it himself. He did not have to introduce a Bill to do this.
LORD KENNET: I think the issue has become clear in discussion. It is this, if I get it right: that the Bill does not prevent the transfer of this civilian work on isotopes; and the Secretary of State has told us that my noble friend's Amendment does not prevent it either. So I would suggest to my noble friend that if he wants to prevent it he might put down another Amendment at Report stage specifically prohibiting that which he wants to prevent, and this could then be debated on its merits.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: Does the noble Lord wish to exercise his right of reply and to say whether he wishes to press his Amendment or withdraw it?
LORD WYNNE-JONES: I have nothing further to say. I have, I think, succeeded in getting a little information from the Minister on this matter, but it is quite clear that the Amendment would not be carried, and therefore I do not wish to press it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
7.17 p.m.
LORD CHALFONT LORD CHALFONT moved Amendment No. 2:
After Clause 1 insert the following new clause—
Accounts of Weapons Group
". Notwithstanding any provision of this Act the Secretary of State shall separately in respect of the Weapons Group keep proper accounts and other records and shall prepare in respect of each financial year statements of account in such form as the Treasury may direct, and those statements shall, on or before the thirtieth day of November next following the expiration of the financial year in question, be transmitted to the Comptroller and Auditor General who shall examine and certify the statements and lay copies thereof together with his report thereon, before each House of Parliament."
The noble Lord said: I shall be as brief as possible. The reasons for this Amendment, the effect of which would be to insert a new clause, Clause 2, are simple. The Amendment itself may look rather complicated, but its simple effect is to require the Secretary of State, should this Bill pass into law, to keep and publish separate accounts for the Weapons Group,
1488
which is now passing from the Atomic Energy Authority to his Department. The reason for proposing this Amendment is that it is extremely significant legislation which is now passing through your Lordships' Committee. Indeed, it is so important that I am astonished at the apparent lack of interest which is being taken in it. We are now faced with a Bill which, if it passes into law, will mean that of the five nuclear Powers in the world Britain will be the only non-Communist country in which the research, development and procurement of nuclear weapons is directly under the hand of the Secretary of State, or Minister, for Defence. In the United States and in France there are Commissions similar to the Atomic Energy Authority which, with certain variations and differences, carry out these duties. I make that point not to say that it is any good reason why the Bill should not pass into law, but simply to emphassise that this is extremely important legislation. This is not just a Bill about administration, a Bill about who handles and who manages what: it is a Bill of extremely great significance for the future of this country.
Even if there are people who have no objection in principle to this Bill, I should like to point out that in the future there may be certain dangers which will arise from it. The psychological effect of placing the procurement of nuclear weapons under a separate commission or authority is that nuclear weapons are quite clearly seen to be different in kind from other types of military hardware. There is a danger, I believe—and a very real danger—that if this responsibility passes into the military Department, into the Department of Defence, that distinction will be blurred, and that we shall gradually move toward a situation in which people come to regard nuclear weapons as simply another military option. It is, I think, extremely important that all decisions regarding nuclear weapons, and particularly the research that goes into nuclear warheads, their development and the improvements made to them, should be a matter of collective decision and not of Departmental decision. The noble Lord said on Second Reading that he could assure the House that this would continue to be the case: that all matters of nuclear policy and nuclear weapons would be the subject of collective decisions and would

1489
not be Departmental matters. I believe him; I accept his assurance. But there may come a time when there is a Government in power in which a Secretary of State for Defence is tempted to take certain decisions on his own. It seems to me that under this Bill he would be in a position to do so if not legally empowered to do so.
The effect of my proposed Amendment would be to make it much more difficult for him to do so. This is a safeguard for the future. Its effect would be to prevent the accounts of the Atomic Weapons Group from being buried and unidentifiable in the Defence Estimates among the whole mass of Defence appropriations and Estimates. As I have said, it would require that he should keep and publish separate accounts for the research, development and testing of nuclear weapons.
It may be said that this would be dangerous in the security sense. I am sure that this argument will be put forward, if not by the noble Lord to-night then by others. My answer is that I do not believe that the simple publishing of figures in this way would be damaging to the national security. It is not precisely how much money is being spent in any one year on nuclear weapons that is going to be useful to a potential enemy; he wants more precise technical and useful military intelligence than that. It seems to me that even if we are going to move away from the situation in which weapons of mass destruction are dealt with in a different way from the more conventional military weapons, at least we ought to have this safeguard which should prevent any future ill-disposed Government or military Department or Defence Secretary from carrying out work on the development and production of nuclear weapons without a collective decision which could be seen to be taken openly and taken with the full knowledge of its long-term implications.
For that reason, I propose that the Amendment be inserted to have the effect of publishing the separate accounts and therefore of making it apparent if there is any great change in the level of work being carried on in the development research or procurement of nuclear weapons. I beg to move.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, may I crave the indulgence of your Lordships for a few minutes? I rise to support my noble friend's Amendment. I will peg out three points. The first is that I think it essential in this period when we are hoping to get an understanding between East and West, since President Nixon has made visits to the icier parts of the world known as Russia and China and has broken down the attitude to the Eastern sections of the world, that we should not give the impression that we are overtly wanting to encourage a nucleonic approach to our strategy. There is no such thing as a tactical nuclear weapon. It is rubbish to talk of that. Secondly, it is essential that the Houses of Parliament, and the other place in particular, should have the power of the purse and information. Thirdly, I would remind your Lordships of the quite famous Trend Report of 1955 which asked that the spin-off from nuclear production for military purposes he moved into peaceful purposes. We have the example of the spin-off from space research—everybody knows that it produced the non-stick frying pan—but many wonderful things resulted from the spin-off from military research in the nuclear field.
From that third point there emerges a fourth. Scientists, like politicians, like to talk shop. I do not want to bore the House with figures, though I have them in the Report, The Use of Qualified Scientists and Engineers in Britain and America. But once a man gets into a military area he is afraid to talk shop—in fact, he cannot talk shop because of the classified matters. Believe it or not, because of this we sometimes limit the possibilities of recruiting. I do not want to make derogatory remarks about the brilliant people who are already in military work; but the tendency in our universities and technical colleges is for young scientists to shrink from military jobs because it stops this wonderful exchange of ideas which has built up civilisation; it prevents them from talking the jargon of their subject, particularly if they are dealing with military affairs. Consequently, I think that as much as possible of these matters should be made public and that the Houses of Parliament should in the future have full information

1491
about the trend which has developed in this new approach.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I think I understand what both noble Lords are seeking to do. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, he overestimates the scale and importance of the change which this Bill brings about. What happens at Aldermaston as regards nuclear weapons is only research, and the development and manufacture of components of the warheads. Everything else is now, and has been, under the control of my Department. The warheads, after fabrication at Aldermaston, are in the custody of my Department. The only thing we are doing in this Bill is to change the responsibility for the management of the establishment at Aldermaston. I must say to him that, having now been Secretary of State for Defence for two and a half years, I can conceive of no possible circumstances in which I as a malign or mad Secretary of State for Defence could do the sort of thing that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has in mind. I do not believe that it would be possible to do it. There are so many people in the upper echelons of Government who are concerned with nuclear policy and nuclear matters that I do not think it would be possible for such a thing to happen.
I have sympathy with this Amendment for another reason. It is that I have sought in these last two and a half years, as did my predecessor, Mr. Healey, to give as much information as possible about defence; because I think that the more people know about it, the more they understand it and the more they will feel that what is being done has logic and that although it may be expensive it is worth while. But I am afraid on this occasion in asking the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment, I have to say that I think there are rather good security grounds why one should not single out this particular establishment and require its accounts to be presented separately. I think that the consequences of doing that would be to pinpoint the expenditure on nuclear weapons research and development and warheads in such a way that it would be possible for anybody who cared to do so to see the trend which we are going through; and from the trend I think it
1492
would be possible for them to estimate pretty accurately the sort of things we are doing. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, wants that to happen. He wanted this Amendment for different reasons, which I understand. But for security reasons I do not think I can accept his Amendment and I ask him to withdraw it.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, before my noble friend comments on what has been said by the Secretary of State for Defence may I say that it is no surprise that the Secretary of State should "pump" security on him about it. I am sure that my noble friend was not surprised. I do not know whether the Atomic Energy Authority has until now published accounts in the detail envisaged by my noble friend's Amendment. Although such a proposal for fuller publication of accounts may not be practicable at the moment, there is in the future a possibility of an international system in which such a thing would be practicable. I believe that the publication of military accounts, and especially the details of nuclear weapons accounts, could in future prove a valuable part of an enduring arms control situation between East and West. In other words, the only point I would make is: let this not sink without trace; let us be prepared to do this when other countries, including our adversaries, are prepared to do the same.
7.30 p.m.
LORD CHALFONT: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for his very full reply to my few remarks introducing this Amendment. He is, as I have said elsewhere, a reasonable man. I am sorry that his reasonableness does not extend to accepting this Amendment. I would make three brief points. The first is that of course I realise that what goes on at Aldermaston is restricted almost exclusively to the weapons field and the research and development of nuclear warheads. This is the most important area of research and development in the whole military field, and it is that that I was trying to catch with my Amendment. As to the possibility of some ill-disposed Government or Minister of the future not having the power to engage in a nuclear weapons policy secretly, I can only say that I am

1493
considerably less sanguine than the noble Lord: I will go no further than that.
As my noble friend has said, I was not surprised that the question of security was the noble Lord's main answer to my argument. He has said that if these accounts were to be published a potential enemy might be able to pinpoint trends in the development of our weapons, indeed they might; and, as the noble Lord has said, that is something that I would not wish to see happen. However, I should like to follow my noble friend Lord Kennet in saying that I believe that if we are ever to bring the nuclear weapon under control, and if we are ever to get any form of sensible nuclear arms control and disarmament, we shall have to have a more open society and more open exchanges of this kind of information. I hope, therefore, as my noble friend has said, that we can bear this in mind. And, perhaps even if the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, will not accept this Amendment this evening, we might suggest that this could form the basis of some initiative which this country might take in the arms control field and which might lead to some area of arms control and disarmament that we have not yet examined. I am grateful to the noble Lord, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [Weapons Group employees]:
7.33 p.m.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM LORD WINTERBOTTOM moved
Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 30, at end insert—
("The terms and conditions of service of every person who is taken into employment in the Civil Service in pursuance of the arrangements made by the Secretary of State shall, taken as a whole, be no less favourable than those provided for in his contract of employment with the Authority.")
The noble Lord said: This comparatively simple Amendment arises from a residual disquiet which exists among the professional civil servants who are affected by this Bill. We know that the negotiations have been concluded in a way that is satisfactory to both sides, but the negotiations are only recorded in minutes of meetings and are not under-written by legislation. It may be argued that this is unnecessary, but at a comparatively recent date—it was in 1971—when something similar took place, when two elements of the Atomic Energy
1494
Authority were transferred to British Nuclear Fuels Limited and Radio-chemicals Centre Limited, it was thought advisable to write into that: particular Act safeguards which I understand would be welcomed by the professional civil servants who are affected by this change.
Section 8(4) of the Atomic Energy Authority Act, 1971 reads:
"For the purposes of the section, in relation to a person who by virtue of subsection (1) of this section becomes an employee of one of the companies. the terms and conditions appropriate to him immediately after the transfer shall be taken to be such terms and conditions as correspond, as nearly as the circumstances permit, to those which immediately before the date of the transfer applied to him under his contract of employment with the Authority."
This is a pretty clear statement of the type of safeguard which would be welcomed by the professional civil servants and which I have tried to mirror in my Amendment.
LORD AVEBURY: I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Winter-bottom, is not being modest when he says that there is an element of residual disquiet among the employees of the Authority about the arrangements being made for their transfer, as set out in this clause, which he is trying to spell out in greater detail in his Amendment which I wholeheartedly support. I think there is no doubt at all that a great many employees who work at Aldermaston would welcome an Amendment of the kind which has been tabled as an additional safeguard over and above the assurances given by the Secretary of State for Defence, both in the discussions that have taken place with the employees of the Authority and on the Floor of this House.
One must always remember that whatever is said by a Secretary of State, or by any other Minister, is not binding and cannot be enforced, whereas something which appears in a Statute can be enforced. I am afraid that in the negotiations which have taken place very little headway has been made in this matter. As the Secretary of State will be aware, when it was initially suggested that something of this kind should be written into the Bill, the Staff Side were informed that it would be unconstitutional to do so. The negotiations continued, and in the process of time the Official Side changed

1495
their attitude and then maintained that it would be contrary to all precedent if such an undertaking as is proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, were to be written into the Bill. This is the difference between the situation that arose with The Radiochemicals Centre Limited and British Nuclear Fuels Limited, where the Act was not binding the Crown but was binding a company to be created by Statute. That was the distinction which the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and his representatives in the negotiations have attempted to make all along. But if we are talking not about something which is prohibited under the Constitution (and as we all know, this country has no Written Constitution) but simply about a matter which is not in accordance with the precedents and customs of this kind of legislation, I cannot see where the difficulty arises, if I may say so, with great respect, to the noble Lord whose integrity in this matter I am not disputing. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, means every word of the undertakings he has given to the Staff Side, and he would save a great deal of disquiet—not residual disquiet, actual disquiet—among the members of the staff were he to write this into the Bill.
The Staff Side have continued to make representations and, as I understand it, the process of consultation has not yet finished. They have been told that if they were not satisfied it would be possible for consultations to be continued even after the Bill had become law. But to have safeguards for the staff which are not justiciable in any way is of little importance, and if this new subsection were written in there would be something on which negotiations could take place after the transfer if it was contended by the representatives of the employees that the terms and conditions, taken as a whole, were not as favourable as those which the employees had been entitled to as employees of the Authority. There would be something in writing in the Act which could be referred to in the negotiations; and if there were a dispute it would be possible to go on to obtain proper advice about how this clause should be interpreted. But a mere statement by the noble Lord across the Floor of the House is not, of course, justiciable—I am using that term in a rather loose
1496
sense, because I do not imagine that such a dispute would ever come to the courts. I am thinking of how one would conduct negotiations as a representative of employees if one said that in the case of Mr. X or Miss Y, "You have not given this employee terms and conditions comparable with those which he may have enjoyed as a member of the Authority."
The other point which I think is of great importance in the noble Lord's Amendment, and which modestly he did not underline, is that what he is asking for here is that the terms applying to one individual should be comparable with those he previously enjoyed; whereas it seems to me, looking at the undertaking given by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that we are talking about something far broader. You could take a group of employees who were employed in a section, or you could take a certain class of employees, and say that so long as, broadly speaking, what they had been given in the Civil Service was equivalent to that which they had previously enjoyed as members of the Authority, that was good enough. What the noble Lord is asking for in this Amendment, as I understand it, is that every individual who goes from the Authority and becomes an employee of the Civil Service shall be in a situation not less favourable than that which he enjoyed previously. Of course we should be grateful for additional assurances that the Secretary of State may be able to give this evening on these matters. But I personally believe that he could save himself a lot of trouble in future negotiations with the Staff Side if he were to agree that this should be written into the Bill.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: I would ask the noble Lord the Secretary of State to look at this Amendment favourably, because, as he well knows, the work done in any establishment depends very much upon the good will of the workers in the establishment. Where one has a body of people working in a defence establishment, it is most important for the quality of the work done, and for the whole spirit of the place, that they should feel they are being in every way fairly treated. It has been obvious from what the noble Lord said on Second Reading that he has taken a great deal of trouble to see that they are being properly treated, but acceptance of this

1497
Amendment would underline it and would show clearly that it is the firm intention of the Government to see that this is done.
LORD CARRINGTON: I think all noble Lords who have spoken will know that I agree with what they have said. There can be no doubt that one wants to see that this is done. As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said, I have said on a number of occasions—I have given assurances twice in this House, and I have written to the staff repeating those assurances—that the staff concerned should enjoy as favourable terms and conditions, taken as a whole, after the transfer as before. Perhaps I may clear up one point. By that I do not mean groups of people; I mean it as applying to each individual employee. "Taken as a whole" only means that it might not be done in exactly the same way as it was before. There is no question but that it applies to individual employees.
That brings us really to the age-old argument which has been raging in Committee stages on every Bill of which I can think; that is, whether or not you have to put it in the Bill. All Governments say that you do not, and all Oppositions say that you do. This is what it comes to. My Department do not feel that it is desirable for the reason advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury; namely, that they believe it is inappropriate (that is the word that has been put into my mouth) that the Crown's traditional freedom to negotiate terms and conditions of employment with the staff should be fettered by Statute. In the light of what the three noble Lords have said, I should like to see how far inappropriate "goes; whether it is so inappropriate that I must resist the Amendment on the next occasion when we debate the Bill, or whether it is not so inappropriate that we might do something about it.
LORD AVEBURY: Before the noble Lord sits down, may I say that he is moving in our direction, because first of all the official side said that it would be unconstitutional; in the second communication to the staff side the words used were "incompatible" and "departed from the long-established principle" et cetera; and now the noble
1498
Lord has watered that down to "inappropriate". Could he not go a little further and accept the Amendment?
LORD CARRINGTON: It would be inappropriate at this stage to do that.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I should like to thank the Secretary of State for keeping an open mind on this subject. I am certain that his liberal attitude will enable the negotiations, which I understand are still continuing, to go forward in an atmosphere of hopeful expectation from the staff side of the Council. We look forward to hearing what the noble Lord has to say when we come to the Report stage of the Bill. In view of that undertaking, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Powers of Authority in relation to atomic weapons development, etc.]
7.45 p.m.
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET moved Amendment
No. 5:
Page 6, line 8, at end insert—
("() Nothing in subsection (1) above shall prohibit the Authority from engaging in any work, as specified in that subsection, for other than war-like applications in respect of explosive nuclear devices of up to 100 Kilogram TNT equivalent.")
The noble Lord said: The Amendment that I am about to propose is not wholly simple, so I hope the Committee will bear with me for about five minutes while expound what it is all about. The clause, as drafted, says:
"The Authority shall not … have power to engage in any work, whether by way of research, experiment, development, production or otherwise, on any explosive nuclear device, whether for war-like applications or otherwise, except in accordance with arrangements made with the Secretary of State."
At first blush, nothing could seem more reasonable than that. The whole point is to move bomb production into the Ministry of Defence, which we accept as entirely rational. The Amendment that I have put down would say: yes; let all that happen, but let there be one small exception, and that is with regard to research, experiment, development, production and so on, for civil purposes, on

1499
explosions below 100 Kilograms T.N.T. equivalent.
First of all: why that limit? One hundred kilograms, I would remind the Committee, is about one ten thousandth part of a standard A-bomb and one ten millionth part of what one might call a standard H-bomb. So it is really small explosions about which we are talking. I put down the Amendment because I do not think that the future of research and development in civil fusion ought to be subject to the permission of the Secretary of State for Defence.
I expect the Committee will know that it is in civil fusion that the future hope of mankind largely resides. When all the other sources of energy have become impossible to exploit any more, for one reason or another, we shall be left with fusion, which we believe will be developed in the next 25 years or so. Fusion is good, because it does not pollute. It does not produce these desperately poisonous residues which are produced, and will increasingly be produced, by fission power stations. It is good because the raw material is sea water, and nothing but sea water, which is to all intents and purposes inexhaustible. Until recently we believed that there was a difficulty in that a civil fusion power station utilising a bottle, or electromagnetic field, known as a Tokamak, could not theoretically be less than gigantic—you could only build it at a colossal size; God knows how many thousand megawatts! You would only need two or three stations for an economy the size of Britain. How could you close down the service to repair a station?
But there has recently been hope of a breakthrough towards producing small fusion power stations, so small that you might put one under every fortieth block of a city—there could be capillary fusion energy generation—which is presently the hope for mankind facing the energy crisis that we are going to face. Such stations, it appears likely at the moment, would most plausibly be operated by a series of very small fusion explosions. The technology would apparently be that you launch a series of super-dense pellets of tritium or deuterium, or a mixture, and you implode them (the opposite of explode them) with
1500
a laser or some other energy source. You then get a series of little explosions like a motor car, which goes phut, phut, phut. Nobody knows if it is going to work, but if it does, it is the answer to a maiden's prayer with a vengeance. I believe I am right in saying that work on this is only now starting up in this country, at Culham, which belongs to the Atomic Energy Authority.
The purpose of the Amendment is to question whether this research and development ought to be subject to the approval of the Secretary of State for Defence, not because I doubt that he would approve—of course he would—but why should it be in any case? I would make it clear that if my Amendment were accepted it would leave anything that could conceivably be used as a bomb, or indeed anything of a "ploughshare" type, your mountain-moving, harbour-digging, canal-digging type of nuclear explosion, under the veto of the Secretary of State for Defence, which is right. It would exempt only these mini-explosions, and I await with interest the reason—which I hope he cannot find—why the Secretary of State opposes this Amendment.
7.50 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: Hopefully, I think I can satisfy the noble Lord. I must say at the outset that if I accepted his Amendment it would in point of fact negate the purposes of Clause 6 in which, for reasons of security and the economic use of resources, it is intended to bring under the control of my Department all activities concerning explosive nuclear devices. I understand the noble Lord's fears which are, I think, that the work at Culham on controlled thermo-nuclear reaction might be subject to control by the Ministry of Defence. That is not the intention; nor is it the correct interpretation of Clause 6. The Ministry of Defence, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Authority are all agreed about the field of work which falls within the prohibition of Clause 6 and are agreed that this clause does not prohibit the Authority from continuing with their programme of research and development into controlled thermo-nuclear reactions aimed at releasing nuclear energy to provide useful power.

1501
The term "Explosive nuclear device" is difficult to define precisely because technology is changing and precise definitions become outmoded; but there is no conceptual difficulty. No development is currently envisaged where it would be hard to draw a distinction between what is research and development of controlled thermo-nuclear reaction and what is an explosive nuclear device. The former, I am told, is concerned with dense plasma in confinement systems designed for the release of nuclear energy from the light elements in a controlled fashion to provide nuclear power. That being so, there is complete agreement among the Departments concerned that Clause 6 does not inhibit them from doing precisely what the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, wishes them to do.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, if the noble Lord is correct in saying that this particular clause does not inhibit the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority from doing work on nuclear fusion then one really wonders what words mean: because the expression "explosive nuclear device" must surely cover any form of explosion which is the consequence of nuclear changes. Otherwise, what does it mean?
I have been puzzled by this Bill. One of my objections is that it is so vague that it does not explain what it is trying to do: one is left to guess that. First of all, there is suddenly introduced into this Bill the term "explosive nuclear device". I looked in the 1954 Act and could find no mention of an "explosive nuclear device". The Act referred either to a weapon—which is what I thought originally this Bill was meant to do—or it referred to "an explosive nuclear assembly". Where does the term "nuclear device" suddenly come in? And why does that term exclude the nuclear fusion reaction? I find it very difficult to understand the meanings of these words. They are not defined in this Bill: nor, so far as I can see, are they defined in the earlier Act. They seem to be words that have been introduced in order to leave a sort of haze over the whole situation so that the Secretary of State for Defence can decide what he wants to have in and what he does not want to have in. I feel that if we are passing an enormously important Bill concerned with nuclear energy and turning it into an Act which
1502
will govern us, we ought to know what the words mean.
LORD CARRINGTON: I really thought I had explained fairly carefully what was intended here. The parties concerned are in no way under a delusion or living in a haze as to what the words mean. I have given an undertaking to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, which I repeat, that the interpretation of Clause 6 by the lawyers—and also the interpretation which my Department put upon it—is to allow the Authority to do exactly what they want to do.
LORD KENNET: Of course I accept the Secretary of State's assurance that he will do this, but we are dealing here with an Act of Parliament which we hope will stand for many years. I must confess that I do not quite like it. The Secretary of State has told us we need not worry, because the phrase "explosive nuclear device" does not cover this civil fusion research into super-dense pellets and super-dense plasma. If it does not cover those, it must mean that one of those three words does not apply, and I feel I must ask the Secretary of State which word it is. Is the thing in question not explosive? I think that would be hard to sustain: it is a series of very small explosions. Is it not nuclear?—certainly it is nuclear. Thirdly, is it not a device? I do not see how anyone could rule in a court of law that it was not a device, if it came to the point. Of course I do not wish to divide the House on a question of language, but I do feel dissatisfied so far, not with the Secretary of State's assurance but with his explanation. Could the noble Lord go further?
LORD CARRINGTON: I appreciate the problems and I am not trying to pretend that there are not difficulties here, because this is really a difficulty of definition. However, as I understand it, what is meant by an "explosive nuclear device" is a device which is deliberately designed to explode and which, once the explosive process has begun, cannot be controlled or limited in any way. That is the difference.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: May I take the plain English of it? Clause 6 reads:
"The Authority shall not … have power to engage in any work, whether by way of

1503
research, experiment, development, production or otherwise, on any explosive nuclear device, whether for war-like applications or otherwise,"—
and here is the operative part-
"except in accordance with arrangements made with the Secretary of State."
In other words, the Secretary of State can nullify the clause if he so desires. That is what it means. Now I am asking the noble Lord whether he is prepared to nullify that to the extent of inserting the phrase that my noble friend has put in his Amendment.
LORD CARRINGTON: The difficulty is that if I accept the noble Lord's Amendment it completely negates the whole purpose of Clause 6, because the whole object of that clause is turned round the other way—
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: Yes, that is so.
LORD CARRINGTON:—and that is not the object of Clause 6. What we are talking about is a rather small part, and a rather technical aspect, of what the Authority wish to go on doing, and which I say the Bill allows them to do, and which worries the noble Lord. Let us by all means look at the words and see if there is something we can do to clear the situation up at the next stage.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: I should like to ask the noble Lord why he is not prepared to accept the words that were used in the Act of 1954, where, instead of talking about an "explosive nuclear device", specific reference is made to "explosive nuclear assembly for atomic weapons"?—because it is surely the explosive nuclear assembly for atomic weapons with which he is concerned and which he wants to have within his Department, whereas the explosive nuclear device which is used in fusion is not meant for an atomic weapon. It is meant for the production of atomic energy.
LORD CARRINGTON: I am not prepared to accept those words because they are not the words on the Marshalled List, but I am quite prepared to have a look at them.
LORD KENNET: I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said. I think
1504
it would be worth while to look at this again at the next stage because he has advanced a definition of an explosion as something which, once it has started, cannot be stopped. This, to my mind, perfectly fits the kind of mini-explosion up to 100 Kilograms of T.N.T. which we are talking about in my Amendment. However, I will rest on the Secretary of State's assurance, and perhaps we may even have a word about it together later. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.0 p.m.
LORD WYNNE-JONES LORD WYNNE-JONES moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 6, line 9, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: This Amendment refers to Clause 6(2) in which, pursuant to subsection (1), it says:
"(2) In section 2(2) of the said Act of 1954 in paragraph (i) of the proviso (which precludes the Authority from developing or producing weapons otherwise than in accordance with such arangements, but makes an exception for certain work on explosive nuclear assemblies"—
which I have just quoted—
"the words from except that' to the end of the paragraph are hereby repealed".
I am moving by this Amendment that that subsection be left out of the Bill. I do so because as the Bill now stands the Atomic Energy Authority is going to be denied the right, which it clearly has had from the start, of investigating the field of explosions.
If one looks at the Act of 1954, one finds quite clearly that it was the business of the Atomic Energy Authority to do a number of things and, at the end, having given it very wide powers, it was stated:
"Provided that—
(i) the Authority shall not, save in accordance with arrangements made with the Minister of Supply, develop or produce any weapon or part of a weapon, except that nothing in this proviso shall limit the power of the Authority to conduct experimental work which may lead to improved types of explosive nuclear assemblies for atomic weapons."
In other words, even at the very moment by the very words in which the Atomic Energy Authority was told that it was not to work on weapons, it was told that it was permitted to do work on the reactions which lead up to weapons. This is

1505
something which is perfectly clear and logical. It is done with all other forms of explosives. There is no limitation on anyone doing research work or investigation into explosives; it does not have to be dealt with in any establishment run by the Ministry of Defence; no armament factory necessarily has the right to control all explosives. Research on explosives has been carried out elsewhere and, as the Secretary of State must know perfectly well, the best work that has been done in the past has not been carried out in Government establishments. Some of the excellent early work was done in Sweden by the famous Nobel, after whom the Nobel Prizes are named. It was done by I.C.I. in this country, and by a large number of different organisations and universities. In other words, there should be nothing to prevent the investigation of all these things. This was clearly stated in the Act of 1954. It is a reactionary move now to take away from the Authority the right to do this, more particularly as there is a considerable field of work for civil applications of these explosive reactions; and these come, in my opinion, very clearly under the terms of referenece of the Atomic Energy Authority.
LORD CARRINGTON: I am sorry that I have been a little negative to the noble Lord to-night, but I cannot accept this Amendment. The effect of the Amendment would be to allow the Authority to undertake work which could be done only with an extensive duplication of manpower and facilities. It would frustrate the whole purpose of this Bill, which is to bring all activities on explosive nuclear devices (assuming that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and I know what we are talking about when we say "explosive nuclear devices") under the direct management control of the Ministry of Defence, in order that the resources can be used most economically. If this Amendment were accepted it would also be undesirable from the point of view of security and our international obligations to protect this very sensitive field of technology, and it would make it very difficult if we had two separate areas where exactly the same work was being undertaken. Having explained that, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: Is the noble Lord saying that there has been a problem about security in the past?
LORD CARRINGTON: All the work has been carried out at Aldermaston.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: Work has also been carried out by the Atomic Energy Authority wherever they wished to do it. It so happens that the weapons work was carried out at Aldermaston, but they have done work elsewhere. According to the terms of this Bill, everything, including preliminary research, is excluded. This is a very serious inhibition.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): Does the noble Lord wish to withdraw or press his Amendment?
LORD WYNNE-JONES: I wish to press my Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
8.6 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 6 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD STOW HILL: I hesitate to intervene, and I will try to do so briefly, largely because the Secretary of State has already been so good as to say that he is going to do what I was going to ask him to do. I, as a layman, have listened entranced to the exchanges that have just passed, but it was suggested that I might raise with the Secretary of State what I submit still seems to be a somewhat uncertainty in the language used. The language has already been traversed a good deal, and I will try to economise in my repetitions of it.
Clause 6(1) in effect says that the Atomic Energy Authority is not to have the power—and the words have been read out over and over again—to:
engage in any work, whether by way of research, experiment, development, production or otherwise, on any explosive nuclear device, …"
The Secretary of State has pointed out the difficulty of defining with any precision precisely what one means by "explosive nuclear device". My noble friend Lord Wynne-Jones has pointed out that no definition is contained either in the

1507
1954 Act or in this Bill. But something—in spite of those words—is still left within the competence and province of the Atomic Energy Authority. What I am asking the Secretary of State to do is to say this: that he will again look at the language in order to try to define with more precision what is still left within the competence of the Authority. What is left, I suppose, is this: one goes back to the proviso of Section 2 of the 1954 Act and finds there, as my noble friend Lord Wynne-Jones pointed out,
"The Authority shall not … develop or produce any weapon or part of a weapon"—
So far, so good; that has now been changed—
"except that nothing in this proviso shall limit the power of the Authority to conduct experimental work which may lead to improved types of explosive nuclear assemblies for atomic weapons;"
Here again (this has already been pointed out), there is no definition to be found of the expression "explosive nuclear assemblies". If one sets that language side by side with the language which I have quoted from Clause 6(1) of the Bill, I submit to the Secretary of State—and I am asking him to clarify this—it is rather difficult to determine precisely what is transferred, and precisely what is left of that power which was preserved in the proviso that I have quoted. It seemed to me, reading it as a layman, that what is still left is the power, again subject to arrangements, to conduct experiments, as it were, in the rather more initial stages into the substance of the material itself which will ultimately be incorporated into a device; and that what is taken away is the power to experiment—and I choose that one word out of the others—in the explosive nuclear device itself. That seems to be a more complete machine which comes into being at a later stage.
I would ask this question. When one looks at the language of Clause 6(1) and sees the expression "any explosive nuclear device", is that intended to mean some existing device? Is the concept that a device has already been brought into being and the power to experiment on that existing device is removed; or is the concept rather wider in scope? Is the power to experiment with a view to the production of an explosive nuclear
1508
device, as the result of the experiment, also removed? I should have thought that probably the answer is that that is the intended meaning. All I would ask the Secretary of State to do (I am afraid I am being rather repetitive, because he has been so kind as to say he will do it) is to re-examine that language in order that the parties concerned may know with some more precision—it is difficult, perhaps, to achieve it, but with as much precision as can be achieved—exactly what is transferred and exactly what is left. I should be grateful if the Secretary of State could say that he would do that.
LORD CARRINGTON: Yes; of course I will do that. I think the difficulty is that we all know what we want to do. What we want to do is to transfer that part of the A.E.A.'s business which is related to weapon development and goes on at Aldermaston. Equally, I think that all the people concerned—that is, the A.E.A. itself, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Ministry of Defence—know how it is all to be divided up. Where I think we are in some difficulty—and it has been pointed out already by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and now by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill—is that we have not at the moment perhaps defined it as precisely as possible. I do not know whether it can be defined precisely—I make no promise about it—but certainly there are areas which have been opened up this evening and which I think we ought to look at again.
LORD KENNET: Before we leave it finally, may I offer something to the Secretary of State. There are two ambiguous words: "on" and "explosive". My noble friend has discoursed on the ambiguity of "on". Now a brief discourse on the word "explosive": an explosive device may be either a device which itself explodes or a device which brings about and contains explosions. I am all for letting the Secretary of State have power over the former, but I want to exempt the latter.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Remaining clauses and Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

ROYAL ASSENT
8.13 p.m.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (THE EARL Of LISTOWEL): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Counter-Inflation (Temporary Provisions) Act,

Pensioners and Family Income Supplement Payments Act,

Aberdeen Harbour Order Confirmation Act,

Scrabster Harbour (Vehicle Ferry Terminal &c.) Order Confirmation Act.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
First Report from the Select Committee: made, and to be printed.
  RHODESIA: LOAN PAYMENTS BY U.K. GOVERNMENT
  RHODESIA: LOAN PAYMENTS BY U.K. GOVERNMENT