Sitting of 5 April 1973

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
EDINBURGH CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read the Third time and passed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Employment
    Mr. Stallardasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had with the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions concerning the need to embark upon an expensive public development programme to provide jobs in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. William van Straubenzee): Ministers have had frequent discussions with the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions about the unemployment problem in Northern Ireland during which the committee has given its views about the need for a public development programme. The Government have already announced their intention to establish by Order in Council a statutory direct labour organisation called "Enterprise Ulster" concerned mainly with works of environmental improvement.
    Mr. Stallard: I thank the Minister for that constructive reply and congratulate him on the progress he has made so far, but I still feel that that part of the White Paper dealing with economic aid lacks the kind of urgency that I would have
    588
    hoped it would have. Will he consider urgently the possibility of including, as part of this public works programme, a target of 5,000 jobs to be achieved, say, within the next two years in the special and deprived areas? If he could fix some kind of target along the lines of my suggestion—and I know that the Trades Union Congress in Northern Ireland has also suggested 5,000—it might relieve some of the pressure.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: On the second part of the hon. Member's question, he will, I know, appreciate that, quite rightly, a considerable sum—£15 million —has been set aside over the next five years for the "Enterprise Ulster" project, and we have considerable hopes of it in terms of employment prospects. On the first part of his question, I hope that he will study the economic sections of the White Paper. They may be short but, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State said on the first day of our debate, they contain definite commitments which are of great importance to Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Ormeasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to deal with male unemployment in provincial areas of Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Duffyasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the progress he has made in creating new job opportunities in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: Since last July unemployment in Northern Ireland has fallen by over 10,000, to about 34,600 in March 1973. This is a very significant improvement. In part it is the result of measures introduced to deal with special features of the situation coupled with Government policies which have brought about a more favourable employment trend throughout the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Orme: I thank the Minister for that reply. We welcome the reduction. Is the hon. Gentleman aware, however, that many cases have been brought to our attention relating to people, particularly in areas west of the River Bann, who are finding it exceedingly difficult to get employment? They have had their names down for three or four years for what in this country would be classified as very ordinary jobs. This unemployment is at

    589
    the root of many of the problems that exist in Northern Ireland. Will the hon. Gentleman give us information about any further plans that the Government have in this regard?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: Both my hon. Friend and I would be most willing to examine any specific case that the hon. Member might have in mind, because we share his concern about the economic wellbeing of Northern Ireland. Many of the successes which lie beneath the figures that he has been good enough to welcome stem from the package of last July—and before—and it is along those lines that we should work.

    Constitution (White Paper)
    Mr. Douglasasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on representations he has had from political parties in Northern Ireland regarding the contents of the White Paper, Command Paper No. 5259.
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. William Whitelaw): I have noted the views of Northern Ireland parties to the White Paper on Constitutional Proposals for Northern Ireland, both in their public comments and in representations made direct to me, and welcome the constructive spirit in which most parties have reacted.
    Mr. Douglas: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. May I take it from him that these were representations and not negotiations? During any discussions he had with the leaders of political parties in Northern Ireland did he make it plain that people on this side of the Irish Channel would take it very badly if any of our troops were killed or maimed because of people wanting to exceed the terms and conditions of the White Paper?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I have not seen all the parties in Northern Ireland. Some are coming to see me next week. I have made it abundantly clear that while I am prepared to listen to representations on the drafting of the constitutional Bill and to clarify any points which may need to be clarified in the White Paper, the Bill will be on the same fundamental basis as the White Paper. I have made that abundantly clear to everyone.
    Mr. McMaster: Will my right hon. Friend clarify the passages dealing with internal security? When normality is restored in Northern Ireland and the Army is reduced to garrison strength, what is the Government's intention with respect to the control of the police in the community?
    Mr. Whitelaw: We have made our position clear in the White Paper. The paragraph referred to by my hon. Friend says "for the time being". We must rest on that.
    On the question concerning the return of normality, two factors must be taken into account—first, a reduction in the Army strength to what it was before the troubles, and, secondly, the clear evidence of a stable form of administration in Northern Ireland. These factors cannot be foreseen at this stage, but I recognise the importance attached to this point. If normality returns, as we all hope it will, certainly further development of powers will be provided for in the constitutional Bill, and that will be of importance.
    Mr. McNamara: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the elections for the new Assembly are likely to be held before the Bill embodying the Diplock recommendations is passed by both Houses? If so, he will have to withdraw the regulation under the Special Powers Act banning Republican clubs. Will he at the same time draw a distinction between the Provisional wing of the IRA, which is engaged in combat against Her Majesty's Forces, and those persons who accept some of the political ideas of the Provisional IRA but not its methods? In that way we could get them to stand as candidates at the polls and, I hope, see them rejected by the people of Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Gentleman's reasonable question raises very wide issues which no doubt will be debated during the proceedings on the "Diplock" Bill.
    Concerning the proscribing of the various organisations which we have put into the Bill as it stands, I should clarify one point that the hon. Gentleman has made. He is right to point out that in that Bill Republican clubs, as such, are not proscribed. It is clear that the "Diplock" Bill will not necessarily be through in

    591
    time—I am coming to answers later which will indicate this—to give effect to that recommendation. If, as I suspect, that is the position, I will indeed, by Order in Council, remove the proscription on Republican clubs in order that they may be put into the position they would be in after the passage of the "Diplock" Bill.
    Mr. Kilfedder: Quite apart from clarifying points in the White Paper, in order to clear up some doubt will my right hon. Friend state whether he is prepared to modify any of the views expressed in the White Paper and whether there is any point in political leaders from Northern Ireland making representations to him?
    Secondly, in view of his remarks on radio or television a few days ago, does he agree that the democratic principle has been put aside in Northern Ireland regarding heads of Departments?
    Mr. Whitelaw: No. I do not think that I have changed my position from that which is set out in the White Paper. It is surely reasonable that if the parties concerned, who wish to see the White Paper work, have points of detail that they want to put forward during the drafting of the Bill, they should be entitled to do so. I should make it clear that the fundamental basis of the White Paper will and must be in the constitutional Bill, but within the limits that we are setting out there are no doubt points of detail which various parties may wish to put before me. Surely that is the normal process which it is right for me to follow.
    Mr. Orme: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of us were in Dublin yesterday, discussing the White Paper with members of political parties in the Republic? I came away with the impression that most of them were concerned about the proscribing of Sinn Fein not because of any sympathy but in order to get its supporters to the ballot box to test the issue. Press reports this morning refer to this matter being raised by the Foreign Secretary of the Republic with the Minister yesterday. Is the right hon. Gentleman's mind finally closed on this issue?
    Mr. Whitelaw: It would be wrong for any Minister introducing legislation to the House to say that his mind was closed
    592
    before the legislation had been discussed and passed through the House. I must point out that I took the decision, which I believe was right, not to proscribe the Republican clubs. I believe that many people see that as a sensible decision. Equally, I have great reservations—not in the electoral sphere but outside it—on the problems of proscribing Sinn Fein. There are great technical problems about which I am prepared to argue later. However, I certainly should not come to this House with legislation and say that my mind was closed beforehand.

    Church Leaders (Meetings)
    Mr. Parryasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will consider calling a meeting of Church leaders of all denominations in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: My right hon. Friend has met Church leaders of all denominations, both individually and together, on numerous occasions, and is grateful for their help. The hon. Member's suggestion will be borne in mind.
    Mr. Parry: The Secretary of State no doubt welcomed the recent plea by Cardinal Heenan for a tolerant and moderate approach to the White Paper. He will no doubt also have welcomed the statement issued by the Presbyterian Church. I am pleased that the Minister will consider having discussions with Church leaders. I think that we could do with the support of all Church leaders in the present climate in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: The hon. Gentleman's remarks are very helpful. I gladly confirm, without reservation, that the lead given by Church leaders of all denominations in Northern Ireland pleading for a quiet and responsible response to and discussion of the White Paper was one of the significant factors in the way that the White Paper was received.
    Mr. Redmond: Has my hon. Friend seen the letter published this morning in either the Irish Times or the Irish Independent—I think the latter—signed by the leaders of all Christian denominations in Ireland expressing appreciation

    593
    for the way that the White Paper has been presented?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: That is an extremely helpful contribution to our discussions. I am sure that the whole House welcomes the spirit that lies behind it.
    Mr. Kilfedder: When my right hon. Friend had his discussions with the clergy in Northern Ireland did he discover that the great majority of Protestant clergy are anxious to get rid of sectarian division in education? Despite what is said in the White Paper, will he not grasp this nettle which perpetuates disharmony in the community?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: Speaking for myself, I have detected among clergy of all denominations a great willingness to see a closer working together of schools of all kinds in Northern Ireland. This is not limited to one section. That is a different matter from the fundamental questions raised by my hon. Friend, but the spirit is unquestionably there among a large number of the clergy.

    Government Training Centres
    Mr. Thomas Coxasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the present number of industrial training centres in Northern Ireland; and what was the number existing in the years 1965, 1970 and 1972.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: There are now 12 Government training centres in Northern Ireland; in 1965, 1970 and 1972 there were three, 10 and 11, respectively.
    Mr. Cox: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply and welcome the progress that is being made. He will be aware of the Question that I asked last week on unemployment. Will he therefore tell the House how many of those 12 training centres cover areas away from the principal cities in Northern Ireland? Is he satisfied with the kind of allowances that are paid to people attending training centres to cover such things as travelling, which unfortunately acts as a deterrent in this country? Will he make sure that it does not act as a deterrent in Northern Ireland to people going for industrial training?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: I have taken a personal interest in training centres, as the hon. Gentleman would expect. I have visited a number of them. I believe the provisions for travel to be appropriate in the circumstances. What is more, there are grants for those people who have to move to different areas of employment, because of the special situation. There are problems with some about access for one community or another, for all the reasons which the hon. Gentleman understands. That is why it is important, for example, that in West Belfast, or accessible to West Belfast, there should be a new training centre which will be in operation next year but with advance accommodation earlier than that.

    Royal Ulster Constabulary
    Mr. Goodhartasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what inquiry into the future organisation of the Royal Ulster Constabulary he intends to hold following the publication of the White Paper.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Mills): My right hon. Friend has no plans for an inquiry.
    Mr. Goodhart: Will my hon. Friend remember that the constitutional, the political and the security situation has been quite transformed since Lord Hunt presented his report on the RUC nearly four years ago? In view of the fact that the Secretary of State is bound to have discussions on security with the leaders of the new Assembly following the elections in Northern Ireland, does not my hon. Friend consider that an independent inquiry might present a suitable framework for those discussions?
    Mr. Mills: No. With respect, I feel that at the present time the greatest need for the RUC is that it should be built up in strength and effectiveness, and that we should give every encouragement to it. since it is doing a very difficult job.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that the Opposition raised this matter in the wide-ranging debate that we had last week? Has the hon. Gentleman seen the article in The Times today on this matter? I in no way derogate from individual acts of bravery by

    595
    the RUC in a most difficult task, but does not the hon. Gentleman agree that until civilian policing is restored entirely any talk about withdrawing British troops is not on? Will the hon. Gentleman take note of what his hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) said, because, although perhaps not in that precise form, an inquiry which is concerned with the future is necessary? While in no sense handing over to anyone, might it not be that questions about security and policing could be discussed in an all-Ireland context at the conference, which we hope will be held later in the year?
    Mr. Mills: I am not prepared to go further than what I have said already. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) thinks a great deal about these matters. There is a lot of thought going on. But I repeat that at the present moment and in the present situation it is vital to support the RUC by seeking to build up its strength and effectiveness and to encourage recruiting from all sections of the community.

    Legislative Assembly
    Mr. Kilfedderasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the number of Members he proposes to allocate to each Westminster Parliamentary constituency for the new Ulster Assembly; and what will be the proposed date of the election to that Assembly.
    Mr. Peter Mills: I would ask my hon. Friend to await the constitutional Bill.
    Mr. Kilfedder: My hon. Friend will no doubt be disappointed to hear that I am disappointed with his reply. It is important in Northern Ireland that people should know how many candidates there will be and how many seats there will be for each Westminster constituency. We should also like to know as soon as possible when we are likely to have the elections. Is my hon. Friend aware of the widespread complaints of many electors in Northern Ireland who have suddenly been disfranchised because of the incompetent method of compiling the latest register, which was demonstrated in the border poll? It is no good saying that the register is no worse and no better than on previous occasions, because that is not so. Why are democratic rights being taken away from certain people
    596
    who have been on the register for some years and who were on the provisional register which was displayed in post offices? Have the mistakes been due to computer faults, or is there some other reason for them? Will my hon. Friend undertake to publish a supplementary register?
    Mr. Mills: I cannot accept what my hon. Friend has said about this. After very careful consideration of a report by the Chief Electoral Officer, my right hon. Friend has decided that a supplementary electoral register is not required. The working of the border poll went very well.
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether, in preparing the Bill providing for a Northern Ireland Legislative Assembly, he will consider the inclusion of clauses to allow of dissolution before the elapse of its four-year term, and for the replacement of any elected candidate who fails to take his seat and to serve.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: I would ask my hon. Friend to await the constitutional Bill.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Meanwhile, will my hon. Friend, together with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, consider that the possibility of a dissolution could be conducive to a sense of parliamentary responsibility? Secondly, has not abstentionism been the curse of Irish politics, and is not the suggestion in my Question a way of dealing with that?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will wish to consider any matters of this kind which bear upon the Bill. My hon. Friend's points will be considered carefully.

    Westminster Parliamentary Constituencies
    Mr. Wilkinsonasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the average electorate of Westminster parliamentary constituencies in Northern Ireland as against the comparable figures for Scotland, Wales, England and the United Kingdom as a whole, on the bases of the latest electoral registers.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: In 1972 the average number of electors for each Westminster parliamentary constituency in

    597
    Northern Ireland was about 86,000; in England the number was 65,000; in Wales, 55,000; in Scotland, 52,000; and in the United Kingdom, 63,000.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Is not it right and reasonable for Northern Ireland—the most troubled and strife-torn part of the United Kingdom—to enjoy representation in this House at least commensurate with that in England, especially as, regardless of the semantic arguments about the devolutionary powers of the Assembly, Ulster will have lost a Governor, a Prime Minister and a Parliament? Does she not deserve some compensation for them?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: I shall limit myself exclusively to parliamentary representation in this House. The factor which my hon. Friend has, with some significance, left out is that if everything proceeds as we trust Northern Ireland will have an Assembly with considerable powers properly devolved to it. That makes it very different from other parts of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Orme: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there is nothing semantic, therefore, in the powers which will be handed to Northern Ireland? On that basis Northern Ireland will be adequately represented both here and in the new Assembly, which we hope will soon be elected.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: I take note of what the hon. Gentleman says. Judged by a Minister's postbag—to take but one example—the Ministry of Health and Social Security is one Department which rightly attracts a great deal of post from those who are at present Northern Ireland's Members of Parliament. If all goes well the affairs of that Department will be among those which will be devolved.
    Mr. McMaster: Nevertheless, does not my hon. Friend agree that in matters still reserved to the Westminster Parliament, including such important topics as taxation, foreign affairs and defence, Northern Ireland is entitled to a full voice in this Parliament and that the number of Members should therefore be increased to the average for the United Kingdom as a whole?
    Mr. Kaufman: Better Members.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: Surely my hon. Friend will agree, because he is knowledgeable about these matters, that defence and foreign affairs, for example, have always been the concern of this House—before and after Stormont.

    Local Government Elections
    Mr. Connackasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement about the timing of the local government elections in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Whitelaw: As I promised the House last week, I have considered fully the arguments for and against a further postponement of local government elections. These elections have already been postponed four times and a further postponement would delay the introduction of the new local government organisation and structure which has been strongly supported in this House and in Northern Ireland. These elections are an essential part in the democratic process and in bringing into operation more effective local government. I have, therefore, decided that the local government elections will be held, as planned, on 30th May.
    Mr. Connack: I thank my right hon. Friend for clarifying the situation. In view of the understandable concern expressed on both sides of this House last week, will my right hon. Friend state what steps he has taken to ascertain opinion in Ulster?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I undertook to the House last week to consult and to discover opinion in Northern Ireland. I have done so during the first three days of this week. The views expressed to me there have been among the very important factors which have brought me to the decision that I have made.
    Mr. Wellbeloved: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many Opposition Members will consider that a disgraceful decision on the part of the Secretary of State? It is a slap in the face for those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who have given their support to the White Paper. They, and many of those hon. Members who abstained—about 200 hon. Members on the opposition side—may not do so on future occasions.
    Mr. Whitelaw: This is not a slap in the face for anyone [Interruption.] It is important to try to take a balanced decision. I have never claimed that all the arguments in this case were on one side. Certainly they were not.
    Perhaps I may tell the hon. Gentleman some of the things which would happen if these elections were postponed. Before doing that, let me point out to him that they have already been postponed four times and that this is the new form of local government which was pressed very hard in this House and strongly supported by the hon. Gentleman's own party when in Government and afterwards. It includes the introduction of the principle of "one man, one vote", and the introduction of area boards consisting partly of elected and partly of nominated people. These are very important reforms.
    If these elections were not held in May, these reforms could not take place in October. It was represented to me in Northern Ireland that the whole credibility of the administration and of the determination of this House that new local government procedures—which we wanted—should come into effect would be at stake if we postponed the elections for the fifth time—recognising that the councils as they are at the moment, with some of them already collapsing, would be the same councils as were elected in 1967. These are matters that we cannot possibly ignore.
    Having considered the arguments on the other side I came to the conclusion that further uncertainty would be very unfortunate and bad for local government, and would mean that many of the decisions that would have to be taken by area boards would be taken only by the nominated members, without the assistance of those members who were elected by the people.
    Captain Orr: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we very much appreciate the difficulties about the postponement, and that the argument for postponement was to avoid the local government elections becoming a sort of preview or substitute for the elections to the Assembly? Could not the difficulty be overcome by a fairly early announcement about the date of the elections to the Assembly? If that were done the difficulty would not arise.
    Mr. Whitelaw: I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend. An announcement will be made as soon as possible. I hope, at an early date, to introduce a Bill dealing purely with the elections to the Assembly and to make clear the timing of that election as soon as possible.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: In view of the almost unanimous view of the political parties in Northern Ireland, I regret the Secretary of State's decision. There is now a danger that the elections will be fought on the White Paper issues and not on the real issues of Northern Ireland. In the spirit that the major factor is the Assembly elections, I express the hope on behalf of all Labour hon. Members that, given the right hon. Gentleman's decision, the people will nevertheless use the elections for local government purposes, namely, to make their practical plans for the Assembly elections which we hope will be at the end of June.
    Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I realise that my decision is bound to be disappointing to him and to others. The political parties did not unanimously agree that they did want local government elections. Equally, I know that strong views were expressed by several parties that they did not wish them. I had to take all those factors into account. Having balanced the advantages and disadvantages, I made my decision. I am grateful for the way in which the hon. Gentleman has taken it.

  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Oslo Convention on Pollution
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he now hopes to introduce legislation to ratify the Oslo Convention on Pollution; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Anthony Stodart): As the hon. Members knows, my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council has written to him on this subject.
    Mr. Dalyell: As delay is a source of increasing international embarrassment, what is the real problem?
    Mr. Stodart: My right hon. Friend said clearly to the hon. Gentleman—and I echo his sentiments—that we agree on the importance of legislating, and that there is a need for a Bill to be introduced as soon as possible. It is doubtful whether we can manage to fit in legislation during this Session. There is no question about our attitude on the importance of legislation.

    Prices
    Mr. Goldingasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the percentage increase in the price of chickens between October 1964 and June 1970, and between June 1970 to the last convenient date, respectively.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Peggy Fenner): The average retail price of a 3 lb. frozen oven-ready chicken was at the same level in June 1970 as it had been in October 1964. The price in February 1973 was 30 per cent. higher than in June 1970.
    Mr. Golding: Is the Minister aware that I am glad that the Government's chickens are now coming home to roost? But I regret the price that the electorate is having to pay for them. Is the Minister aware that her answer is outrageous? Chickens have become the staple diet of many working people now that beef and other meats are beyond their purse.
    Mrs. Fenner: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there have been much higher prices for poultry feeding stuffs. In fact, the wholesale and retail margins have been as frozen as the chickens. The higher prices have gone to producers. The producers face higher food costs because of a rise in world cereal prices. The hon. Gentleman must be aware that producers cannot be insulated against such increased prices. The latest indications are that prices are now levelling off.
    Mr. Charles Morrison: Whatever the price increases may be, will my hon. Friend say what the pattern of consumption of poultry has been?
    Mrs. Fenner: It has been 140 per cent. up. With the world pressure on red meat, consumption has been increasing.
    Mr. Jay: If the Government cannot insulate these prices against world forces, why did the Prime Minister promise that he would do so before the General Election?
    Mrs. Fenner: The Prime Minister could not exactly forecast the climatic conditions which affected world cereal markets. My right hon. Friend could do so no more than the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay).
    Mr. Carterasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the price of 1 lb. of English cheddar in June 1970; and what is the latest price expressed in new pence.
    Mrs. Fenner: The Department of Employment's General Index of Retail Prices shows that the average price of cheddar cheese was 18·3p per lb. on 18th June 1970 and 32·lp per lb. on 20th February, the latest date for which figures are available. Retail prices of individual varieties are not collected for the purposes of the index.
    Mr. Carter: Is the Minister aware that that is an almost 100 per cent. increase since June 1970? Meat eaters have a whole range of substitutes for meat, but for vegetarians the alternatives to cheese and eggs are very limited. Will the Minister say how such an increase is justified when the wages of farm workers in that period have not increased by anything like 100 per cent.?
    Mrs. Fenner: The increase in the price of cheese is due to several factors. Hon. Members will recall that butter prices rose in the early part of last year, and cheese prices rose at the same time. The prices have remained largely unchanged for more than a year. The hon. Gentleman referred to the frozen state of agricultural wages, but I remind him that in two-and-a-half years wages generally have risen by 34½ per cent.
    Mr. Body: Will my hon. Friend say how successful we have been in excluding Canadian cheddar, of which there is a surplus, now that we have increased the levy on it to more than £100 a ton?
    Mrs. Fenner: Cheese producers have been stocking cheese for a longer period so that it will reach the state of maturity of Canadian cheddar.
    Mr. Fernyhough: Will the Parliamentary Secretary explain how it comes about that her Department says that the increase in meat prices is due to world demand— in other words, that the demand exceeds the supply—whereas there is no EEC country, including Britain, which does not have huge stocks of cheese, so that one would expect the market forces to apply in the opposite direction?
    Mrs. Fenner: I have said that we have a rather larger stock of cheese at the moment, but it is clearly not an excessive stock. Nevertheless, it is open to the Food Panel of the Price Commission to investigate the price of cheese without reference to the Ministry.
    Mr. Buchan: Does the hon. Lady realise that she has just made one of the most shocking statements about food that we have ever heard in the House? Is she saying that the price of one of our traditional foods has virtually doubled since the Government came into power? What is happening to the inquiry which the Ministry is to undertake on the stockpiling of cheese? Far from stocks of cheese being only slightly higher, they are now at a record level. I hope that she will not say, as she said about frozen chickens, that the high price is due to climatic conditions or inefficient forecasting by the Prime Minister.
    Mrs. Fenner: We are keeping the situation, including the level of prices, under review. I have read the Press reports, but there is no question of a formal inquiry having been put in hand by my Department. I reiterate that it will be open to the Food Panel of the Price Commission to investigate cheese prices.
    Mr. Ewingasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a further statement on the anticipated egg shortage and the consequent price increase.
    Mrs. Fenner: Although eggs are not in short supply, production has fallen from the very high levels reached in 1972. Market prices for eggs tend to change markedly in response to relatively small changes in supply, and prices are therefore higher than usual.
    Mr. Ewing: The hon. Lady is very complacent today. Is she not aware of
    604
    her hon. Friend's reply on Monday, to the effect that we are producing 1 million dozen eggs per week fewer this year than we were last year? Was that not followed on Tuesday by an announcement of an increase in the price of eggs and today by the announcement of staggering increases in the profits of the Eastwood Poultry Company? In view of the reply she gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) about chickens, is the hon. Lady aware that she is in serious danger of being branded as the most expensive hen in Great Britain?
    Mrs. Fenner: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's flippancy on this subject. I am not in the least complacent. I recognise that egg prices have risen, but they were rather low during last year and this may have had something to do with fewer eggs being produced now. Market demand is very strong as Easter approaches, but it is likely to fall, with the price, after Easter.
    Mr. R. C. Mitchell: What climatic conditions affect the price of eggs?
    Mrs. Fenner: The cost of feeding stuffs affects the price of eggs, and a poor return to the producer is not conducive to the production of eggs.
    Mr. Winterton: Does not my hon. Friend agree that many of the problems of increasing prices which face us have arisen because hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition benches chickened out of their responsiblities in 1969 and 1970?
    Mrs. Fenner: Some Opposition chickens are coming home to roost.
    Mr. David Clark: Will the Minister answer the Question and make a statement on the price of eggs? Has she seen the figures given in yesterday's Daily Mail to the effect that the price of a dozen eggs has gone up 10p since the beginning of the freeze?
    Mrs. Fenner: Yes, I recognise that the price has gone up. Last Question Time I said that from February 1963 to February 1973 the cost of standard eggs had remained exactly the same. The price has risen over the last few weeks, for reasons which I have already explained at length.

    Oil Foods (Protein)
    Mrs. Joyce Butlerasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to what extent development of protein from oil foods is taking place in Great Britain; what estimates have been made as to the safety of these foods for either animal or human consumption; and if he will make a statement.
    Mrs. Fenner: The development of protein from an oil base is still in the research and development stage in this and other countries, including France. Testing of the product for safety on animals was initiated in laboratories some years ago and, in the light of the results, experimental trials as an animal feeding stuff are taking place. The product is not being marketed for human consumption at present, nor could it legally be sold as such in this country, as this is precluded by regulations made in 1966 under the Food and Drugs Act.
    Mrs. Butler: Is the hon. Lady satisfied that the safety tests which are being applied to these petroleum proteins are adequate to assess possible dangers from this entirely new type of food? Japanese consumers have totally rejected these proteins. Can the Minister say what will be done to consult consumers in this country before any effort or attempt is made to use food made from these proteins?
    Mrs. Fenner: Less than 5,000 tons of these proteins from hydrocarbons is being produced at the moment for use on experimental farms. The Food Additives and Contaminants Committee is carrying out a full review of the mineral hydrocarbons regulations, and the Food Standards Committee is reviewing the use in food of protein products derived from coventional and non-conventional sources. I can assure the hon. Lady that both committees will clearly reflect consumer interests.
    Mr. Speaker: Questions to the Prime Minister.
    Mr. Kelley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not think that the clock shows 3.15 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker: The clock which is in front of me shows 3.15 p.m.

    CBI AND TUC
    Ql. Mr. Edward Taylorasked the Prime Minister if he will arrange a series of regular meetings, at least once per quarter, with representatives of the TUC and the CBI.
    Mr. James Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister what recent representations he has had from the CBI and the TUC about the economy.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): The meetings of the National Economic Development Council already provide a forum for regular monthly contact between the Government and the CBI and the TUC. I took the chair at a meeting of the council yesterday at which there was an exchange of views about the economy. I am always willing to arrange further meetings with the CBI and the TUC as the occasion requires.
    Mr. Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the results of the polls in the gas industry and the mines, and the speech made by Mr. Hugh Scanlon, might have created a situation in which further discussion of the possibility of a voluntary prices and incomes policy would be fruitful at this stage?
    The Prime Minister: I hope that is indeed the case. Yesterday at the NEDC meeting our discussion following upon the Budget was one of the most constructive discussions between employers, the TUC and the Government in which I have taken part over 10 years.
    Mr. James Hamilton: At his meeting yesterday did the right hon. Gentleman talk to the TUC about the statesmanlike proposal put forward by Mr. Scanlon? Did he talk to the NEDC about the amount of money—between £15 million and £18 million—which has been given to the building societies and, at the same time, explain to the NEDC why he could not give old-age pensioners an increase until October this year? Finally, did he tell the NEDC that he cannot control and has not controlled prices, and that therefore his policy is a fraud?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. None of those subjects was discussed yesterday.
    Sir Harmar Nicholls: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that in the nation's interest there are times when regular formal meetings can be of advantage and times when an absence of formal meetings is desirable to enable the discussions and thinking to be digested? Does not this seem to be such a time?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I quite agree with my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Harold Wilson: As housing costs are a very important part of inflation, does the right hon. Gentleman recall that five times across these two Dispatch Boxes he has been pressed about mortgages and has refused to take any action, although the difficulties are due to Government monetary policy? Is "Mr. 9½-10 per cent." any relation to the author of "A Better Tomorrow" which was published in 1970 and in which the right hon. Gentleman said:
    "We will reverse the decline in building, make home ownership easier again, and concentrate Government subsidies where they are most needed."
    The Prime Minister: From the point of view of housing construction and making more houses available, the number of houses being started for sale rose from 165,000 in 1970 to 227,000 last year. That is essential for making more homes available.
    Mr. Kaufman: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the atmosphere of the tripartite discussions could be greatly improved if he were to extend his new technique and promise to offer once-for-all, three-monthly bridging grants to bakers to keep down the price of bread, to cities to keep down the cost of rates, to landlords to keep down the cost of rents, and to shopkeepers to keep down the prices of various other goods?
    An Hon. Member: He will.
    The Prime Minister: I have already stated that the atmosphere yesterday was extremely constructive. I have seldom known better in talks between the CB1 and the TUC. If the Opposition do not want a constructive atmosphere, that is their responsibility.
    Concerning the other matters raised by the hon. Gentleman, he will know that the Government have helped those who are paying rents, whether they are in local

    608
    authority houses or in private houses, by increasing the needs allowance so that it covers all those with two children who are earning up to the average industrial wage. That was a major step forward, as well as helping in particular those who are most affected by rating revaluation.
    Dame Joan Vickers: As a large proportion of the workers of Britain are women, how many women representatives of the TUC and the CBI attended the conference?
    The Prime Minister: The responsibility for choosing the representatives of the TUC and the CBI on the NEDC is for the TUC and the CBI. I can only state, as a matter of fact—and one for which I have no responsibility—that there are no women representatives.
    Mr. Harold Wilson: As the right hon. Gentleman is showing signs of beginning to learn—even if he is a slow pupil—in view of the answer which he has just given about rents, will he now state categorically that he will not require local authorities to implement the next stage of increases in council house rents later this month?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
    Hon. Members: Why?

    AUSTRALIA (PRIME MINISTER)
    Mr Dalyellasked the Prime Minister if he will seek to invite the Australian Prime Minister to London.
    The Prime Minister: I look forward to seeing Mr. Whitlam when he visits this country at Easter. He will be having discussions with me and with other Ministers.
    Mr. Dalyell: When Gough Whitlam, as he certainly will, looks the Prime Minister in the eye and says to him, "What have you done, Prime Minister of Britain, about talking to President Pompidou about French nuclear tests?", what will the Prime Minister say to him?
    The Prime Minister: I shall give him the same answer as I have given to the hon. Gentleman 18 times since Christmas.
    Mr. Redmond: Will my right hon. Friend list the places which he will not

    609
    be visiting and the people with whom he will not discuss nuclear tests? That would save the time of the House enormously.
    The Prime Minister: My activities are world-wide.

    HANDSWORTH
    Mr. Sydney Chapmanasked the Prime Minister if he will undertake an official visit to the Handsworth district of Birmingham.
    The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so, Sir.
    Mr. Chapman: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the grossly distorted and exaggerated reports about Handsworth that have appeared in newspapers during the last fortnight? If he cannot make a special visit to Handsworth, when he comes to Birmingham will he look in and see what is being done with Government aid, by local authority projects and, above all, by voluntary organisations, to alleviate the serious social problems in a part of Handsworth? More specifically, will he consider the extra resources which we need for specific projects?
    The Prime Minister: I am sure that the House will have noted the first of my hon. Friend's remarks. I was in Birmingham recently, but I regret to say that I was unable to visit Handsworth specifically. But my hon Friend is right in saying that a great deal is now being done under the urban programme with various projects, including a neighour-hood centre, a play centre, a day care centre, the provision of a youth worker, an adventure playground, a community venture, a family planning service, and a large number of nursery schools.
    Mr. Pavitt: As the Prime Minister is finding time not to visit Handsworth but to come to my constituency on, I think, 5th May, will he take time when there to look at the problem of homelessness which has developed—either on his way to or on return from the Cup Final?
    The Prime Minister: I am always prepared to consider suggestions from the hon. Gentleman about any particular aspects of his constituency which I ought to visit and study. In fact, I am not proposing to attend the Cup Final.

    MERSEYSIDE
    Mr. Parryasked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to Merseyside.
    The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to make a further visit to Merseyside.
    Mr. Parry: When the Prime Minister recently attended a meeting on the opening of the Merseyside Development Office in London he spoke of his love and great affection for Merseyside. Will not he reconsider his decision not to visit Merseyside and show how deep his affection really is? He would then see the disastrous effect on Merseyside of the policies of his Government.
    The Prime Minister: I have already been to Merseyside a number of times since I became Prime Minister. I cannot agree with the last part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. We all regret the fact that although unemployment has decreased somewhat on Merseyside it has not responded in the same way as it has in the rest of the country. We regard this as a matter for serious concern.
    Mr. Tilney: If and when the Prime Minister comes to Merseyside, will he bear in mind that there are first-class white-collar workers there who are as good as any in Britain, and much office accommodation which is available at one-tenth of the cost of similar accommodation in London?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. As the House knows, the Government are now considering the Hardman Report about dispersal of the policy-making aspects of the Civil Service, which are at present based in London. But since 1963, 1,650 Civil Service posts have been established in Merseyside, as a result of dispersal and new offices, and, in addition, 3,000 staff are employed in the Post Office Giro at Bootle. So a considerable number of posts have already moved to Merseyside.
    Mr. Heffer: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are 2,000 unemployed youths in Liverpool alone? Is he further aware that the trade unions in the docks have called for 500 more permanent workers? The employers have

    611
    already called for this, but at present there is no response from the Government. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is causing the port of Liverpool to lose trade to a serious extent?
    The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that the position in the docks has been affected by the scheme for redundancy, to which the Government agreed, and a number of older workers and the sick have not taken advantage of that. As a consequence, consideration has to be given to the permanent strength of the dock force.

    CENTRAL POLICY REVIEW STAFF
    Mr. Carterasked the Prime Minister if he will now answer questions on matters relating to the Central Policy Review Staff.
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I will continue to answer questions about the Central Policy Review Staff on the same basis as I have done since its inception.
    Mr. Carter: Does the Prime Minister agree that the CPRS would be an appropriate body to examine the Prime Minister's statement in the House that it is not the Government's intention to reduce the percentage of wages and salaries as a part of the GNP whilst at the same time saying that it is the Government's intention to increase investment as a percentage of the GNP? How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile those two statements? How do they become compatible?
    The Prime Minister: They are perfectly compatible, because investment can come from both profitability and the savings of the people and the savings come from the wages and incomes proportion of the GNP.
    Mr. Adley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I stated in my election address that the Government would support Concorde? Does he realise that the reported attitude of the CPRS on this matter is most satisfactory to my constituents?
    The Prime Minister: The Government have certainly supported Concorde.
    Mr. Lipton: Will the Prime Minister say whether the difficulties now facing the Government are due to following or to not following the advice of the CPRS?
    The Prime Minister: The CPRS advice is a form of advice on subjects which cross departmental boundaries. It is on the same basis as all departmental advice of which the source is never made public.

    INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY (STUDY)
    Mr. Wyn Robertsasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the agreement he signed on 2nd March with Herr Brandt setting up an Anglo-German Foundation to study modern industrial society.
    The Prime Minister: The Foundation follows a Federal German initiative which we warmly welcome. It is contributing about £2 million over the next five years. Its aims are to promote the study of the problems of industrial society. His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh and President Heinemann have agreed to be patrons of the Foundation and Mr. Victor Feather, Sir David Barran and Sir Roger Jackling have accepted appointment to the Board of Trustees.
    Mr. Roberts: Is it not a fact that most German industries are served by one union each? Should not the benefits of that system be studied, especially in view of the wisdom of the National Union of Mineworkers, for example, in dealing with the National Coal Board recently?
    The Prime Minister: It is true that the German industrial system has a very few trade unions. No doubt it is a matter that the Foundation can study if it so decides, but I believe that the German system was founded on the advice of the British trade unions after the war.
    Mr. Thorpe: Is the Prime Minister also aware that we have much to learn from the record of good industrial partnership in Germany, particularly the two-tier system of management?
    The Prime Minister: I have already told the House that it is a matter which we are studying and discussing inside the Community, because it was one of the objectives set out at the meeting of Heads of Government in Paris last October.
    Mr. Tom King: Will the Foundation particularly draw on the German research into long-term manpower planning, which is well ahead of anything in this country?
    The Prime Minister: All I can do is to answer for the scope of the Foundation, and it is certainly within its scope to do that. The projects will have to be decided by the trustees.
    Mr. Robert C. Brown: Is the Prime Minister aware that the operation of the Industrial Relations Act is calculated to increase rather than reduce the number of trade unions? When does he think he should concede to the House, after more than two years' operation of the Act, that the Act is overdue for amendment, and when will he present amendments?
    The Prime Minister: The question was debated very fully during the passage of the Bill. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can argue that the Act will necessarily lead to an increase in the number of unions. There are movements among unions, as the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, for the number to decrease. At the same time, it was considered that workers should be given the right to create new trade unions if they so desired.

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): The business for the next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 9TH APRIL—Supply (16th allotted day). There will be debates on Mortgage Rates, until about seven o'clock, and afterwards on Disabled Persons. Both will arise on Opposition motions.
Motions on the Cinematograph Films (Collection of Levy) (Amendment No. 3) Regulations, the Motor Vehicles (Speed Limits on Motorways) Regulations and on the (Variation of Speed Limits) Regulations.
TUESDAY 10TH APRIL AND WEDNESDAY 11TH APRIL—Progress in Committee on the Finance Bill.
614
THURSDAY 12TH APRIL—Supply (17th allotted day). There will be a debate on the Air Force, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Motions on the Grey Squirrels (Warfarin) Order and on the Farm Capital Grant (Variation) Schemes.
FRIDAY 13TH APRIL—Private Members' Bills.
On Monday, 16th April, the House may be asked to deal with the Northern Ireland (Assembly) Bill.
The House will wish to know that, subject to the progress of business, it is intended to propose that the House should rise for the Easter Adjournment on Thursday, 19th April, until Monday, 30th April.
Mr. Wilson: I thank the right hon. Gentleman, particularly for the last sentence of his announcement.
Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that there was some expectation that next week the House would be asked to debate a motion in the name of the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten), dealing with certain edicts made in Brussels on a very different basis from decisions previously taken by the House in Britain's national interest?
[That this House rejects the proposals contained in a draft directive of the Commission of the European Communities (No. C 119/1 dated 16th November 1972 in the Official Journal of the EC) namely, the Raising of the Age for a Driving Licence from 17 years to 18 years and other related matters.]
There was widespread interest in having the debate. What is holding it up? Does the Leader of the House hope to be able to bring it on before Easter?
Mr. Prior: I still hope that we can bring it on before Easter. We could consider taking it in the last week before Easter. We have still to receive some translations, and it may be necessary in this case to ask the House to accept our own translation and not have the official translation, because the documents are not yet prepared. I can assure the House that official translations will always be readily available well in advance of a final decision having to be taken on any matter.
Mr. Cormack: Is my right hon. Friend yet in a position to say when we can have the vote on the new parliamentary building?
Mr. Prior: I still hope that it will be before Easter.
Mr. Driberg: Will the Leader of the House reconsider the date he has announced for resumption after the Recess? Does he realise that it is one day before the national day of protest, and that it is very likely that no trains will be running and that probably most of the catering staff of the House will not be coming to work? There will be other inconveniences for hon. Members, so would it not be more sensible for us to return on the Wednesday?
Mr. Prior: I had worked out that it would be greatly to our advantage to come back on the Monday.
Mr. Fell: May I ask my right hon. Friend a question about Standing Committee G on the National Health Service Reorganisation Bill? I have been a little concerned on looking through the names of its members. I realise, of course, how difficult it is for the Chairman of the Committee of Selection to arrange matters adequately and fairly. But it appears from the list of the 30 Members chosen that there are very few who are against certain parts of the Bill, perhaps the parts that were most discussed on Second Reading. It appears that there may be none from the Opposition. There are perhaps a couple on our side of the House, but no more. Will my right hon. Friend consider the matter, because it is a bit worrying?
Mr. Prior: I sympathise with my hon. Friend to the extent that some Members who think that they should be on Standing Committees do not always find a place. [Interruption.] Some people sympathise the other way. The Chairman and the Selection Committee have an extremely difficult job. From time to time there is criticism of them, but it is remarkable how over a period of years there have been so few criticisms. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend's words have been heard by the Chairman and members of that Committee.
Mr. Wallace: Will the Leader of the House, in the interests of open govern-

616
ment, of which we have heard so much and seen so little, arrange for an early debate on Motion No. 250, concerning public meetings of rent scrutiny boards?
[That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to ensure that meetings of rent scrutiny boards be held in public so that both tenants and landlords can attend and hear what factors are taken into consideration in determining the rents of their dwellings.]
Mr. Prior: I cannot add anything to what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment said on 28th March. I do not think the hon. Gentleman is being very fair about open government, of which I thought there were plenty of examples.
Dame Irene Ward: Now that the Government and the appropriate Secretary of State have received the Booz-Allen Report on shipbuilding and so on, when are we likely not only to see it but to debate it? Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that we are very anxious that decisions shall be taken on it while the House is in session and not when it is in recess? Please could my right hon. Friend arrange all that? The first thing is to arrange to have the report circulated, as the Government have had quite a long time to discuss the matter and most of us would like to know about it.
Mr. Prior: I have taken a careful note of what my hon. Friend said. I shall try to inform the House when the report will be available.
Dr. Dickson Mabon: Is the Leader of the House aware that last Monday in answering Question No. 16 a Minister began a very undesirable practice by referring to a Written Answer to a Question to the Prime Minister? The matter was raised as a matter of order with Mr. Speaker, but it is not a matter of order. I understand that it is a matter of practice. Is not that a bad practice to follow? Would not it be wise for Ministers to be reminded that it is injurious to the interests of back-bench Members?
Mr. Prior: I think that in the case the hon. Gentleman mentioned my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Civil Service Department answered a Question as it was put to him and in answering a supplementary question gave

617
the substance of the reply to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I have taken note of the hon. Gentleman's point, and I am sure that my hon. Friend has also done so. I think that there was a misunderstanding in this case, and we hope that it will not occur again.
Mr. Ian Lloyd: In view of the wholly controversial nature and purpose of an investigation announced by a sub-committee of the Expenditure Committee yesterday morning to investigate wages paid by the subsidiaries of British firms in South Africa, will there be an early opportunity to debate its confirmation in the House, because its purpose gives rise to great concern?
Mr. Prior: The committee was set up under the usual arrangements at the start of the Session. This is a sub-committee of a committee which is already in existence. Therefore, at this stage, there is no question in front of the House. The arrangements made by Select Committees are, of course, for them.
Mr. Kelley: If the right hon. Gentleman cannot afford time for a discussion next week on Motion No. 266, standing in my name and the names of a number of my hon. Friends, on the commercial relations of the National Coal Board with outside bodies, would he indicate to the Select Committee that he would welcome such an investigation?
[That this House would welcome any investigation which the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries may care to make into the commercial dealings of the National Coal Board with outside bodies.]
Mr. Prior: No, Sir, I have made my position vis-à-vis Select Committees absolutely clear. It is a matter for a Select Committee to make its own decision on what it should investigate, and I think that it would resent it greatly if I tried to influence it in any way.
Captain Orr: On the business that my right hon. Friend hopes to take on Monday week, when does he expect the Bill to be published? Since he is hoping to take the Second Reading of that Bill, does this mean that it will precede the Bill giving effect to Diplock?
Mr. Prior: Yes, Sir. This Bill would come before Diplock. I apologise to the

618
House for the delay in the publication of the Bill. I hope that it will be published in the early part of next week, and certainly before the middle of next week.
Mr. Jay: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen Early Day Motion No. 275, protesting against the suppression by the Government of the inspector's report on the West Cross route Ringway? Will he give us an assurance that that report will be published this week?
[That this House calls upon the Secretary of State for the Environment to make public without further delay the report of the inspector following the public inquiry in 1972 into the proposed West Cross route section of Ringway 1 in West London.]
Mr. Prior: The decision on the West Cross route involves consideration of a number of complex matters. My right hon. and learned Friend will announce a decision as soon as he can.
Mr. Walter Johnson: May I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to Early Day Motion No. 262, which deals with the sale of the Rolls-Royce motor company by the receiver? Is he aware that, under the rules of the House, it is not possible to question the Minister on this subject? In those circumstances, would he arrange an early debate on this subject, and certainly before Easter, since otherwise we could find Rolls-Royce sold off to a foreign Power without this House having an opportunity to discuss the matter?
[That this House, whilst recognising that the Receiver in the old Rolls-Royce Company has a specific obligation to get the best possible deal for Rolls-Royce Motors for the benefit of creditors. Rolls-Royce worker shareholders and ordinary shareholders, nevertheless calls upon Her Majesty's Government to give an undertaking that Rolls-Royce Motors will not be sold to a foreign country.]
Mr. Prior: I cannot promise a debate before Easter, as the hon. Gentleman will realise. I have nothing further to add to what my right hon. and learned Friend said on 26th March. But I have noted what the hon. Gentleman said today and I will report it to my right hon. and learned Friend.
Mr. Hastings: With regard to the conduct of British firms abroad, may we have an investigation into the conditions frequently suffered by British employees of British firms working under contract in Soviet Russia?
Mr. Prior: That is another matter which perhaps a sub-committee of the Expenditure Committee might like to consider.
Mr. McBride: May I return to Early Day Motion No. 250, since this matter gains in public importance in view of the inefficiency of the Treasury yesterday in the grant made to the building societies? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that rent scrutiny boards are not elected and that their decisions, arbitrarily arrived at, affect 5½ million people, including 270,000 council house tenants in Wales? Decisions are made by people who are, in effect, in Wales the rubber-stamping nominees of the Secretary of State. Will he not think again and give us open government for a change?
Mr. Prior: I cannot find time for that next week.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: On the business of the sub-committee of the Expenditure Committee, will my right hon. Friend confirm, for the avoidance of doubt, that, although the selection of activities for a committee lies with the committee, the spending of Government money by that committee remains within the control and jurisdiction of the House as a whole?
Mr. Prior: The House has a certain amount of money to devote to Select Committee travelling expenses, and so on, each year. That, of course, must remain within the control of the House, and it is up to the House to decide exactly how that money should be spent.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: With further reference to Motion No. 236, and the question the conduct of British companies in South Africa, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a number of hon. Members on this side of the House and possibly some hon. Members opposite believe that any discussion and examination in committee should be preceded by a debate in this House? Will he arrange that?
[That this House notes with disgust the low wages paid by British firms in South Africa to their African employees and,

620
whilst disapproving any investment which helps to underpin an apartheid regime, believes that the minimum target of directors and shareholders of these companies should be the payment to these workers of wages which will enable them to lead decent and dignified lives.]
Mr. Prior: Not at the moment, Sir.
Mr. James Johnson: Since conflicting information is coming out of Reykavik about the fisheries talks, which we had hoped would be held next week but which now might be after Easter, will the right hon. Gentleman, who, like myself, is interested in this matter, use his influence to get us a statement at the earliest possible moment?
Mr. Prior: I will certainly see in what way the House and the hon. Gentleman can be informed of the state of the talks, if there are to be talks, and about when they are to be, and I will let the House know.
Mr. Richard: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the proposed line of the West Cross route goes straight through the middle of my constituency, that a large number of my constituents have written to me, and I have written to a large number of Ministers, asking them what is to happen to my constituents? Is he further aware that, if the Government do not disclose the full reasoning behind whatever decision they take on the West Cross route, it will be a shameful abuse of their prerogatives?
Mr. Prior: I am certain that my right hon. and learned Friend will be able to satisfy all the hon. and learned Member's constituents.

BUILDING SOCIETIES (INTEREST RATES)
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Rippon.
Mr. Ashton: On a point of order. In view of the nature of the statement that the Secretary of State is about to make, should it not be made instead by the Chancellar of the Exchequer? In future, are questions on mortgage interest rates to be put down to the Department of the Environment?
Mr. Speaker: Neither of those questions is a matter for me.
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): I will, with permission, Mr. Speaker, make a statement about building society mortgage lending.
The House will know that, on 16th March, the Building Societies Association recommended to its members an increase in the rate of interest offered to investors to 6·3 per cent., but deferred a decision on the recommended mortgage lending rate. Since then, the building societies have not attracted a sufficient inflow of funds and the Association has indicated to the Government that it would have to raise the recommended investment rate to 6·75 per cent. It also indicated that this higher investment rate implied an increase in the recommended mortgage rate to 10 per cent.
The Government regard it as a high priority that building societies should continue to attract sufficient funds to support a high and stable level of house building. They accept that, to achieve this result, an investment rate of as high as 6·75 per cent. may well be necessary at the present time because of the operation of certain special factors, such as the recent marked increase in consumer spending which has affected the current pattern of savings. The Government think that it would not be right to increase the mortgage rate fully to correspond with an investment rate of 6·75 per cent. in these special circumstances.
The Government have therefore offered a temporary bridging grant to those societies who find it necessary to have an investment rate of 6·75 per cent. but who nevertheless do not increase their annuity mortgage rate above 9·5 per cent. This grant will be available for a period of three months, beginning with the date at which, for each class of mortgagors, a society's mortgage rate is increased to 9·5 per cent. or today, whichever is the later. The grant will be equivalent to the difference in receipts of interest for the three-months' period between a 9·5 per cent. and 10 per cent. mortgage rate on all new and existing loans to individuals for home ownership.
The cost of the bridging grant is estimated at £15 million and supplementary provision will be sought from Parliament at the earliest opportunity. In the meantime, recourse will, if necessary, be had to the Contingencies Fund.

622
In order to ensure that the funds attracted by building societies are used to the best advantage, the Building Societies Association has agreed to recommend to its members that the amounts used for special advances of over £13,000 to individual purchasers should be limited as far as possible and that special consideration should be given to first-time purchasers.
In order to avoid an increase in the total of public expenditure, I will make offsetting savings from other expenditures for which my Department is responsible.
As the House knows, the Government attach overriding importance to the success of their counter-inflation policy. They have already demonstrated by their decisions on rates and on the needs allowance for council and private tenants that, at this crucial time, they are willing, in appropriate cases, to take direct measures to keep increases in household costs within reasonable bounds. The present decision on mortgages forms part of the same pattern.
Mr. Crosland: The Government have got themselves into an appalling mess due to a reckless monetary policy and to their complacent inactivity in face of endless warnings last year of the situation that was likely to arise. This is not a permanent solution. It is a panic expedient to cover them over the period of the GLC and county elections.
I want to put three questions to the Secretary of State. First, is he aware that this situation would not have arisen if instead of endlessly parrotting about how everything in the garden was lovely he had taken heed of the warnings of myself and many other hon. Members last year on the need for a building society stabilisation fund? Is he aware that he will now have to grapple with the problem of insulating building society lending from the crazy vagaries of monetary policy that go on under this Government?
Secondly, is he aware that while certainly an all-time high mortgage interest rate of 9½ per cent. will cause acute hardship to owner-occupiers, and especially to young married couples who have recently bought a house, the Government themselves have caused even greater hardship to millions of private and council tenants,

623
and that, while it is right to give help to the hard-pressed home buyer, it would be equally wrong to refuse equivalent help to the council and private tenant who is equally hard pressed?
Finally, is he aware that this announcement today is the final evidence, if further evidence were needed, that the Government's housing policy, on every front, is in total and chaotic ruin?
Mr. Rippon: I accept that the right hon. Gentleman is right when he says that this is not a long-term or permanent solution. We had some discussion about this in debates in the House on 6th February and 14th March when I accepted his general proposition about the need for a stable flow of mortgage funds. This will require further discussions which will take place urgently with the Building Societies Association. This is an immediate action to deal with an abnormal situation.
I was glad the right hon. Gentleman agreed that this action was necessary to help the home owner. In fact, I believe the right hon. Gentleman criticised us yesterday, according to Press reports, for having made an inadequate token arrangement with the building societies. But we feel that we have done what is right and reasonable in present circumstances.
Mr. John Hall: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that his announcement will give only marginal relief to those whom it is intended to benefit? Will he tell the House what are the savings in his Department that he intends to make to compensate for the £15 million-plus that it is to cost?
Mr. Rippon: I do not accept that it is marginal. I believe that it will be a real help to those who are buying their own homes, just as we have given help in the special contributions we have made in regard to rates and the very substantial increase we made in the needs allowance, which helps both council and private tenants. This is entirely in line with action we have been taking in particular cases to deal with abnormal situations and to ensure the success of our counter-inflation policy.
As far as savings are concerned, I simply say what I have said several times in the House recently, that I believe

624
that housing is at the moment the top priority. Therefore, in so far as help needs to be given right across the board —and we have not given it just to home owners—this must have the priority it warrants.
Mr. Roy Jenkins: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the Prime Minister and the Government realise what nonsense this makes of the monetary policy announced as recently as the Budget speech? Unless this is an even more cynical short-term election manoeuvre than appears at first sight— and indeed it might seem more appropriate temporarily to charge it to Conservative election funds—does the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a former chairman of the Conservative Party, realise that he is now committed, whatever the effect upon monetary policy, to be a partisan of downward-turning interest rates within the next three months, or is he to make nonsense of his whole position? Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us what remnant of principle or direction there is now in either the Government's monetary policy or its housing finance policy? What sense of fairness, what purpose does it serve, in the very month when the second stage of the Housing Finance Act is being operated on council rents, to give this subsidy?
Mr. Rippon: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that this action implies no change in monetary policy. It makes no further demand on the borrowing requirement. It is, as I have told the House, a temporary measure designed to help the building societies in abnormal conditions and in such a way as to give some relief to home owners in those conditions.
Mr. Powell: Could my right hon. and learned Friend say whether there is any longer anything which this Government are not prepared to subsidise?
Mr. Rippon: As my right hon. Friend knows perfectly well, in the conditions of stage 2 of the Government's counter-inflationary policy, we have thought it right in particular circumstances, over a temporary period, to give assistance not only here but in respect of rates and needs allowances. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite may laugh but I should like to hear them get up and say that it should not have been done.
Mr. Charles R. Morris: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the consternation that exists among young owner-occupiers at the prospect of a mortgage interest rate of 9½ per cent. Is the Secretary of State aware of the very real demand that the issue of mortgage interests rates should be the first reference to the Prices and Pay Board, and do the Government intend to take action in this direction?
Mr. Rippon: I have already told the House that we intend to discuss further with the building societies the prospects of a stabilisation scheme. That is a long-term solution that has to be considered. For the rest, I must tell the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friends that they cannot have it both ways. They cannot criticise what is happening and at the same time criticise the action the Government are taking to deal with the situation.
Mr. Gurden: Could my right hon. and learned Friend explain to me how it comes about that there is such a wide difference between the borrowing and lending rates of building societies since, with the increased throughput over recent years, one would have thought that they had enough money to cover their expenses?
Mr. Rippon: I said in the House on 14th March that the building societies have to attract and retain the savings of their investors and, as I then said, this raises difficult and conflicting considerations. The difficulty is that the Building Societies Association has said that it now believes that it requires a rate to lenders of 6·75 per cent. instead of one of 6·3 per cent. Thereafter, it is a mathematical proposition whether one moves to 9½ per cent. or 10 per cent.
We have said to the Building Societies' Association that it has not taken sufficient account of the pre-VAT spending, which has had an effect over a wide field. There are other aspects of the matter, insofar as the Association appears to be affected by internal competition for deposits. But bearing all those factors in mind, I believe that we have to accept that if there is a lending rate at a certain level, then, of course, the borrower will have to pay a mathematically appropriate payment.
Mr. Ashton: Since under the counter-inflation policy wage increases are limited to £1 plus 4 per cent. can the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell the House why he could not adopt a policy in line with that in regard to mortgage interest rates, limiting increases there to £1 plus 4 per cent?
Mr. Rippon: We have discussed this matter in the House on other occasions and there are these difficult and conflicting considerations. We must see that people who lend money to the building societies have a fair return in competitive conditions. That is one aspect of the problem. It is important to ensure that there are adequate funds to sustain the house-building programme. That is why we have taken this measure, which is very much in line with what we have done in this abnormal situation in regard to rate relief and needs allowances for council tenants and private tenants— which, incidentally, have cost more than this measure will cost.
Mr. Hugh Fraser: Since my right hon. and learned Friend has become the Government spokesman on the question of credit control, will he give two messages? Will he convey the first message to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer—then to be passed to the Bank of England—suggesting that the Green Paper issued in 1971 should now be withdrawn since it has helped to push up rates of interest? Secondly, will he convey the other message to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, namely, that the Government's net borrowing requirement must be reduced or interest rates will continue to rise?
Mr. Rippon: I will convey those messages so far as that may be necessary but, as I have explained to the House, this announcement will have no effect on the net borrowing requirement.
Mr. Walter Johnson: Is the Secretary of State aware that some of us in the past year have been asking the Government to refer this matter to the Monopolies Commission? Since this loan will be made from public funds do not the Government owe the taxpayer and those affected by mortgages the courtesy of referring this subject to an independent inquiry so that the whole matter can be thrashed out and properly examined?
Mr. Rippon: We are not dealing with a monopoly position. We are dealing with a situation in which the Building Societies Association can only recommend rates and there is some evidence of internal competition of one sort or another. I believe that the discussions which we shall be having with the building societies about the long-term need for mortgage fund stabilisation will throw up many of the matters which may be of concern to right hon. and hon. Members.
Mr. Allason: Does my right hon. and learned Friend realise that there is a vast volume of opinion which warmly supports what he is doing, and that it is particularly important for the Government to support the construction industry in its determination to continue to build houses and not to adopt the policy pursued by the Labour Government which, when faced with a little local difficulty on finance, ratted on the building industry?
Mr. Rippon: I am grateful for that intervention. My hon. Friend is right. I believe that the Government's measures will be warmly welcomed by home owners, and right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite will have to make up their minds on whose side they are.
Mr. Sheldon: Is it not clear that the present difficulties of the building societies arise directly from the Government's own borrowing requirement? Is it not absolute nonsense that, because the Government are borrowing so much money from the country as a whole, they are themselves directly responsible for putting up interest rates—and then proceeding to subsidise one of their competitors?
Mr. Rippon: As I have already told the House, since I became the Secretary of State for the Environment I have been very much concerned with the housebuilding and housing programmes, which I regard as having high priority. This is one of the reasons why we have made these arrangements.
Mr. Warren: Is it intended that the £15 million will be repayable?
Mr. Rippon: No, Sir. It is a grant. It is exactly in parallel with the arrangements which we have made this year in terms of rates and the substantial help that we have given—help which is cost-
628
ing double this figure—to council house tenants and private tenants.
Mr. Julius Silverman: Although hard-pressed mortgagors may welcome this modest relief to their circumstances, will this public money be spent right across the board, and will it benefit the borrower whatever the extent of his mortgage? Will all borrowers be given a similar benefit or will means tests be confined only to council and other tenants?
Mr. Rippon: The help will be given on the terms I have indicated. I welcome at least one Opposition voice which has praised help to home owners.
Mr. Ridley: In view of the cardinal importance to the Government's counter-inflation policy of borrowing the greatest possible amount of the £4,500 million deficit for which they have budgeted, will not this action have the effect of inducing some funds and savings not to come to the Government but to go to the building societies? Therefore, is it not a direct invitation to further inflation?
Mr. Rippon: No, Sir. Certainly not. This is not a general borrowing grant. We have been concerned about what the building societies have said their rate to lenders must be to attract their share of the available funds.
Mr. Orme: Is it not a fact that the Government are subsidising housing shortage, and that what is needed is a massive expansion in the number of rented houses? Is this not where the Government should be making a start, rather than subsidising a shortage which may well continue? On the subject of council house tenants, will the Secretary of State say categorically whether the Housing Finance Act will be repealed?
Mr. Rippon: I give the assurance that the Housing Finance Act will not be repealed. However, on the general question, the Government in the debates on 6th February and 16th March indicated their concern about the problem of housing. The home owners are one part of the subject and we have already indicated our desire to help people in rented accommodation—whether it be council accommodation or otherwise. We also accept an over-riding requirement in terms of the house-building and housing programmes generally which will relieve

629
the housing shortage and provide more people with decent homes—by the provision of new building or by giving the improvement grants which have been such a success in providing better accommodation.
Mr. Tapsell: While welcoming this further wise modification of the Green Paper on Competition and Credit Control, may we take it that in pursuit of the general policy of combating inflation, funding the Budget deficit and encouraging industrial investment, the authorities will now use their best endeavours to reduce the general rate of interest, and particularly by a more selective policy of bank lending?
Mr. Rippon: My hon. Friend raises wider issues. All I am saying is that the present announcement is only a temporary measure to deal with an abnormal situation. It is not presented as a permanent solution. There are wider questions which will have to be debated more thoroughly at the appropriate time.
Mr. Harold Wilson: Is the Secretary of State aware that he was wrong to say to his hon. Friend the Member for Horncastle (Mr. Tapsell) that this raises wider issues? It is the very centre of the problem. Is he not aware that I have tried to tell the Prime Minister five times in recent weeks that this was what would happen unless the Government changed their September 1971 interest rates policy? Will he now do what I asked the Prime Minister to do and what the Prime Minister refused to do— namely, to present to the House his own calculation in terms of a typical young family with an average household income, whether earned by wage or salary, which is seeking to buy a house at an average price, based on the figures given by his own Department to the House last week? Will he say, based on a mortgage interest rate of either 9½ or 10 per cent., how much would be left to that family for food, and what effect that would have on the family budget and the way in which it is made up? The whole responsibility of a Government is to see that these figures add up. Will he make that calculation and present it to the House?
Mr. Rippon: A new 25-year annuity mortgage of £6,000—a fairly typical national figure—[Interruption.] It was a
630
reasonable question and I do not see why the House should not listen to the answer. This is a fairly typical national figure. Let us remember that we are talking about a great many existing mortgages as well as those being taken out for the first time. The figure will be £49 gross per month, £36 net after tax relief, at 8·5 per cent. If we take a figure of 9·5 per cent. the calculation will be £53 gross, £39 net—an increase of £4 gross and £3 net. If we take a 10 per cent. figure it will be £55 gross and £40 net—an increase of £6 gross and £4 net. Similar calculations can be made on a mortgage of £10,000 or whatever the figure may be.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition is saying that he thinks it right that this relief should be given. We must bear in mind that last year there was a considerable increase in the number of mortgages given to people with average industrial earnings. The figure rose from 158,000 to 192,000 mortgages given last year to persons below the average industrial earnings level. Therefore, we are talking about a great many people who have bought their houses, perhaps not recently but several years ago. Whichever of these examples one takes, the measure which the Government have announced represents relief to home owners just as we have given it to council house tenants and others.
Mr. Harold Wilson: The right hon. and learned Gentleman asks whether we think that it is right. Of course if the Government kick someone in the jaw it is right to provide bandages, but that is no excuse for kicking someone in the jaw. Does the Secretary of State agree with the figure which was given last week as the average house price for the country of £8,700? That was the average in relation to building society mortgage advances for houses. Therefore, will he stop talking about £6,000, because if he does that he is talking about an ability to save for the deposit of about 25 per cent., or more. Will he do what I asked—get out a calculation of a household budget for young people showing what is involved for food, for rent and so on and say whether he could live on that budget and on that income?
Mr. Rippon: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has reiterated that he

631
thinks that what the Government are doing is right. As to the average price, I took £6,000 as a fairly average figure for the mortgage when it was taken out. I think the right hon. Gentleman is talking about an average price at present over the country as a whole. The figure is rather higher in the South-East of England, and it would probably be fairer to talk about £10,000 there. We are talking about four million people who have acquired houses at differing times and differing prices. The present figures vary very much. I could give figures relating to a £10,000 house. Lots of figures are given in the Press, but I can deal only with those within my responsibility. We say that by taking this temporary measure we shall give this particular form of relief to the house owner. The right hon. Gentleman agrees that it is right and I am sure it is right.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We shall debate this matter on Monday.
Mr. Roy Jenkins: On a point of order. May I have an assurance from the Leader of the House, or from the Prime Minister or whoever is in charge of these matters, that when next the Chancellor of the Exchequer has a brainwave he will come to the House and explain it himself instead of sheltering behind another Minister?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter of order.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SUPPLY
  [15TH ALLOTED DAY],—considered.

  ARMY
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hugh Rossi.]
  4.14 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. Peter Blaker): Opening the recent debate on the Royal Navy, my hon. Friend devoted some of his time to a report on what he had been doing in the early months of his new appointment. In line with the spirit of inter-Service co-operation, which I find everywhere in the Ministry of Defence, I propose to follow his example by beginning today with a few words about the Army as I have found it in the five months since I took over the job.
  It was natural that very early on I should visit the troops in Northern Ireland. I shall be saying more about this later, but I should like to say here that seldom can the Army have stood higher in public esteem than it does today for its efforts in Northern Ireland, and quite rightly so.
  While I am conscious that the Army's most immediate task is in Northern Ireland, I have also tried to see as much as possible of its activities elsewhere. So far I have visited Scottish Command, including a memorable visit in January to the Royal Artillery range in the Hebrides; South-West District, which has enabled me to see some of the defence training areas on which Lord Nugent will be reporting soon; the Royal Armament Research and Development Establishment at Fort Halstead; Sandhurst; the Royal Ordnance Factory at Blackburn; and more recently the British Army of the Rhine. Tomorrow I shall be visiting Headquarters United Kingdom Land Forces and next week I shall be visiting Headquarters Wales.
  My visit to BAOR has been an especially important one. At any one time nearly a third of the British Army

  633
  is assigned to duty in Germany, including most of its armoured regiments. It would not be appropriate for me today to go over the ground which we covered in the defence debate.
  But the true importance of BAOR can be understood only in the context of our strategy of deterrence and, if deterrence fails, of flexible response—the policy evolved when the Labour Party was in power. For this we must have the necessary conventional forces to respond properly to all levels of aggression. They must be able to cope with a limited action perhaps designed to present NATO with a fait accompli and defend effectively against a full-scale aggression, to give us time to bring the aggressor to his senses before we have to initiate the use of nuclear weapons, to restore the credibility of our deterrent. These propositions are well known to hon and right hon. Members, but I think it worth repeating them at this time and against the background of the defence debate a couple of weeks ago.
  In this context the British Army of the Rhine together with the RAF Germany represent Britain's most vital defence commitment: the security of Western Europe. We must see to it, therefore, that in BAOR the Army is properly equipped in every sense within available resources to fulfil this role. Following my visit, I am utterly confident that we have the calibre of men for the task. Everywhere I have been greatly impressed by the enthusiasm, alertness and high morale of our troops.
  I have been struck by the way in which the reductions in the total size of the forces, coupled with concentration upon our primary European role, make it ever more important to have sophisticated weapons and equipment. The pace of technological development is not slackening. This means that the demands for skill on officers and men are increasing. I have been impressed by the high standards of professionalism in all arms and corps. I have been particularly struck by their ability to communicate freely at all levels. This is something new to me in the Army. My Army experience goes back a long way, but I have found this very striking to all who come in contact with the Army at present. Hon. Members will probably have seen how well the
  634
  troops in Northern Ireland have presented themselves on television.
  For the young officer of today the traditional virtues of courage and leadership and professional military competence are not enough. He has to be a first-class personnel manager, and he will have the opportunity to develop his experience and expand his knowledge in fields which will be of great value to him in business or industry after he has left the Army, however long his Army career may be.
  Similar factors affect the outlook of the modern soldier. The whole way of life and, for that matter, discipline in the Services today must be shown to be intelligently directed to youngsters who are no less tough and enduring than their forefathers but tend to be better educated and to have higher social expectations. The modern soldier needs to know not simply what he is to do but why he is doing it. This brings me to personnel and conditions of service. I believe that the Army has justly earned itself a reputation as a good employer, and it is my objective to see that this reputation is upheld.
  On manning and recruiting, the broad picture is that in overall numbers, the Army is up to strength in both officers and men at the present time, although there are shortages and imbalances in certain areas. There is still room for more young officers in the teeth arms and major services, and this is in the main a reflection of the shortage during recent years of suitable young men coming forward for Regular commissions. We are, of course, doing all we can to remedy this situation, including a new advertising campaign based upon extensive research. The short services limited commission scheme is proving very successful. It is intended to give really able young men the chance to see for themselves what the Army is all about before they go up to university.
  Their recruitment was not the object of the scheme, but many of them have taken university cadetships with a view to continuing in the Army when they graduate. We attach much importance to our university entry, and I am glad to be able to report a slight improvement in the figure during the past year.
  We shall continue to do all we can to achieve and maintain a satisfactory career structure throughout the Army. In

  635
  this connection I should like to mention changes recently brought about in the Army Air Corps.
  Hitherto the corps has depended for the majority of its pilots and non-technical ground crew on personnel posted in from other arms and Services, mostly for a single tour; but as its technical complexities increase the need is for more and better qualified specialists. Accordingly we are reorganising the Army Air Corps so that a much higher percentage of its members will be permanent members of that corps.
  Apart from certain special skills, the soldier manning situation is generally satisfactory. Although adult recruiting was down last year compared with the very high level of recruitment in the previous year, there has been an encouraging increase in the number of men who are extending their engagements and a reduction in the numbers who are leaving the Army for other reasons. Increased prolongation and reduced wastage are just as important as recruitment, and we shall continue to do all we can to encourage retention.
  Junior recruiting is an area where we have had one record year after another, and in 1972–73 we had a record of some 10,300 junior recruits. With the raising of the school leaving age to 16, there will inevitably be a significant drop in the junior entry in 1973–74, but it will begin to pick up again next year, and we shall be paying particular attention to the recruitment of 16-year-olds as juniors.
  Before I leave the subject of manning and recruiting, I shall say a brief word about the women's services—the Women's Royal Army Corps and the Queen Alexandra's Royal Army Nursing Corps —which play such an important part. I am pleased to be able to say that the women's services are continuing to recruit well, and most of the vacancies at their depots are booked well ahead.
  I should also like to pay a particular tribute to the part which the Women's Royal Army Corps is playing in Northern Ireland. Some 200 girls are now serving there, where they carry out important administrative duties and assist in the task of searching at check-points. Their contribution in this latter rôle is
  636
  particularly valuable at a time when the IRA is making more use of women both to smuggle arms and ammunition within Northern Ireland and as active terrorists.
  If we are to attract recruits and encourage as many men as possible to stay on in the Army we must ensure that their conditions of service are the best that we can provide. A good deal has been done in this field during the past two years or so, and many of the improvements have been set out in successive statements on defence Estimates. But I should like to say a word about the welfare of families. This is particularly important when so many families are separated as a result of the situation in Northern Ireland.
  The Army has a deservedly high reputation in the manner in which it looks after Service families. All infantry and many other teeth arm units have a unit families officer, and in this activity we receive an invaluable contribution from welfare workers of the Soldiers', Sailors' and Airmen's Families Association. But we are not complacent and are looking for ways to improve our arrangements.
  Mr. F. A. Burden: One matter giving great concern is welfare. We know that a great many soldiers have been badly wounded and in many cases almost totally disabled by vicious and wicked attacks by thugs in Northern Ireland. Can the Under-Secretary indicate what steps are being taken to rehabilitate into civilian life those men who are forced out of the Services and, particularly, what steps are being taken to ensure that they can go to live, and readily find accommodation, in the areas in which they wish to reside if they are invalided out of the Services? This is an important matter about which there is, understandably, great concern.
  Mr. Blaker: My hon. Friend has raised an important point. He will be aware on the point of finance of the new arrangements for ex gratia payments announced during the recent defence debate and the review which is being carried out for permanent arrangements. As to the other aspects of the question, I hope that my hon. Friend will allow me to deal with them when I come, with leave of the House, to wind up the debate.

  637
  Another important feature of our family welfare arrangements in this country is the housing commandants organisation which was set up a few years ago to provide a central control for the allocation of quarters and hirings and to give help and advice generally on housing matters, particularly when the husband is away on unaccompanied tour or on exercises. I am glad to say it is working well.
  In answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) in the defence debate, which I did not have time to deal with then, I am glad to be able to tell him that we are at present considering how this scheme or something like it can be introduced in BAOR.
  This brings me to our endeavours to provide all ranks with proper accommodation wherever they are asked to serve. Compared to the past this is a married, marrying Army. Hence, one of our biggest concerns in peacetime is with quarters. In one sense we made the problem more difficult for ourselves when in 1969 the age bar to entitlement for married quarters was abolished to meet the changing expectations of the modern soldier. This change in the rules, combined with the tendency to marry earlier, which is a national phenomenon, has affected the housing problem for the Army everywhere.
  The increasing number of dependants which the Army has to provide for has repercussions in many fields. It means that there is a need for more married quarters, more schools, more teachers, more doctors, more school buses and a whole lot more of all sorts of things. In the United Kingdom a survey was carried out in 1971 into the demand for married soldiers' accommodation. As a result we are now building about 7,000 new married quarters in a phased programme to be completed by 1977 on which we are spending nearly £10 million a year.
  In BAOR, but for the changes in entitlement to married quarters, to which I have just referred, the problem of married quarters would by now have been well on the way to solution. At present about 1,500 families are separated —some 5 per cent. of the total in BAOR —and 2,100 more are in private accom-
  638
  modation. I regret to say that some families have to wait up to a year in such accommodation. We are striving to reduce this period.
  In the long term we hope to eliminate the problem altogether. We are currently acquiring about 8,500 long-term multiple hirings under a programme which is planned for completion by 1976. Meanwhile, we are taking on as many short-term hirings as possible and have recently increased the allowances for Servicemen in private accommodation. This eases the immediate problem and I hope that in about a year's time we shall have cut the waiting list in half.
  Dr. Alan Glyn: Would the hon. Gentleman say something about the problem of Servicemen finding accommodation when they leave the Service? There is growing anxiety about the increasing difficulty of getting on to the housing list. I believe that this is a very important aspect in recruiting.
  Mr. Blaker: It is an important point which has already been raised with me. My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Dr. Glyn) will know that it is a difficult matter for the Defence Department to solve, but, if I may, I will take it with the question asked by an hon. Member a moment ago because the two are, in a sense, related.
  Mr. J. D. Concannon (Mansfield): One problem continually arises with the Services. Might it be possible for the hon. Member to back up the circular to the local authorities with something a little stronger to encourage them to stick to the recommendations which basically is all they are?
  I have also found that the Servicemen themselves do not know about this circular and inform the local authorities too late that they are due to come out in, say, six months' time.
  The local authorities accordingly have not sufficient time in which to make the necessary preparations. The machinery is there, but there is a need for communication to the soldiers to inform them of their rights under the circular to the local authorities.
  Mr. Blaker: The hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr.Concannon) has rightly identified the fact that this is basically a problem for the local authorities. I

  639
  welcome what he said about the possibility of strengthening the circular and tightening up in other ways. I will gladly see whether something can be done along those lines.
  As to barrack accommodation in BAOR, we are launching, in agreement with the German authorities, a programme of modernisation for the barracks we occupy to bring the standards of accommodation for soldiers there up to the recently introduced scales for single accommodation in the United Kingdom. As hon. Members may know, this is based on the "barrack flat" concept which provides mixed groupings of single and four-person bedrooms with sitting rooms. This first phase of the BAOR programme will cost about £30 million over the next 10 years.
  In Northern Ireland we have given very special attention to the problems of troops' accommodation. Great progress has been made in the last year and we hope to make more progress this year. Since the point was fairly fully covered in the defence debate, I will not repeat what was then said, but if hon. Members have points to raise, I will try to deal with them later this evening.
  I do not know how often the Army Catering Corps is mentioned in our debates, but I wish to say a word about its efforts. As we all know, somebody once said something about an army marching on its stomach. I have been most impressed by the high standards of messing for all parts of the Army. Of course, we have to remember that the ACC is amongst those represented in Northern Ireland where its members are sometimes not only in dangerous conditions but in conditions as different as one could imagine from any ordinary kitchen. I have found that they succeed in producing extremely good meals at all hours.
  Colonel Sir Harwood Harrison: Would my hon. Friend consider the question of training in this regard, because all basic cooking is the same, yet each of the three Services has its own training? I believe that economy could be effected by having a common basic training followed by cooking in the galley, a tank or a very nice RAF mess. The hon. Gentleman might look at such an economy.
  Mr. Blaker: My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison) is making a point which was also made by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) in the defence debate. I have taken note of it and I am looking into the matter.
  On the subject of military aid to the civil community, I wish to say what the Army is doing round the world.
  In the last year, nine tasks were carried out by the Royal Engineers in aid of the civil community in such countries as Kenya, the Gulf, Hong Kong, Ethiopia and Malawi. Not only are these exercises of considerable economic value to the countries concerned, but they are also of value to the Army. If time permitted, I should like to say more about them. An example is the aid we were able to give Bangladesh in restoring road communications. A Royal Engineer team spent four months there assisting the Bangladesh roads and highways department, supervising the construction of 13 bridges, using Bailey bridge equipment provided from Overseas Development Administration funds.
  The Army has a continuing commitment, so far as its resources permit, to provide personnel on loan to countries with which we enjoy friendly relations in the Gulf area, such countries as Malawi, Zaire, Kenya, Sudan, Malta, the British Solomon Islands and, in the Far East, Singapore, Malaysia, Brunei, Hong Kong and Fiji.
  As to our overseas commitments other than BAOR, the House will be broadly familiar with these commitments. I do not therefore need to go into details today. But it is worth reminding the House that we maintain an important contribution to the United Nations peacekeeping force in Cyprus, including the entire logistic support for the force. We maintain our contribution to the Army component of the forces in Singapore set up under the Five-Power Agreement and we maintain the garrisons in Hong Kong, Gibraltar and British Honduras.
  It is, I think commendable that in spite of the Army's commitments in Northern Ireland, the Regular and Territorial Army have carried out in the last year 130 or so overseas exercises in 26 countries involving over 200 units. The House

  641
  will understand the importance of maintaining our training effort. To have done that in spite of the difficulties imposed by Northern Ireland is, I believe, a very considerable achievement.
  The highlight of our training has been a very highly successful first year of training at Suffield in Canada. Battle groups from BAOR consisting of tanks, mechanised infantry, artillery and engineers have carried out realistic field firing exercises of a scope impossible in Europe. The battle runs are being further improved this year, and I am sure that this training will be of the greatest importance to our armoured formations. We are extremely grateful to the Canadian Government for allowing us to use this valuable training area.
  British troops have continued to train in the Gulf based on the Military Advisory Team at Sharjah. We have trained extensively in Cyprus, with Regular Army and TAVR units as well as cadets from Sandhurst, in Malaysia at the Malaysia Army Training Centre and also in Australia, New Zealand, Fiji and Brunei. We have also had reciprocal exercises with Jamaica and Norway.
  The most important exercise of the year was Strong Express, in which Army units assigned to the Allied Command Europe Mobile Force went to Norway to train in their role of supporting the northern flank of NATO.
  On the question of equipment, defence Ministers are well aware both of the immense importance, indeed, the necessity, for collaboration with our allies and of the difficulty of the problems that have to be overcome in so doing.
  I wish to mention one or two of the collaborative projects. The project for the Anglo-French helicopter programme continues to make sound progress. The Scorpion, a tracked reconnaissance vehicle being made under a co-production arrangement with Belgium, is now in service. At various stages of development are three major artillery systems, a towed and a self-propelled version of a new 155 mm howitzer and a general support rocket system. All three are collaborative projects with Germany and Italy.
  Concept studies on a future main battle tank, intended to lead to a programme of joint development, are in hand with the
  642
  Federal Republic of Germany. Meanwhile, for Chieftain we are planning a series of improvements to exploit the full range and massive hitting power of its 120 mm gun against moving targets.
  Discussions are also taking place to identify possibilities for future collaboration in the spheres of medium and low-level air defence, tactical communications, small arms and military bridges.
  With several of our European partners we are currently engaged in negotiations with the United States authorities about the terms of a possible purchase of the American development of the Lance tactical nuclear weapons system as a replacement for the present Honest John.
  Good progress is also being made on a wide range of equipments within the United Kingdom. The more notable examples are the production of the new British 105 mm light gun, which has sucessfully demonstrated its effectiveness in differing environments, and the new 30 mm Rarden gun to be incorporated in some of the new light armoured vehicles.
  Priority is still being given to night-vision aids, and pressure is being maintained on the development and production of field radars.
  To sum up, our equipment policy in general aims to make the best use of our limited resources by concentrating on the main threats that we are likely to face: superiority in armour and in air power Force improvements this year demonstrate how we are putting this principle into effect. All armoured regiments are now equipped with Chieftain and the Swingfire long-range anti-tank guided weapon. Mechanised battalions in BAOR start to receive the Swingfire this year. First issues of the Rapier low-level air defence guided weapon will be made this year, and production orders have been placed for the Blowpipe self-defence air-defence guided weapon.
  On the TAVR, I am glad to be able to say that recruiting has been going extremely well. Indeed, the average strength during 1972–73 turned out to be higher than had at one time been expected. The strength of this reserve, including the new units formed less than two years ago, now totals 59,300, which exceeds 80 per cent. of its establishment. The new units themselves are now about 75 per cent. of establishment.

  643
  This reflects great credit on all concerned with the TAVR, both the members themselves, the regular officers and NCOs who train them, and all those willing supporters in the associations and their council who do so much to keep alive local enthusiasm and regimental pride. I hope that by continuing local efforts and with the help which we normally enjoy from employers and the trade unions, the coming year may still further improve the numbers of the TAVR and maintain their quality.
  Most of their work is done out of the public eye. I think that it is only right, when we have this annual stocktaking for the Army, that the House should acknowledge the debt which the country owes to the men and women of the TAVR, who are an integral part of the nation's defences for general war. They are not a UDR in Great Britain, if I may put it that way with no disrespect to the UDR; they are not a police reserve; they are an essential cog in the gears which mobilisation would engage. In such an emergency they would have a crucial part to play in reinforcing the Army's order of battle whether in BAOR or at home.
  The House had the opportunity as recently as 31st January of discussing some aspects of the UDR. Nevertheless, knowing the interest which the House has shown in this, the youngest regiment of the British Army, I am sure that it would want me to say something about the present situation. By 1st April 1970, when the regiment became operational, its strength was 1,800. A year later it was 5,847. In April 1972 it was 8,160. Now it is 8,500.
  These figures put into perpective the gradual decline in strength which has occurred in recent months from an earlier peak. This decline has been due to the fact of higher than usual wastage coming at a time when recruitment has been returning to the level at which it was running before the rapid expansion which began late in 1971. But the reduction in strength has not affected the will or the ability of the regiment to carry out its tasks. For example, the turn-out on the occasion of the recent plebiscite was virtually the same as at the time of Exercise Motorman. Again, there has actually been an increase during recent months in the number of men turning out for night duty.
  Mr. Brynmor John: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House what is the percentage of recruitment of Catholics to the UDR as well as of Protestants? Is it any more satisfactory than it was?
  Mr. Blaker: I regret that it is not more satisfactory than it was. It is roughly 5 per cent., or a little less. It has gone down from what was earlier a high figure. We regret this very much. Efforts are made, principally on a local basis, to recruit as many Catholics as possible. However, despite the shortage of Catholics, the regiment has managed to maintain its non-sectarian reputation. As the hon. Gentleman will know, it is commanded by a Catholic officer and is part of the British Army.
  I turn now to the general question of our operations in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: Before my hon. Friend leaves the UDR, may I ask him to deal with two points? The first concerns the protection of members of the UDR who live in outlying districts. As he knows, a number of these people have unfortunately been assassinated in their homes. What efforts are being made to provide members of the UDR with better protection? Secondly, what efforts are being made to provide them, when on duty, with sufficient armour to withstand the new Russian rockets that the IRA is using in Northern Ireland?
  Mr. Blaker: Regarding Russian rockets, the UDR is in a similar situation to the Services in general over there. I have not had any complaints about the armament of the UDR when on duty. Members are armed with the self-loading rifle issued to regular forces. Regarding their protection at home, I understand that they may apply to have their weapons at home and that in suitable cases permission is granted.
  On Northern Ireland in general, the Army continues to undertake its peacekeeping role with considerable success. Significant numbers of terrorists on both sides of the communal divide have been arrested and large quantities of arms and ammunition have been seized. Much improved intelligence has enabled these results to be achieved with as little disturbance as can be managed to the civilian population.

  645
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister recently gave the House some details of the security forces' successes during the past three months, and I should like to up-date those figures now. Since the beginning of the year 387 illegally held guns, 12,000 lb. of explosives and 34,000 rounds of ammunition have been recovered. There have been 220 arrests on firearms charges, 54 on explosives charges, 26 on charges of murder, and 189 convictions for specific criminal charges relating to terrorists.
  I think that the increasing tendency for those arrested or subject to interim custody orders turning out to be younger and younger in age reflects the success that the security forces are having. Indeed, there are signs of desperation amongst terrorists. The noticeable number of punishment shootings amongst their ranks recently clearly shows their disorder and dissension.
  It is a measure of the efficiency of the operations of the security forces that the Border poll was held on 8th March without hindrance, despite the disruptive intentions of the IRA; and at the time of the White Paper, a fortnight later, the extremist organisations were inhibited from staging the sort of instant violence which has disfigured similar occasions in the past. These successes owe a great deal to the invaluable support given to the Army by the other Services—the RAF, the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines— in Northern Ireland.
  We have had many occasions, in particular in the defence debate, to pay our tributes to the soldiers over there, but I should like this afternoon to mention also the wives and families of those Servicemen who have served, are serving or will serve in Northern Ireland, because the wives in particular play a very great part in sharing the burden. When I was in BAOR last week I had the privilege of talking to quite a number of them and I am glad to say that I found that then-morale and determination were high.
  In this progress report I have tried to give the House a broad indication of the stimulating, challenging and sometimes dangerous tasks which are facing the Army today. As my hon. Friend pointed out in the defence debate, the White Paper records no major administrative changes, but sound progress to-
  646
  wards the objectives first laid down in 1970. This I regard as a sign of success. It is also a necessary condition of the success of our forces in Northern Ireland that they should be allowed to get on with their job with as little distraction as possible.
  After my short period at the Ministry of Defence, I am happy to tell the House that in my view we have an army, backed by a civilian organisation, of which the country can be proud.
  5.1 p.m.
  Mr. John Morris: The House followed with great interest the statement delivered in such a pleasant manner, explaining the Under-Secretary of State's stewardship of the British Army. It was a nice gesture on his part—and the first of its kind that I recall—to mention the Army Catering Corps and all those who have to cook for regiments and units. It was a pleasant gesture and will, I am sure, be much appreciated by the men concerned.
  This is an important day for the Army. It is the occasion on which the House of Commons considers its role, its size, its cost, and in particular its welfare, and pauses to consider for a whole day these important matters. The role of the Army in the past year has not been easy. As the hon. Gentleman indicated, the Army has had to operate in Northern Ireland in the full glare of the television cameras. That is a new burden which it has carried—and carried exceedingly well. The Army's reputation stands high. I join in paying tribute, as I did in the defence debate, to the men concerned and, as I also did on that occasion— and I am glad that the Minister did so today—to their wives and families, who must be much in our thoughts.
  It has not been an easy year. There was a time when Ministers could come to the House and say that not one soldier had been killed on active service in the past year. Unhappily and regrettably, this has not been such a year. In all, 127 soldiers, including 26 men of the Ulster Defence Regiment and two Royal Marines, paid the supreme penalty in 1972, and since the emergency the total has been 181. Unhappily, and tragically, the killing has not ceased.
  I think we should recall the injured as well. I have forgotten which hon.

  647
  Member made that point in an intervention. Some men who have not paid the supreme penalty will carry the mark of that conflict for the rest of their days. Some will not be able to continue to serve in the Army. Some will have to be invalided out and will be substantially less competitive in the labour market. Perhaps we could have some indication of how many have paid that kind of penalty—those who will have to continue to pay the price for the rest of their days. That makes it doubly important for us, as the custodians of the public purse, the grantors of supplies to the executive, to ensure that those men are dealt with honourably.
  I believe, as I am sure the whole House does, that soldiers cannot be obtained on the cheap and that we should not expect that. Indeed, the whole concept of the military salary introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey)—in which I had a small part to play, of which I am proud—was to ensure that there was parity, and parity plus, between soldiers and their civilian brethren. This goes for pay and conditions and also for pensions, and I welcomed very much the announcement made by the Government as regards pensions, disability awards and matters of that kind in the course of the defence debate, when it was said that all regular Service men who were in the forces on or after March 1973 would benefit. I understand—and perhaps this could be confirmed—that this would not be confined to those who have served in Northern Ireland but would apply generally to all troops.
  In the course of the defence debate the Minister went on to say that because it was not possible to make these payments retrospective there would be ex gratia annual payments to families of those killed as a result of terrorist activity in Northern Ireland between 1st August 1969 and the end of March 1973. Why confine this ex gratia payment to Northern Ireland? What is the rationale of it? Why should it not apply generally? Must these people whose families are to benefit from the ex gratia payment have been killed as a direct result of an act of terrorism, by a bomb or a bullet? Should it not apply to all soldiers who are killed in Northern Ireland, whether directly

  648
  or indirectly—soldiers who would not be there but for the present emergency? Should there not equally be some kind of ex gratia payment for those who are disabled, as well as those who are killed?
  I hope the Minister will be able to fill in these details because we are anxious that the interpretation of the welcome announcement by the Minister of State a week last Thursday should not be unduly restrictive. If it turns out to be restrictive, I am sure the Minister will, with the confidence and the support of the House, return to the battle with the Treasury for a better and clearer award.
  The Ministry of Defence has done a great deal, I am sure from what I have seen myself and from the reports I have had, to improve welfare in Northern Ireland, and praise has been given to the Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mirror in the past for the efforts they, too, have made to provide finances. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Atter-cliffe (Mr. Duffy), if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in the course of the winding up of the debate will return to these matters, but, as an unaccompanied tour is bound to be unpopular, it is of the utmost importance to ensure that the necessary provisions are made to provide the best possible welfare.
  I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) who, in the course of last year's defence debate, raised, as I did, following our visit to Northern Ireland, the need to provide cheap facilities for troops to visit their families in BAOR when they were in Northern Ireland on an unaccompanied tour. On that occasion I welcomed the announcement that air fares of £3·50 would be charged for these short leaves. We should like to know how many have been able to avail themselves of that provision and what policy there is for ensuring that men are able to get away from Northern Ireland to visit their families in the course of a short unaccompanied tour.
  I welcomed the observations made by the Under-Secretary in the course of the defence debate as regards the provision of television for our forces in Germany, that it is on his desk and that he regards it as a matter of urgency. Anyone who has had a shred of responsibility for defence, myself among others, must share

  649
  a measure of guilt that this problem has not so far been solved, despite a great deal of effort. I wish him well in his efforts. I hope he will be able to find a solution and that he will report it to the House. If the matter is still unresolved, I hope he can give an assurance to the House in the course of his winding up speech that the matter will be referred to and the problems canvassed in next year's White Paper. These matters should be contained in the White Paper so that we can consider them and debate them properly.
  I make no apology for devoting a substantial part of my speech to matters of welfare because they are of the utmost importance. When the standard of life and comfort of the civilian population has been rising over the years, of necessity, because our Armed Forces reflect the civilian population from whence they come, it is vitally important that the standard of life and comfort of our forces should march in step with the rising standards of civilian life, if in a free society our men are to be recruited willingly to serve in our Armed Forces.
  Let me give one example. Over the years the standards of heating required and demanded in our homes has risen. Some local authorities do all that they can to ensure that central heating and provisions of that kind are incorporated into new houses being built. I should regard it as wholly wrong in any provision of new housing for soldiers, regardless of rank, if improvements of that kind were not incorporated.
  I want now to take up a point which has been made in interventions that there is a gap in the provision made by local authorities of housing for soldiers who retire or come to the end of their service. There is a case for better liaison. The Minister cannot wash his hands of this matter and say that it is not one for the Ministry of Defence. Unless the matter is solved he will not get the recruits he requires. Therefore it is a matter for the Ministry, and I hope that a substantial effort will be made to improve liaison between the Ministries responsible for housing and the local authorities and to ensure that troops are told from time to time what their rights are at the end of long engagements, especially those who have no direct connection with any

  650
  specific local authority except perhaps that they may have married local girls or their families may have lived there a long time before and that they wish to return to that locality.
  These are real problems, and I know of some cases which are still unresolved. Men are spending anxious times in the last few years of long periods of service not knowing when they will be solved. There will be no worse recruiting sergeant for the British Army than someone who has served for 22 years only to come out and find himself with nowhere to live and with no contact with a local authority to which he can plead his case. Welfare is not only a principle that we must clutch to our bosoms and say how important it is. We must analyse it in detail because the matters which I have raised are only some facets of the difficulties experienced by those who serve in our Armed Forces.
  I return now to a problem which I raised in the course of the defence debate. It is the case of the 17 Welsh Guardsmen who had to pay duty on vehicles which they had purchased during their service in Germany. Suddenly on 8th December they were told at Dover that if they wished to keep their cars they would have to pay duty in excess of £100 on each of them.
  Everyone knows that a soldier serving in the British Army who has been abroad for more than a year has the privilege of being able to import articles of this kind duty free. In the course of an intervention, I thanked the Minister for the way that he had dealt with the problem and reached a solution at the end of the day. He replied that I had been a shade ungenerous in the way that I had dealt with the matter. He went on:
  "Is it not right to say that as soon as the matter came to light it was rapidly put right? "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th March 1973; Vol. 853, c. 74.]
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept from me that on some occasions perhaps it is better not to jump in too quickly with an intervention of that kind.
  I have now canvassed the whole history of this matter. The incident occurred on 8th December. On 14th December I put a Question to the Minister asking for some assurance to be given

  651
  to the soldiers concerned. All that the hon. Gentleman could tell me was:
  "The rules about Customs concessions are contained in general Ministry of Defence instructions which are brought to the attention of all units serving in Germany."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th December 1972; Vol. 848, c. 213.]
  That was the flat answer of the Ministry. On 18th December I asked a similar question of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I got no change from him. Eventually, in an Adjournment debate on 20th December I was told by the Leader of the House, who is a greater politician than anyone at present on the Treasury Bench, that I had made a strong case and that he would see what could be done.
  As far back as 14th December the Under-Secretary conceded to me that 23,000 British soldiers were at risk. The guardsmen would appear to be the first to have been caught. Apparently anyone serving in Germany who returns temporarily to the United Kingdom in order to serve in Northern Ireland, leaving his family behind, is at risk. Therefore it was not a problem which could be contained in a small compass. It did not apply only to a distinguished regiment of the Principality but could apply to all our troops in Germany.
  Despite all this agitation just before Christmas, and despite all the comment in the Press, with the Sunday Express and the Western Mail running heart-rending stories of the difficulties and the sheer misery of anyone called upon to pay £100 and more unexpectedly just before Christmas, there was not a spark from the Ministry. One wondered where were the political antennae of the Ministers, knowing that the problem had arisen, yet doing nothing. Eventually I wrote to the Secretary of State who was travelling in some distant country. At the same time on 25th January I put another Question to the Minister. It was then that I was told that the guardsmen would at last have justice done to them.
  What has been the situation since? The day before yesterday I asked when the soldiers were told of the decision and how many had been paid. I accept immediately that within a short time through the usual regimental channels the Ministry made known the answer that I

  652
  had been given on 25th January. The Minister's answer the day before yesterday went on to say:
  "Since the arrangements represent a substantial departure from normal practice, the preparation of detailed instructions took rather longer, but these were published in regimental orders on 9th March."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd April 1973; Vol. 854, c. 62.]
  The present position with regard to the 17 individual cases in which I have taken an interest is that nine claims were submitted between 20th and 30th March, all of which have been passed for payment, and five were settled by the unit on 2nd April. Of the other eight cases one has been delayed because the soldier is in hospital, two claims have been reimbursed by Customs and Excise, and a third is under consideration. Three of the soldiers have sold their cars— [Laughter.] Hon. Members laugh. Three of the men had to sell their cars at Dover because, despite letters to bank managers and relatives, they could not raise the money to import their cars and had to sell them.
  The Minister must remember that here we are in April 1973 discussing a matter which arose in the course of December of last year, and four months later only seven so far have been paid. The hon. Gentleman took some pride in asking:
  "Is it not right to say that as soon as the matter came to light it was rapidly put right?"
  Despite that, his understanding of "rapidly" is very different from mine. I regard this as a piece of bungling which affects the morale of any unit and it would be very much better for the Minister to come clean and to tell the House that he is exceedingly sorry for the delay which has occurred.
  Mr. Blaker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the three soldiers who sold their cars were advised not to sell them? Their commanding officer was hoping to secure a concession. Loans were available to two of them from regimental funds for bridging purposes, but they decided to sell their cars. The third soldier had already given notice that he was going to leave the Army.
  Mr. Morris: That disposes of three cases. However, for four months these men were not paid. They were paid only the day before an Answer was given in this House. If the hon. Gentleman

  653
  is proud of the history of this case, I very much doubt his judgment in the matter. It would be better for him to say, "It is a pity that this has happened. Every step will be taken to ensure that it is not repeated." That would be a better approach.
  Mr. Blaker: Time was taken because a basic change was being made in the rules. That change will apply in future. This matter does not concern only 17 Welsh guards but any future cases. The fact that 23,000 soldiers had been at risk but only the Welsh guards met this problem shows that steps had been taken to ensure that soldiers are properly advised.
  Mr. Morris: The hon. Gentleman must make the best explanation that he can. It is odd in the extreme that not until I put down a Question on or about 20th January, to which I received a reply on 25th January, was there any change made by the Minister of Defence. The matter had been raging furiously in the House of Commons in the meanwhile. I was told by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House during an Adjournment debate that I had a strong case. The political antennae of the Ministry were sufficiently weak not to appreciate the importance of the problem. I leave it to the House to judge.
  I have said before that there is a need for an appraisal of the effect on the British Army of so many units serving in Northern Ireland. I raised the matter last year, and I hoped that in this year's White Paper there would be an appraisal of that kind. The British Army of the Rhine is an important element in our contribution to NATO. We have a substantial commitment, yet many units that are committed to BAOR have been called, and properly so, to serve in Northern Ireland.
  We should appreciate the significance of the demands that have been made on the forces already committed to BAOR to serve in Northern Ireland. In 1972 there were 17 major units at any one time in Northern Ireland. In 1972, during Operation Motorman, there were 27. In December 1972 there were 18 units in Northern Ireland. I do not know the current figure. During December 1972 seven units were redeployed from BAOR. Many of the other units were

  654
  committed to BAOR and, therefore, were not available for service with BAOR.
  Obviously service on that scale must have a bearing on the effectiveness of our commitment to NATO. None of the officers that I have spoken to over the years regarded the number of troops that we had committed to NATO as being excessive. Usually their demands were for a greater number of troops.
  What effect has service in Northern Ireland, with the large number of units involved, had on the effectiveness of our NATO contribution? There must have been a gap in BAOR which has been filled in one way or another. The alternative is that it has been left empty. Have other countries increased their commitment? Has there been a change in the organisation of our troops in Germany? Has such a change taken place owing to the fact that such a large number of soldiers are not available for service in BAOR, bearing in mind our commitment?
  I was interested to hear that 130 exercises were carried out by our troops in the course of last year. I appreciate that a substantial number of exercises involved only our own troops, but many involved other troops of other nations. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what limitation has been placed on the number and the scale of exercises in Germany because of our involvement in Northern Ireland. These are matters which it is useful for the House of Commons to know so that it might judge the effect of our commitment in Northern Ireland upon our existing commitment in Germany. I do not want to dwell on this matter—I mention it only in passing— but it is an important matter which we should not gloss over.
  Repeated service in Northern Ireland must have an effect upon the morale of all our troops. I received an Answer on Tuesday about the total number of units involved. The total was a substantial number since the emergency— namely, four Royal Marine Commando units, 17 regiments of the Royal Armoured Corps, 23 regiments of the Royal Artillery, nearly 49 infantry regiments and five squadrons of the RAF Regiment. Thus a substantial proportion of the British Army has been called to serve.

  655
  When the hon. Gentleman's office sends to me lists of these distinguished units and regiments, I hope that he will not add insult to injury by mis-spelling the name of my regiment by referring to it as the First Battalion of the Royal Welsh Fusiliers, using "s" as opposed to "c". It was an Hanoverian King who made the mistake of putting in the "c". The regiment, for some unknown reason, has taken pride in that ever since. I hope that the Minister of Defence, as HANSARD has done, will recognise that the correct spelling is The Royal Welch Fusiliers. It will pay the Minister to read the Answers which are sent out bearing his signature from time to time.
  Many regiments have served four or five times in Northern Ireland. If morale is to be kept at its highest—and it must be if the situation is to be resolved as best it can—there must be no let-up in the need to provide the best possible welfare arrangements for the troops and their families. I am sure that the Minister will continue to recognise that. I am sure that he will be ready to accept any suggestions from hon. Members as to how best that can be done. I hope that before next year's debate we shall have the kind of appraisal for which I have asked contained in the Defence White Paper.
  One of the matters referred to during last years' debate was the need to train for overseas service. The Minister said that if our small Army were to have any credibility it must be not only highly mobile but capable of undertaking operations in many different climates. He then said:
  "With the agreement of the Malaysian authorities, the facilities of the centre will also be used by British forces so that an adequate reserve of jungle-trained troops can be maintained."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th March, 1972; Vol. 833, c. 782.]
  I underlined in the defence debate the observations of the Select Committee on the utilisation of the Jungle Warfare School. I wanted to know whether its observations were right. Was the Army able to spare two major units last year, as originally anticipated, to go to the Jungle Warfare School? Perhaps we can be put in the picture about the plans for this year.
  The recruitment position is not as happy this year as it was before. Last year we

  656
  were told by the then Under-Secretary of State that he had "controlled optimism" about the situation. The figure is down this year from 46,500 to 39,100. I shall not follow the example of the present Government when in Opposition, when they chided us for any fall in recruitment figures and suggested that it was because of the uncertainty and the changes in our defence policies that the figures had fallen. I shall not follow that bad and irresponsible example. A smaller pool is available and there will be problems from the rise in the school leaving age. These are the facts we know about. These are the matters mentioned in the White Paper. What we want to know is what the Government intend to do about it. How do they intend to cope with a situation which could be very difficult in the next few years?
  There is a study of defence lands which is almost about to report. This was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) during the defence debate. Whatever land is made available should not be squandered but should be put to the best possible national use. We shall have to consider that report carefully when it eventually emerges.
  The Royal ordnance factories, which provide much of the Army's ammunition and armaments, are an important element in the defence budget. I wish to mention a matter which is less detailed than might appear. What are the present arrangements for the production of fuses? The Minister will know that detailed arrangements were made on this aspect during my time in the Ministry. Unless the Royal ordnance factories get a proper share of design and development in matters on which they have experience and expertise, their future is bleak. We do not want them to become merely repetitive producers of the ideas of others. We want them to have a share in the designing of our armaments.
  These words will be considered by those who advise the Minister. I know the care with which the whole matter was investigated some years ago. It is a matter of much greater significance to Royal ordnance factories than might appear at first sight. If there has been any substantial change, the future is not a happy one for the Royal ordnance factories.

  657
  The White Paper refers to the assistance that the Army gives to civil communities. We always enjoy reading and studying what has been done by the Army. Great benefits come from these actions in the form of good will. I was interested to read of the assistance given by the Royal Air Force in carrying badly needed supplies to Nepal. That may be regarded as a repayment of part of the debt the Army owes to the Gurkha soldiers of the past, present and future.
  There is a reference in the White Paper to joint collaboration on procurement. Ever since 1970 I have been advocating the European tank. I know about some of the work that has been done. The Minister's announcement is very important. It spells out in greater detail the passing reference in the White Paper to collaboration with Germany on the next-generation tank and states the Government's intention that this should lead to joint development with Germany.
  It is of the utmost importance that in countries which share a common defence the chiefs of staff and those who are responsible for the philosophy of warfare should get together as we did with the multi-role combat aircraft. That venture was successful, and in the same way we must succeed with the European tank and similar ventures. The Opposition take great pride in the way in which we collaborated with other countries and laid down firm lines for design and eventual production. I hope that the example we set will be followed, and I welcome that part of the White Paper which deals with this issue.
  I trust that the Minister will be able to answer the questions asked during the debate. If there is not time for him to do so perhaps he will write to hon. Members who have gone to the trouble of making detailed and important comments.
  We are proud of the British Army. The whole House sends its good wishes to the Army. Soldiers are the constituents of every one of us. The Army is playing an important part in maintaining the peace of the world and peace within our own Kingdom, and we wish it well.
  5.26 p.m.
  Mr. Julian Critchley: I give a modest welcome to an immodest increase in defence expenditure an-

  658
  nounced in the White Paper. The increase of 5·6 per cent. has as its purpose the hope that we shall be flattered by the imitation of our European Allies. But what knowledge I have acquired of our Western European Allies and their defence capabilities, from Western European Union and elsewhere, inclines me to believe that we shall not be followed in the good example we have set.
  It is important to improve the performance and quality of our conventional forces in Europe because of the inevitability of arms reduction in the context of the mutual and balanced force reduction talks in Vienna. If it is a Western European interest that in the first place those reductions should be confined to the forces of the super-Powers, then our increase in expenditure is correctly aimed at trying to persuade our European Allies to follow suit.
  The second result of increasing our expenditure by 5·6 per cent. is to re-unite the Labour Party on defence matters. I am delighted that the Labour Party should have rediscovered its unity on defence, because it is in the national interest that the Labour Party should stand for the defence of the United Kingdom. In the White Paper debate the Labour Party was able to put the blame upon the
  "extravagance of the Conservative Party"
  and to avoid the debate within its own ranks which has been running on for the past 15 to 20 years. We could claim that were we to have a Labour Government in the relatively near future all that would happen is that our defence expenditure would be reduced by 5·6 per cent., and that would be rather better than having a Labour Opposition split on this issue with the implication that one day the neutralist part of the Labour Party might come out on top.
  I want to talk about the length of service that Army units have had to undertake in Northern Ireland. I have had several conversations with senior Army officers, who have served in Northern Ireland, and there is a feeling—which has been expressed both within the Ministry of Defence and to a lesser extent outside—that rather than serving a four-month period, units should serve for six months. The arguments are reasonably well known.

  659
  First, with a four-month period I am told that the first month is largely wasted, simply because a unit has to go over all the old ground yet again, although there is a liaison officer between the units. Were we to go over to the six-month stay in Northern Ireland we should have to add one extra leave period, making two in a six-month period.
  Some of the arguments against the extension from four to six months are these: first, four months is the limit that a commanding officer should be asked to endure in the circumstances of Northern Ireland. I do not know the answer to that. Obviously, he has to endure a great deal and I would not lightly suggest that his trial should be increased.
  The other argument that has been used against increasing the period of service in Northern Ireland is that this would have an adverse effect upon recruitment. That is not a fair argument, although recruiting figures may be declining. It may have an effect on the number of soldiers who sign on for further service. That remains to be demonstrated. But I am not convinced whether it would have an effect upon the rate of recruitment.
  Mr. Concannon: From where did the hon. Gentleman get his information, and from whom? That matter is crucial to what I shall say later.
  Mr. Critchley: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I am not under an obligation to reveal my sources to him.
  Mr. Concannon: I am not asking for names but for a designation. Did the hon. Gentleman get his information from senior officers, commanding officers or the ranks?
  Mr. Critchley: With respect, the hon. Gentleman must use his imagination.
  The other consequence of the four-month stay in Northern Ireland is that the length of time that units stay in Western Germany is equally affected. That must, of itself, mean that there is some falling off in the performance of the units in Western Germany. The right hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris) referred to that matter. From my experience in the Western European Union and other fora, I have

  660
  received hints that some of our allies have noted this particular falling off in performance. Has my hon. Friend the Minister had expressed to him any complaint on this matter by any of our NATO allies?
  One of my mysterious sources of information suggested that one of the handicaps of the first month of the four-month period is that liaison and relations with the special branch of the Royal Ulster Constabulary are rather poor to begin with and that it is not until the end of the first month of a serving period of four months that some sort of working relationship is established between a commanding officer and his officers and the special branch of the RUC.
  Another point on Northern Ireland is that I understand that the search equipment which is provided for our forces on the border, both the sophisticated equipment and the ordinary equipment, is not yet sufficient to enable them to do a proper job. This is a point of obvious importance, to which I hope that the Minister will reply.
  There is also a complaint that the boundaries of the areas of operation of the special branch of the RUC, the military in the North of Ireland and the local government boundaries are each different. The sooner these particular boundaries are brought together, especially those for the special branch, the police and the military, the more successful and efficient will be our security operations.
  In Aldershot we have been waiting with some expectation for the publication of the report of the Nugent Committee, which I believe is due to be published this month. I am not certain because whenever I ask of it I am told that it will be published in the following month. I should like confirmation, if possible, that we can expect publication, not in May, but in April. Clearly, of all the parts of the Kingdom which will be most directly affected by the Nugent Committee's report, the chief will be my constituency—Aldershot, Fleet and Farnborough. The three towns are expecting that the Army will show reasonable generosity in re-allocating some land, in particular, for the use of Aldershot, and for council housing. At present we have to build council houses

  661
  outside the county boundary, in Surrey and not in Hampshire, because of the shortage of land.
  The six-month tour of duty is worthy of serious consideration. It would reduce the loss which the Army has suffered through the frequency with which it is forced to return, and the relatively short period during which it is obliged to serve there. The security problem lies at the heart of the Northern Irish crisis. Just as there will be no victory in a military sense until or unless the authorities in the South are prepared to act as robustly against the IRA as we act in the North, so, by the same token, unless we get a successful security situation in the North, no political solution, no initiative, however fair, subtle, clever or sophisticated, will work. One contribution to that, perhaps, would be to extend the period which our troops have to serve in Northern Ireland.
  5.35 p.m.
  Mr. J. D. Concannon: In debates such as this, Northern Ireland unfortunately still demands a lot of our time. A few of my hon. Friends do the nitty-gritty work on matters such as this on Select Committees and so on. I have turned up some of the old speeches of previous debates on the Army over the last few years. I do not expect anyone to read my speeches. However, I note what a tragic coincidence it is that on 11th March 1971, in the debate on the Army, I opened my speech by saying:
  "This year the debate on Army Vote A takes place under the shadow of the tragic murder of the three British soldiers in Northern Ireland yesterday. I join in the expressions of sympathy with the relatives, and echo the sense of outrage at this brutal and callous murder of three British soldiers who were off duty."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1 lth March 1971; Vol. 813, c. 710.]
  I quote from that previous speech only to emphasise that we are still in the same impasse. Unfortunately, this is what is happening in debates on the Army. We have been discussing Ireland to a great degree and have probably neglected some of the other problems of the Army which ought to have been discussed.
  Although the Minister may consider the suggestion of altering the tour of duty in Ireland from four months to six months, I hope that he will reject it. I

  662
  shall give him some reasons why he should do so.
  I come now to the White Paper, and especially paragraphs 15 and 16 on Army recruitment. Concerning the wastage rate of trained soldiers, paragraph 16 states:
  "The underlying reasons for this wastage are being investigated."
  In opening the debate the Minister skipped through some of our commitments around the world. But it as as well to examine those which we still have.
  In the recent defence debate much was said about the finances of the forces and about how much pay and pensions take out of the Army Vote. I understand that they account for about 50 per cent. of it. Therefore, we should examine our various commitments to see whether we need the numbers which the Department says that we need. Once we establish the numbers needed, we have then to decide whether we can recruit those numbers and, in doing so, whether we can recruit the types needed.
  That is why I was interested in the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Major-General Jack d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) in the defence debate. I agree with just about everything he said, especially about manpower and integrating the three Services, whether we could achieve the necessary training, really looking at the tail, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman put it, in the country, whether we could get the Services together on joint training schemes, and so on. It could go much further than that.
  I remember an enjoyable visit with the the hon. and gallant Gentleman to our forces in South-East Asia. We found that their commanding officers were of either the Navy or the Royal Air Force. The Service to which the commanding officer of the particular area belonged merely depended on a rota, as he took in all three Services. I thought then that it worked well enough to be taken further.
  I want to examine some of our commitments. While it is at full stretch in NATO and Ireland, it is as well that we should consider the Army. I begin with Hong Kong, where I understand that we have two battalions of infantry as well as an artillery regiment. The battalions are not of Gurkhas but are two British battalions. I do not believe that anyone

  663
  here would say that they are there purely for defensive purposes. That is out of the question. I imagine that they are there for foreign policy reasons.
  I hope that it is not disrespectful to say that Hong Kong has been a nice place with which to do a little shuffling of some of our regiments, but we cannot keep even the Irish Guards out there for ever. They have been there for a considerable time, and have been doing a wonderful job. I should be the last to suggest that we ever send them to Ireland. That is just one of the problems that keep coming up for the Defence Department as a result of the Irish problem which is taking so long to solve and looks like taking a long time yet.
  The duties of the battalions in Hong Kong are varied. I understand that they cover Brunei. It is a little known fact that the peace talks are still going on in Panmunjom in Korea, and the battalions have to do ceremonial guard duties out-sides the talks in rotation. We should not call Hong Kong a defence commitment. It is purely a Foreign Office matter.
  We should like more details. The Minister mentioned Hong Kong, Singapore and all the others that he skipped through. I take the view about Singapore that I think was expressed by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) in the defence debate, that even with the ANZUK force the situation is a farce and should be examined if we are seeking to cut down the commitments of our forces and inquiring whether we need the number of troops shown in the Army Estimates.
  I am also a little perturbed about our arrangements for advisers in the Gulf of Oman. I am always a little wary about advisers after the experience of the Americans in Vietnam. They first went there as advisers. The only news we have from the Gulf of Oman and similar places is when we read of casualties, and we learn of them only from Army magazines such as the regimental magazines. What are the activities of our forces there? Are they strictly advisory, or are they participating in something more than an advisory capacity? I remember once seeing a report of three fatalities in the Gulf of Oman.
  Malta still has a Royal Marine Commando. I should have liked to see the
  664
  Government keep going when they were packed up and ready to leave Malta. There is no need for us to remain there.
  There is also the position of the infantry brigade in Berlin. I well understand the reason for the carve-up of Berlin, but anyone visiting Berlin today and considering the situation rationally must think, "Who thought of this? Who thought of putting an infantry brigade here, of carving up a city like this in the middle of potentially enemy territory? Soldiers there tell me, "We are the three-day warriors." Obviously, they are there as an irritant for three days, and to think of them as a defence is a nonsense.
  We tie up some of the cream of the British Army there. I say that reservedly, because I understand that my old battalion is in Berlin at present. I should like to visit it some time. When the next group goes out there, the Minister might like to invite me along.
  We also have a battalion in Gibraltar, where the situation is delicate. But the battalion's presence has nothing to do with defence. It is purely a matter of carrying out certain parts of our foreign policy.
  We have a battalion in the British Honduras. A lot of explaining would be needed to show me why we still need it there. What business have we out there?
  We are left with the United Kingdom, NATO and Ireland. Our NATO commitments are central, and our commitment in Ireland exists anyway. I do not agree with those who say that we should pull out without having solved the problem, without having created a peaceful situation there and being able to leave it to the people to govern themselves.
  I am becoming a little apprehensive about recruitment, to say the least. There was an old saying that the best recruiting sergeants were unemployment and the small bush war. It no longer applies. Northern Ireland is showing the reverse to be true, and with decreasing unemployment I no longer read in my local newspaper of young fellows who leave school at 16, 17 and 18 going in numbers to join the Army. They were doing so at one time because there were no jobs for them to go to, and it was their only avenue.

  665
  Today some of the worst recruiting sergeants are full unemployment and the wives and fiancées of soldiers serving in Ireland, or particularly of recruits waiting to go there, and the disgruntled serving soldier. If we keep sending home disgruntled soldiers, that is bad for recruiting.
  Ireland is possibly the very worst recruiting sergeant that we have. When people join the Army, I do not suppose that they expect to go through a considerable length of their serving life without at some time being shot at. When I joined I did not expect to have a nice cushy number somewhere all the time and not get into any explosive situations.
  I have talked to a considerable number of the troops in Northern Ireland, and I know how their feelings have changed. I think that the first time they went they enjoyed it, with reservations. It was something novel, and the kind of thing that British soldiers have always expected. It was part and parcel of their duty. The second time they went, as long as it was for four months, they tolerated the situation to some degree. The third time they saw it as their duty. But by the fourth time they were beginning to hate it.
  The problem is not going to be solved without units having to go to Northern Ireland for a fifth or sixth time. The troops are having to face considerable pressures with their mothers and wives experiencing anxiety. It must be a tragic experience for a wife, sweetheart or mother to turn on the television and learn that someone has been killed in Northern Ireland. It may be stated that three sergeants have been murdered or that there has been a similar sort of incident. I have been told on good authority that the telephone lines and telephone kiosks, no matter how many there are, are inadequate because soldiers' mothers, wives and sweethearts are making so many inquiries after the 6 o'clock news.
  The pressure is now building up and wives are making such remarks as "My husband is not going back to Northern Ireland if I can help it". Soldiers when on leave talk in local clubs and public houses about this sort of pressure which they are experiencing from relatives.
  I cannot see how there can be anything glamorous in serving in an Army which is rotating between Germany and

  666
  Northern Ireland. I did not join the Services for money. For me, it was an escape hatch from the mining villages. It was then a life which had glamour. There was opportunity for travel and one virtually had a choice of going to the Far East, India, the Middle East and such places. Four or five years were spent touring the world with odd bits of danger thrown in, all at the taxpayers' expense.
  Now the Army has to compete for recruits in a shrinking market and with basically only Germany and Northern Ireland to offer. I was pleased to hear the Minister's remarks about the new outlook for recruitment. Soldiers being recruited are now more intelligent and more aware of the welfare and social system. Nor are they slow in writing to Members of Parliament if they have a grievance. In order to get recruits, we must be able to offer variety.
  I was pleased to see in the White Paper proposals about adventure training in Canada and jungle warfare schools for soldiers. It is encouraging to learn that the Minister can arrange with other countries and other armies for exchange schemes involving training facilities and visits, as well as adventure courses and mountain climbing.
  We must also acknowledge that the British soldier is changing. We must try to iron out some of the snags and problems which soldiers and their wives are talking about. I was particularly pleased with what was said in the defence debate regarding pensions to widows of soldiers killed in Northern Ireland. This is a big jump forward. The position has been worrying many of us a great deal.
  I was pleased with what the hon. and gallant Member for Lichfield and Tam-worth had to say about integration of the three Services. This has to be taken a step further so that there is integration within each of the three Services. In old trade union jargon this was called man management or human relations.
  I welcome the proposals for pension increases but what may be seen by some ranks in the Army as relative injustices must be ironed out. I assure the Minister that matters such as pensions are discussed by soldiers and particularly by their wives. Few of the young soldiers going to Northern Ireland have fulfilled

  667
  the three-year period for pension entitlement. It is a very young Army in Northern Ireland.
  Soldiers and their wives are also worried that, to qualify for a full pension, there has to be 10 years' service for officers but 12 years' service has to be completed by other ranks. One of the best things which the Minister could do would be to review this and scrap the differential. I am not against differtials in pensions but there should not be differentials in length of service. The period of service for other ranks necessary to qualify for full pension should be brought down to 10 years. I am not suggesting that the service period of officers should have to go up.
  There is another snag. The child of an officer who has been killed receives a payment up until the age of 18, but the child of a soldier from any other rank gets a payment only up to 16 years. These are the sort of things soldiers talk about. I realise that it is possible for a pension to be paid to the child of a soldier who was not an officer up to the age of 18 if application is made, and the child is in full-time education, but there is this basic difference to start with. If pensions are to be increased, these are the sort of matters which have to be looked at.
  Soldiers also talk about another matter, which may not be the direct concern of the Ministry of Defence yet is of such importance that it should be aired in places such as this House, so that the Army will know that we understand and recognise the problem. To raise the matter in this way should have a bearing on the Army's morale and recruiting. I refer to the Criminal Injuries to Persons (Compensation) Act (Northern Ireland) 1968. Soldiers, their widows or dependants can make claims for compensation under this Act in cases in which soldiers are injured or have been killed as a result of terrorist action. My right hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris) was talking about casualties in Northern Ireland. This Act must work in the same way as legislation covering industrial injuries. The wives and families of soldiers cannot understand why there is a difference here. This has nothing to do with the Ministry of Defence: it is a matter for the court.

  668
  I would like to mention three examples of people, all of whom were married, who were killed in Northern Ireland. The widow of a private who was killed was paid £3,000; a staff sergeant's widow got £15,000 and a major's widow was paid £24,000. This sort of situation is of concern to soldiers and their families and it is little use saying that it has nothing to do with the Ministry of Defence. I know what the position is on this but it has to be properly explained to soldiers and their families.
  I realise that the pension awards are based on career expectations and the potential earning power of the person killed. When I start to explain this to soldiers and their families I am asked how a pension would have been calculated for my widow if I had been a soldier who was killed in Northern Ireland. I explain that it would be done on the same principle of career expectation and potential earning power. If this had been done in my case, the calculation would have been hopelessly out. I have aired this matter because I hope that the debate will be reported in Army magazines and news sheets, so that soldiers and their wives know that we understand some of these problems.
  Another point which concerns many troops in Ireland is the number of criminal prosecutions and civil actions against members of the forces for what most of them regard as carrying out their duty. There have been a number of such prosecutions and some prison sentences have been imposed. I mention that to the Minister because it might help. After all it affects morale, the best recruiting sergeant.
  I do not want to end on a sour note, which, to judge by their faces, is how hon. Members apparently regard my speech, but I want to say something about my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) and some of his recent utterances. I told him that, if I caught Mr. Speaker's eye, I would be mentioning him.
  My hon. and learned Friend offers solutions to the Northern Ireland problem that would be absolutely foreign to the British Army. How he can suggest, even in the House, that one could find members of the British forces to do what he has suggested is literally beyond me. The history of the British Army

  669
  has its blemishes; it is not lily-white. We have had the bullies and we could have found people to do many things. But to say that one could get the British Army to tackle these problems rather in the manner of the old Nazi or Japanese armies is irresponsible, to say the least, and something to which I would take complete exception. It is as well that someone on these benches repudiates what my hon. and learned Friend has been saying. I do not think we could find anyone to do such jobs.
  I think in this connection of a speech by the hon. and gallant Member for Lichfield and Tamworth about the example that he used in one of his law examinations. What does one do with a soldier who, at the end of the day, steps from the ranks, undoes his belt and says "I am soldiering no more"? That would be the effect if we asked the British Army to do what my hon. and learned Friend has suggested. The British Army is not and never could be like that, and I would have nothing to do with any suggestion on those lines.
  My admiration for the way in which the British soldier is tackling the Irish problem goes without saying. I was in Dublin yesterday trying to do my bit in talks with various influential people. It is my wish that the White Paper will give us hope. It will take some time. What I want to battle for is getting the British Army out of Northern Ireland, but we can suggest that only when we have solved this problem.
  I hope that I have given Ministers some thoughts to chew over about recruitment and morale. In this way we have probably done our little bit to keep up the morale, which is high, in Northern Ireland. Any other army in the world would have cracked under this strain. We can be particularly proud of an Army of such high quality.
  6.5 p.m.
  Mr. Jerry Wiggin: I hope that the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) will forgive me if I do not immediately follow his interesting points on Ireland, but I will return to them later.
  After a period of enforced silence on defence matters, it is a pleasure for me at least to be able to take part in a

  670
  defence debate again rather than just to listen, however informative that might be. I should like to comment first on some matters of general strategy which are just as important to the Army as to the other Services, if not more so.
  The Under-Secretary of State, winding up the debate on the White Paper, said:
  "I remind the Opposition that the strategy of flexible response was worked out at a time when they were in power, and the right hon. Member for Leeds, East … played a notable part in working it out.
  It should be made clear that we cannot go back. If the strategy of flexible response goes, as it inevitably would if the amendment were put into effect, nothing else is left. The tripwire strategy of John Foster Dulles no longer makes sense. We abandoned it for good reasons in 1968, because it had become incredible."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th March 1973; Vol. 852, c. 1613.]
  Is it such a ludicrous philosophy? Can we not go back to the tripwire policy? Why has it become so incredible?
  The peace of Europe of the last 28 years has been created and preserved by the threat of nuclear warfare, warfare on a scale and of a sort almost incomprehensible in its frightfulness. What could possibly start such a war? Until the abandonment of the tripwire philosophy in 1968, the only thing was the invasion of Western Europe or any of its allies by the forces of the Communist bloc. Both sides clearly understood the issue: the invasion of even such an infertile and inhospitable piece of territory as the north of Norway would bring swift and terrible retribution on the head of the aggressor.
  But now, in the "let's wait and see what is going on" attitude of flexible response, the Russians could be camping on the banks of the Rhine before the use of nuclear weapons was even contemplated. This is a dangerous philosophy and one that does much to destroy the credibility of NATO and of its defensive powers. There can be no doubt that the Russians have not overnight become a peaceful nation. There can be no doubt that overnight the Communist bloc has not lost its aggressive tendencies.
  The Secretary of State for Defence said in another place:
  "We cannot ignore the fact that, as we move into a period of negotiation in Europe, they"—
  the Russians—
  "continue to build up their military forces to a degree which seems to go beyond any

  671
  reasonable requirements of self-defence"— [OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 18th March 1973; Vol. 339, c. 760.]
  No Minister in all the debates on defence matters has satisfactorily explained what motives our potential aggressors could possibly have in this enormous build-up of forces, doubling, trebling and quadrupling those facing them.
  I agree that the MBFR talks have an excellent objective, but the Bible says that there will always be
  "wars and rumours of wars".
  I cannot conceive of the Communist bloc or any of our NATO allies allowing a situation to develop in which their armies were reduced to a worthwhile extent. It is vital in these talks to ensure that, whatever their outcome, the reduction in forces which may be proposed is not a man-for-man, plane-for-plane, or tank-for-tank reduction.
  Admittedly, the present balance of power weighs heavily in favour of our enemies, but whatever happens, any force reductions on our side should keep that balance as it is. Otherwise, with potentially large and powerful forces at their disposal, the NATO allies will have small and ill-equipped forces defending freedom.
  Britain's credibility as a nation determined to defend itself and to contribute heavily to the defence of her allies is not in any way helped by the support, by the Shadow Cabinet, of the kind of amendment so heavily defeated on 19th March. The support of the Leader of the Opposition and the Shadow Cabinet for that amendment is something which should not be forgotten, either by those in the country who are interested in the freedom of our society and freedom from the aggressor, or more particularly by those in the armed forces.
  Mr. John: Does the hon. Gentleman seek to persuade the House that his party now supports defence commitments irrespective of the economic climate of the country? If so, he speaks at variance with his hon. and right hon. Friends on the Front Bench.
  Mr. Wiggin: My hon. and right hon. Friends have reiterated many times that in assessing the defence needs of this

  672
  country and their cost, the only yardstick which shall be used is the necessity for spending those funds and having those forces that are needed in defence of the nation. To gear this yardstick to other measurements is false and ignores the real purpose of our defence forces.
  Mr. John Morris: Surely the hon. Gentleman will recall a statement made by the Secretary of State for Defence in another place in the course of last year's defence debate when he made it quite clear that defence expenditure had to be contained within the whole of the claims of all other Departments?
  Mr. Wiggin: I do not see anything at variance with what I have said in that respect. Of course it is necessary to contain defence expenditure within reasonable limits. I must say, unlike the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John), that in my view, in assessing what it is reasonable to spend on defence, what one does is to see what our commitments should be, rather than say that a percentage of our gross national product, or the amount that can be spent on education, should be used as a yardstick. That kind of thinking is totally irrelevant and our Front Bench has consistently maintained that line.
  On the subject of Northern Ireland, if I may be allowed to turn to the Army's major commitment at the present time, like other hon. Members who have spoken on the subject I would like to say a word of thanks to the units who looked after me so well when I went out to visit the Army there in December last. We were made to feel most welcome. We were conducted round regardless of trouble and shown everything we wanted to see. Unlike the hon. Member for Mansfield, who I am sorry to see has left the Chamber, I found morale as high as I have ever seen it in the Regular Army. Here was a body of men doing what they had joined the Army to do and had been trained to do, and they were enjoying it and doing it most efficiently.
  The hon. Gentleman is right when he says that the constant demands of Northern Ireland have an effect upon recruiting, since mothers and sweethearts are naturally concerned if their sons and friends are in danger. But it is not the soldiers themselves who come back downcast. I could find no possible trace of that.

  673
  Yet their job is both dangerous, on the one hand, and on occasions boring on the other. The fact that it is necessary to present a target to locate a sniper means that some members of every patrol are constantly under fire, and the sheer bravery of our young soldiers has to be seen and admired.
  There was a reference to the subject of police liaison. This is something at which I especially asked to look. Anyone who has been to Hong Kong will be familiar with the exceptionally efficient Pol-Mil set-up, where the police and military, sitting together in the same headquarters, conduct affairs in the streets of that busy Colony. One had hoped that that kind of liaison could have percolated to Ulster but I fear, perhaps for reasons not connected with the Army, that the headquarters in Ulster are not operating at a similar level of efficiency and competence.
  I equally accept that perhaps the Minister who will be answering the debate today may not feel it within his responsibility, but I have no doubt he will make the point to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, to see whether something can be done to improve the efficiency of at least the leading policeman in dealing with the military in the particularly troublesome areas in Northern Ireland.
  I, too, have questioned the Minister on the subject of a curfew, identity cards and similar military procedures for tightening up security in a troubled zone. I fully appreciate that for political reasons his right hon. Friend may not wish to introduce such measures. But I believe that an increase in military pressure must be a good thing and must assist the removal of violence from whichever side or whatever faction it might come in Ulster.
  I have made it abundantly clear that I believe that the T & AVR in Ulster should be mobilised and allowed to take its part in that battle. I know that there are arrangements for the transfer of volunteers to the UDR, but such a suggestion shows a complete lack of awareness of how the T & AVR operates, how it thinks, and its spirit. If a man has trained as part of an armoured car troop in the North Irish Horse, he will not volunteer to transfer to the Ulster Defence Regiment to guard a water

  674
  tower. He wants to use his skills. He wants to get out and to do what he has been trained for, with the equipment that has been supplied to him. I know there are legal problems but I believe that these can be overcome. If legislation is required in this House, then I would urge my hon. Friend to introduce it.
  On behalf of the T & AVR, in which perhaps I should declare a small interest as a serving officer, I would like to congratulate the Government on achieving the fantastic figure of 59,300 serving officers and men. Very many people say to me "I understood the T & AVR had been abolished. I thought the Labour Government did that". Of course, that Government very nearly did so in a massive and incompetent reorganisation but the fact remains that at this time the T & AVR is healthy and its recruiting figures are good. There are 51,900 men in what we once knew as T & AVR 2, which is now known as the NATO units, and 7,500 in the new or UKLF units. I would ask the Minister to give some thought as to how he would describe these two parts of the T & AVR. My old regiment, one of the oldest TA regiments in the country, is apparently now a new unit. This seems to be an anomaly which requires attention.
  Perhaps a solution would be to split them up as NATO and UKLF units, which seems a little long winded. I should have thought that a better solution could be found. Could I urge the Minister to co-operate—I am sure hon. Gentlemen opposite would also wish this —in broadcasting as often as possible information on the existence of the T & AVR, its virtues, what it offers to soldiers who serve in it and what it does to contribute to the security of the nation?
  I was most impressed by a recent exhibition of uniforms of volunteers through the ages which has taken place in London. The magnificent publicity which such newspapers as the Evening News gave to that was the first indication in newspapers of the existence of the T & AVR that I have seen for a considerable time.
  On the question of recruiting into the T & AVR, I would like to direct the Minister's attention to the deplorable situation that is about to arise over

  675
  officers. Officer recruiting is not going well. The average age of subalterns is rising and in some districts it is well over 25. This means that in four or five years' time there will be a desperate shortage of officers. It is no use pretending that this deficiency can be filled from the ranks. Good officers are needed in the T & AVR as much as in any other Service.
  It is strange that there is no national leaflet for T & AVR officers. A person cannot go into a recruiting centre and obtain a leaflet telling him what he can can do if he wants to become a T & AVR officer. However, there are a dozen leaflets issued for Regular officers. Furthermore there is no national advertising for officers for the TAVR—unless we include the recent campaign which contained, within brackets, the words:
  "There is a constant need for young officers."
  That, so far as I know, has been the only advertising for Territorial officers for a considerable time.
  I should like to reiterate a longstanding complaint about the allocation of money for the promotion of T & AVR recruitment and advertising campaigns. The Central Office of Information is responsible for national advertising on this subject and perhaps, by some quirk of the Treasury, the Defence Department may prefer advertising to be done in this way. I should like to see the initiative on this subject put in the hands of the T & AVR associations—bodies which give so much of their time to assisting the Territorials. At the moment only £60,000 is allocated to those associations for advertising and it is inadequate. A serious fuss should be made about the way in which recruitment advertising is run.
  A minor point which I should like to mention relates to the allocation of funds for the maintenance of drill halls. Some associations have managed to put some money aside over the years and to build up a reserve, and I understand that this reserve has now reached £100,000—not a high figure but at least a reserve. However, there are other associations which annually spend their entire commitment. If the Minister were to examine this matter closely I am sure he would find that those are the associations which

  676
  operate in old drill halls in industrial areas where the wear and tear on the fabric is more than it would be in country areas. I know that there is a considerable feeling in many associations on this topic, and I hope that a small readjustment can be made to bring about an improvement in the situation.
  I understand that a T & AVR review is about to be instigated, as promised by the Government when they announced the form of the new units. The idea is that the review body should report to the Ministry of Defence at the beginning of April 1974, and no doubt the Minister will make an announcement in the summer of that year. I also understand that the initial proposals which have been put forward contain terms of reference which preclude any change of operational concept, with no expansion of manpower, no extra expenditure and no additional T & AVR centres. If that is the extent of the terms of reference, the minor matters which will be investigated are scarcely worth the trouble. What the T & AVR needs more than anything is a period of stability. We have had some stability, although it has not been long enough and no doubt time will heal that wound. I am suggesting that to proceed with the review will entail a great deal of work and will result in nothing but a few minor administrative results.
  I should like to deal with the equipment used by the new T & AVR units. I appreciate that the crisis in Ulster has meant that a great deal of equipment has had to be diverted to Ulster rather than be supplied to the new units. Land Rovers and wireless sets which are of very great use to the home defence force are equally useful in Belfast and Londonderry. However, the trouble in Ulster has now been going on for a very long time, and these new units will find it hard to maintain their morale and enthusiasm if they are not provided with the right equipment. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will say a few words about this subject.
  On the subject of mobilisation, Queen's Regulations provide that in order to mobilise the T & AVR a Royal proclamation is required and such a proclamation can be made only in a national emergency. Surely this situation is no longer satisfactory. This was all very well in the

  677
  days of Haldane and at the inception of the Territorial Army but in the present troubled times, when natural disasters seem to be happening on a larger rather than on a smaller scale, with constant demonstrations by militants demonstrating for more pay or against cricketers— I understand that in Japan commuters have even used their umbrellas to smash up trains—our police are surely entitled in a dire emergency to call on the help of the local volunteer force.
  We all recall the tragedy in Aberfan when chaos undoubtedly ruled the day in that Welsh valley. My predecessor in my drill hall put on his uniform, got half a dozen men together and they went to Aberfan to help in the disaster. The police were delighted to see six disciplined men in uniform and they were able to assist in coping with the aftermath. This was a good example of the way in which a local volunteer force can be of great assistance.
  The Territorial Army began in the early 19th century in aid of the civil power. That was a sensible function and almost every civilised country in the world possesses a volunteer force. Even if this means bringing in legislation, I believe that we should make it possible once again for our volunteers—people who are on the spot and who have the equipment at their disposal—to be called upon to help in an emergency. Let the volunteer carry out the task of aiding the civil power.
  6.28 p.m.
  Mr. Brynmor John: I wish to take up the unnecessarily foolish remarks of the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) when he referred to the defence budget and the way in which that money is spent. It may have been all right for him to have made such criticisms when the Conservatives were last in opposition, because the then Opposition berated my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) because of the fixed target budgeting in defence. But the hon. Member surely knows that conversion has taken place in the Conservative Party between those days and the present time. The Conservative administration have now come to realise that there are limits on defence spending, quite irrespective

  678
  of the defence commitments in the world which we would like to undertake.
  I wish to quote from the remarks of the Secretary of State for Defence on 22nd February 1972 in the other place. He said:
  … all of us, wherever we sit in the House, have to recognise that the size of the Defence budget must be limited by the very proper calls on our resources by other Departments."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 22nd February 1972; Vol. 328. c. 400–1.]
  The Secretary of State was referring not to any limitations in terms of the commitments we undertake but to limitations in respect of calls by other Departments on total resources.
  Those words were echoed by the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force in the defence debate on 19th March last, when he said:
  "… we accept that that programme must not impose an unacceptable economic burden on the country."
  Again the hon. Gentleman was saying that the defence commitments must be tailored to the economic conditions of the country at that time. He then said:
  "We believe that our presently planned level of expenditure is right …. I can assure the House that it is not our intention to allow the defence budget to expand out of hand in the late 1970s…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th March 1973; Vol. 853, c. 50.]
  In other words, it is accepted by all sides that there is a necessity for a limitation in defence spending, a limitation imposed by the many calls upon the Exchequer, and a realisation that one of our greatest areas of public expenditure will be in improving the quality of life.
  I therefore hope that the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare will not seek to make these rather misleading party points in future. I hope he will confine himself to the more constructive ideas of his speech. When one has for so long been denied an opportunity to take part in these debates, I hope that the situation will be rather like a tap which has been turned off: that after a great rush of bile there will be a contribution which is considered as valid by both sides of the House.
  I repeat what I said in the debate on the Army Estimates last year. At a time when so many are dying on our behalf in Northern Ireland, whatever tributes we pay to the Armed Forces there are certainly not formal nor perfunctory. They

  679
  are deeply felt and we are full of admiration for the quality of our troops. I believe that their quality is of the highest possible of any Army in our history, and they have performed their task in a spirit of restraint and devotion.
  I think it right to echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) said about the effect of repeated tours of duty. We should like to have some information about this. I hope the Minister will assure us that morale is as high as ever. It was certainly high when I visited the troops in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) suggested a six months' tour and it has always been recognised that in an ideal military context six months is more satisfactory than four months.. But I think that the criticism of a four-months' tour ignores the toll of nervous energy imposed on our troops in these circumstances. I believe that four months is about the right period.
  No parallel can be drawn with previous situations such as those in world wars and world conflagrations when the enemy has been basically known. Here we have a situation in which the enemy is not known, and it is not known whether the enemy is in any particular section of the people. The very hazards described by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare about patrolling and so on make it desirable to maintain the length of tour at four months, however desirable from a military point of view a six months' tour might be.
  The recent murder of three off-duty soldiers was the second outrage of its kind. It has been hinted in the papers, or there has been inspired guessing, that the same pattern emerged as in the previous killing of off-duty soldiers. If on this occasion the soldiers showed slight carelessness, they paid the highest penalty; I am not at all critical of them. No condemnation is too great for murderers who could use so human a weakness as young men wanting to go to a party to take advantage of that to murder them in cold blood. It is horrifying, and everyone has been horrified, but I think it right to ask the Minister, although I recognise the difficulties of the situation, whether steps are taken to reinforce precautions that are taken for off-duty soldiers. Are instructions given so that

  680
  care is taken to avoid a repetition of the horrifying events we have recently witnessed?
  In common with most hon. Members, I watched with interest the news bulletins relating to what was described as the fishing exception last weekend. The stopping of the mini-bus contradicted the suggestion about the four months' tour of duty. A paratrooper thought he recognised a face he had seen on a previous tour of duty. That appears to indicate that there may always be a residue of information which is retained by troops from one tour to another.
  As regards news bulletins, I ask the Minister what sort of information the Army is releasing. It was said in details of that incident that there were only two fishing rods but that about 14 people were involved and the men gave addresses in a Catholic district which proved false. There must have been the possibility of of a criminal prosecution and not merely of detention under the security legislation. Since the information which was disclosed revealed an offence—that of giving false information to military personnel—I ask the Minister to consider whether it is right for such information to be given on television when a person might stand trial on a criminal charge.
  In this country we are careful not to repeat the unfortunate American experience of trial by television in which everyone from the defending lawyer down— or up—is obliged to make a statement before the television camera as he rushes in or out of court. I do not think that is wise. I wonder whether it necessary to monitor the sort of information that is released by the Armed Forces, if this kind of information is released from an official source.
  In his review of the commitments of the Armed Forces around the world, my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield mentioned Oman. I am sorry he thinks that so little information is now revealed. I regard the present White Paper as a major triumph. A year ago when I mentioned the problem of Oman, there was not a word about it in the reply to the debate. As is customary, Defence Ministers did not take the slightest notice of my remarks. I am glad to see that the lesson has been learned and there are six lines about the problem in the White Paper this year, revealing that

  681
  the Army was engaged in operations in Oman. In a "World in Action" television broadcast last year a British Army officer in the field was shown commanding some of the Sultan's forces.
  If British soldiers are engaged in any part of the world, there is no need for the House to be treated with such secrecy as at present surrounds this operation. We should be given details of the casualties and the type of commitment. We should be told the casualties, not least because of the point made by my right hon. Friend about whether there is to be any distinction in the pension arrangements between those killed and injured in Northern Ireland and those killed and injured elsewhere in the world while serving in the Army.
  The Minister would do the House a great service if he were to reveal the information which he has and if he were to be frank with us about the casualties which have been suffered and tell us what prospects there are of the Army being released from this duty. I appreciate that they are loan personnel and that some are volunteers, but there must be finality in any war. This one has been going on since at least 1961 and there appears to be little hope of the conflict ever coming to an end. I hope that the Minister will deal with this question and let the House have the benefit of his views upon this war and exactly what is happening.
  I come next to some welfare points which I believe are always an important feature of this debate. They may seem small in themselves but I believe that the struggle for a fair deal for the British forces is an important part of the overall strategy of getting adequate forces to defend us as well as possible in the circumstances of the time.
  I propose first to raise a matter which might also be described as posthumous justice. I have in mind women who married after their husbands had completed their war service but whose husband died before 3rd September 1939. In my constituency there is a lady in this category. She is now aged about 75, and there cannot be many widows of this age. Her husband served in the British Army from 1914 to 1920. He went through the campaigns in France, was wounded and contracted an unfor-

  682
  tunate illness. He married after the end of that war; he died in 1925, after a short marriage, and since then his widow has struggled to bring up a family without any pension whatsoever.
  It is true that the Government have modified their proposals in the sense that they have now put in the date 3rd September 1939, but the point is that this lady is being denied a war pension because her husband died before that date. I believe that this is unjust, niggardly and a blot on what should be the best treatment we can provide for people who fought for us in the most bloody of all world conflicts, namely, the First World War. If we could not give them a land fit for heroes when they were demobilised, we can, after the passage of time, provide justice for their dependants. This is a small matter which, if granted, would benefit only a few people, and I hope that they will be enabled to enjoy some pension.
  The Daily Mirror of 13th October 1972 dealt with such a case when it said:
  "'Granny X' wins fight for a pension payout."
  The article dealt with a decision of the Ombudsman which appears to extend the doctrine of the Department in paying these pensions. I hope that the Ministry of Defence will get together with the Department of Health and Social Security to look anew at this problem in order to extend payment to others in this category. If the Minister wants personal details I shall be happy to send them to him.
  My second point relates to the unfortunate recruits to the forces who fail to make the grade and are discharged fairly soon after their enlistment. The matter which I propose to raise relates to character assessments on discharge. If two recruits were discharged, one from the Army and one from the Royal Air Force, the conduct of the Army recruit would be described of "fair" while that of the Royal Air Force recruit would be described as "excellent". Those are the categories into which they would automatically be put, however well they had behaved while serving. This is something which needs to be standardised because it can have unfortunate consequences.
  If those two men were to go before an employer who did not understand the

  683
  niceties and precedents which make the Army say "fair" and the Royal Air Force say "excellent", faced with their testimonials it would be all too easy for him to assume that the behaviour of the man from the Royal Air Force was very much better than that of the Army man. This is only a matter of the standardisation of procedure, and when I last asked the Minister a Question about it he said that the procedure was in course of being standardised. That was nearly a year ago. I hope that standardisation has now been achieved or, if not, that it will be in the near future.
  I welcome the announcement earlier this afternoon by the Under-Secretary of State about the extension of work of the Housing Commandant Association to Germany. This is worth while and it will pay dividends. I hope that the number of SSAFA personnel to assist families in Germany is more satisfactory than it was when the Expenditure Committee last reported. Private lettings, and lettings of all kinds, are being increased in BAOR. If we accept that it is a "more married" Army than ever before, and if we accept that the age for marriage is lower than ever, we have to recognise that the wives of Service men out there are living in a strange environment and need all the welfare assistance which the forces can give them.
  What is the position about a replacement site for Shoeburyness? Three years ago, when Maplin was but a gleam in some planner's eye, we were told that Pembrey had to be aquired urgently because of the need to replace Shoeburyness when Maplin was constructed. Three years have passed and Pembrey has fallen by the wayside, but other sites have not been announced. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will tell us where these sites will be and whether they will accommodate the whole of the previous unit at Shoeburyness or whether the unit is to be split up.
  I should like the Minister to tell us something about the confused saga of Maindee barracks. First, we are told that Civil Service jobs are to be created, and then that they are not to be created. Later we are told that they may be created, and later still we are told that they may not be created. I believe the Minister will say

  684
  that the Government are waiting for the Hardman Report, but I should be grateful if he would let us know the position.
  I turn, finally, to the question of our strategy in Europe. The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare raised the question of the tripwire response and the flexible response and seemed to suggest that a return to the former was necessary. It may be true, as the hon. Gentleman said, that there will always be
  "wars and rumours of wars"
  but I hope he will take his theology more from the New Testament than from the Old. The fact is that the absence of any major conflict since the Second World War has depended upon one case in which a flexible rather than a tripwire response was adopted, and here I refer to Korea.
  Had we adopted a tripwire response, there would have been no debate today on the Army. It was because President Truman adopted a flexible response on that occasion that the destruction of the world was avoided. It would be dangerous and nonsensical for us to return to a tripwire situation in which every attack, of whatever magnitude and seriousness, and however the generals of the day might view it, has to be met with a nuclear response.
  At the same time, however, I found alarming the article by Miss Nora Beloff in the Observer of 1st April 1973, when she referred to American troops in Europe as "The unnecessary army". The heading said:
  "Nora Beloff argues that the presence of American troops in Europe is harming the Western Alliance."
  I believe that to be a dangerous doctrine to put forward. She can scoff if she likes, but the American presence in Europe on the ground is necessary for our defence. I believe that it would be extremely dangerous for us to think only of a European defence force. We have kept the peace for a quarter of a century or more because we have had a Western alliance and not merely a European alliance.
  It would be dangerous because in that article Miss Beloff advocates lowering the nuclear threshold. What she advocates to make up for the absence of American troops is a greater readiness to use nuclear, and particularly nuclear

  685
  tactical, weapons. Anything that lowers the nuclear threshold is dangerous. It must be made clear that although this may appear to be an attractive argument, it will be not cheaper but more expensive for us to maintain that sort of defence force. It is in concert with our allies throughout the North Atlantic area, not merely in Europe, that we will continue to defend Western European countries. I believe that the British Army plays a vital and major part in that effort.
  The Army deserves our commendation this year as every year and I hope that it will carry with it the good wishes of the House in the year to come.
  6.52 p.m.
  Mr. David Walder: I agree with much of the speech of the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John). I thought for a moment that we might be forming a third force together but it is simply that I share exactly his view of lawyers.
  An article a few weeks ago in the Economist on the Royal Navy said that the Navy's image was secure but its rôle uncertain, as the Army's rôle was certain but its image not so good. This was a slick generalisation but I think there is some truth in that observation where the Army is concerned.
  At the moment it has two rôles, the obvious one being in Ireland. Perhaps there is a lesson to learn when it is considered that three or four years ago when such a situation was not visualised for the Army, so-called brush-fire wars were thought of as being a problem outside these islands. It is salutary to reflect on the occurrence of the Irish emergency that it is proof yet again of the impossibility of absolute certainty in defence planning.
  The Army's second rôle is in Europe, in the deterrence world of Western Europe. I stress that there is considerable significance in the rôle of conventional forces in that theatre. It is easy to cast doubt upon this and to refer simply to the platitude of the Warsaw Pact's preponderance in numbers. That equation must be modified when one realises that a possibility of war in Europe is a question of time, reinforcements and replacements, whereby the numerical superiority of the Warsaw Pact nations would eventually be reduced.

  686
  To talk in terms of a war that no one hopes will take place may appear curious but one has to think in terms of the war that might take place to realise the rôle that the conventional forces play in Europe—our own and those of the United States. It was once thought by some people that the situation in Europe had only a nuclear dimension. I believe this was a mistake because the conventional forces there have a relevance to deterrence and to disarmament. I say that as a mild criticism of those of my hon. Friends who say that no disarmament is possible because of the numerical superiority of the Warsaw Pact nations. I do not think that numbers are necessarily the essence of the problem of the MBFR. Verification and sincerity are much more the matters to be considered. Obviously it is a matter of considerable time, negotiation and patience. I do not think, just because of the momentary numerical disparities, that one should give up all consideration of moves towards disarmament.
  At the same time it would only be fair to look at what I might call the other side of the hill and to refer to Izvestia of 26th February and its comments on our recent White Paper. First, we are asked why we have spent more money on defence this year—and I agree with Izvestia that this is a natural question but it might be better put to Admiral Gorchkov—but it gets more interesting when Izvestia says:
  "It seems however, that hostile as the British Tories are to socialism …"
  —I suppose I will give them that—
  "…it is not so much the imaginary ' menace from the East', as nostalgic feelings over the lost imperial grandeur and anxiety over the world standing of Britain reducing year after year, that is gnawing their hearts".
  That article misses out what I think is the primary fact in the Defence White Paper, that the increased expenditure is not on weaponry but on personnel and not on increases in personnel but merely to provide the sort of parity with civilian life which I think both sides of the House expect.
  Almost all hon. Members who have spoken so far have referred to manpower and recruiting. I do not think one can find much in the way of criteria in comparisons with the civilian labour market. The hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) who has left the Chamber,

  687
  referred to unemployment as being a good recruiting sergeant. I do not accept that. I think it is more true to realities to say that there is a body of men and women in each generation which for a number of reasons chooses Service life. They can be discouraged from so doing by poor pay, poor conditions, stretched service, or by finding that the facilities and opportunities not only for themselves but for their families are poor compared with civilian life. Obviously they can be encouraged by the opposites of all these matters. If we want a professional or regular force we must be prepared as a Government to make our errors on the side of generosity. It is a patent disincentive to recruiting for a Government to appear anxious to seek easy economies in defence matters.
  At the moment the stretching of our infantry battalions between BAOR and Northern Ireland—while I would not suggest that it had had any effect on morale, and I was in Ireland recently talking to soldiers in the infantry battalions—is a matter which the Government must have constantly in mind. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) has already mentioned the question of the extension of tours in Northern Ireland, and I would accept all of his arguments in the military sphere. However, I must throw into the balance the question of welfare and what I would call the social arguments. This illustrates one of the dilemmas facing the Government.
  There is another matter in Northern Ireland. Most hon. Members, who have spoken have referred to the undoubted military qualities of our soldiers there, but I should like to add one other matter. The House will soon realise why I speak in this curious anonymous manner. A young British NCO fairly recently came to the conclusion that the particular community near which he was quartered could do with a playground. Almost entirely on his own Initiative he went around and collected money and people who were prepared to work. The playground was completed. Very naturally, as might be expected, there were a number of suggestions that a small ceremony might take place. The NCO and the civilians of both faiths who had helped him might be present, and perhaps a Government Minister might do the official opening.

  688
  But none of these things was possible. It was not possible to reveal the name of the soldier or the names of any of the civilians who helped him simply because in the circumstances of Northern Ireland these people would all have become targets for assassination.
  This story, tragic though it is, demonstrates the sort of quality of soldier that it is possible to attract into the modern Army. In view of what I have said, I wonder whether perhaps the advertisements used by the Army keep pace with the quality of men who are serving. This applies to both officers and men. I must paraphrase from memory, but the advertisement I particularly object to uses some such expression as
  "What would an intelligent young man like you be doing in the Army?"
  Of course it goes on to show that such an intelligent young man would have a wonderful future. But I have a feeling that perhaps those responsible for the Army recruiting advertisements are trying to destroy an image which no longer exists and in so doing succeeding in keeping that imagine alive beyond its time.
  There is a different line of approach in the Army advertisements compared with those for the Air Force and the Navy. I should be interested, without wishing to overburden the intelligence services of my hon. Friend—although the essential links of that service are not at this moment present—to have information, not necessarily during the debate, about the returns that the Army gets to its advertisements. I do not apologise for having spoken before on the subject. I see that the advertisement which suggested that a man could, by commanding a troop of Chieftain tanks, automatically move, on leaving the Army, to the boardroom of ICI, has now disappeared. Perhaps what I say here has some effects therefore. Sometimes it is possible for such advertisements—and this is my other criticism—to stress the civilian advantages obtainable by embracing a military career. Although these are real enough, just occasionally we might suggest that the military career is worth while in itself.
  We need not apologise as a Government for spending a little more on security and peace and I suspect that the right hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris), who said that we

  689
  could not get soldiers on the cheap, probably agrees with me. We threaten no one and we are not encouraging any arms race. No apology is needed for extra expenditure on the personnel side. It is not required by me nor by my constituents, whose locally recruited regiment, the Lancashire Regiment, is serving in Ireland at this moment, and not for the first time.
  7.12 p.m.
  Dr. David Owen: Hon. Members from both sides who have spoken have spent a proportion of their speeches paying tribute to the Army services and the contribution they are making in Northern Ireland. No one can speak in the debate without reiterating these feelings, which I believe are widely felt throughout the country, or without expressing the extent of the admiration held for the way Servicemen put up with the conditions under which they have to operate in Northern Ireland. This has the admiration of the entire country, and I pay tribute to our troops who face an almost impossible task in formidable circumstances.
  Of necessity, it is the Army that has borne the brunt of this extremely difficult operation. It is quite probably the hardest operation the Army services have ever had to undertake in the history of this country. For obvious reasons it involves much greater strains and stresses than probably any other internal security situation. Internal security situations are almost the hardest for any disciplined force to deal with.
  I should like to take up the point raised by the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. David Walder). He said that in considering the whole question of disarmament, detente and future force levels, numbers were not necessarily the essence of the problem. I can only say how much I agree with that sentiment. My prime reason for intervening in the debate is to reiterate the theme that in considering the military balance we must try to overcome the obsession about strict comparisons between numbers of men, numbers of tanks and numbers of planes.
  It is a peculiarly British and a peculiarly European view of the European balance at the moment which embodies this obsession with numbers. There are grave dangers for the House to be seen

  690
  to emphasise this at present. I am convinced that inevitably we shall have to face the fact that force levels in terms of numbers will have to be reduced. If we put too much importance on numbers at this stage it will cause an extremely bad psychological effect in the Alliance if numbers are withdrawn, and we shall find it much harder to convince people that there are other crucial factors in achieving a military balance. I do not even agree that reduced numbers of men will be equally expensive. In future, technology and the contribution of military technology will be of crucial importance. I am confident that this is a sensible view to take.
  I wish here to quote David Packard, until recently the Deputy Secretary for Defence in the United States, when he spoke in Amsterdam at a Conference of Europe and America, the central aim of which was to try to reiterate the interdependence of Europe and America, a theme which I wholeheartedly support. He said:
  "It is not necessary to match forces man-for-man, tank-for-tank, plane-for-plane to maintain an effective military balance. Some of the so-called 'smart' weapons which have been used recently in Vietnam are from ten to a hundred times more effective than the weapons now in the inventory of either the Pact or NATO. It is probable that modern anti-tank weapons can, to a large degree, neutralise the effectiveness of a massive tank force. Air-to-air and surface-to-air missiles now in the inventory of both sides are primitive in terms of what can be done with the latest technology. There are many more examples.
  This means that the military balance of the future will be determined even less by the number of men, planes or ships on each side. It will be determined by how effectively each side applies the latest technology to the weapons those men, planes or ships carry."
  I believe this to be an extremely important message.
  There are already in existence highly sophisticated conventional weapons—and I emphasise "conventional"—which are not being deployed in central Europe. Many of them have been developed by the United States, particularly, I suppose, in view of the Vietnam war. The whole contribution of laser technology to pinpoint precision bombing will make a major change in strategy and tactics. The contribution of satellite reconnaissance in terms of warning times and notification of movements, again, makes a major change.

  691
  I am not convinced that the Army has yet adapted to these changing circumstances. Whenever we look at the question of how much money we should spend on tanks, we should ask ourselves particularly how much money we are spending on anti-tank weapons and, indeed, not only on them but on any form of weapon system.
  The balance we have tended hitherto to accept needs to be questioned again. I am known to be critical of the existing conventional balance in the Navy. I know far less about the Army. We cannot go on accepting a continuation of a balance that may have suited us in the 'forties or 'fifties or 'sixties and it is ever more important to look again at the shape of the Army. We shall have to look at the way existing divisions and regiments are structured. The previous specialisations which we have hitherto taken for granted may need fundamental questioning.
  I have always been attracted—and the Select Committee on Defence Expenditure went into this matter in some detail— to the question of greater mobility, particularly in central Europe. I believe that is the essence of the matter.
  The Committee looked at the question of heavy lift helicopters. The Government rightly pointed out that these are extremely expensive, which I well understand. It involves painful choices, and the balance of advantage may well be with retaining one's mobility based on lorries. This, without doubt, is considerably cheaper. I should like to see this question rather more fundamentally examined than hitherto.
  Other aspects of the Army also need to be studied. The one I wish to raise concerns tactical nuclear weapons. I have never believed that we can do without tactical nuclear weapons as part of our strategy. This fact must be faced. Equally, I believe ever more strongly in the need for adequate conventional forces. I do not think we can ever talk ourselves into a situation where tactical nuclear weapons can be an excuse for running down either conventional manpower or conventional weaponry.
  A very complicated and difficult balance has to be taken into account. At present there is a great deal of rather

  692
  loose talk about the fact that one can have mini-nuclear weapons with far less radiation. It is true there are new nuclear weapon technologies. In my view this subject needs considerable discussion. It is the present lack of any open discussion in Europe on tactical nuclear weapons that causes me grave concern.
  My first concern relates to the problem currently facing the alliance. The Minister, opening the debate, mentioned the decision to consider the option of the Lance tactical nuclear weapon. Not only are the Government looking at this in terms of a United Kingdom effort, but the United Kingdom has been given the rôle of speaking for the other European partners to the alliance. To purchase the Lance tactical nuclear weapon will cost a large amount of money, and the Minister will probably feel unable to let us know the precise figure. Although I do not know the precise cost, it is in terms of 25 MRCAs over an equivalent period. It may be that the Lance tactical nuclear missile should be purchased from the United States as the contribution to the alliance. Nevertheless, some fundamental questions need to be asked.
  It is probably the intention of the Government that the nuclear warhead part of Lance tactical nuclear missile, although purchased by the alliance, should remain under the control of the United States and that it should be of United States origin. This is probably a very sensible decision. I do not know whether the Government have made any decisions about this, but, again, it is a matter that should be discussed.
  The House has the right to know on what sort of release mechanism any European tactical nuclear weapon that will be bought in the future is likely to operate. Will such a weapon have the electronic device of the permissive action link or PAL system? This is a legitimate question the House should ask the Government. We should not vote money, as we are in the Defence Estimates for the possible purchase of tactical nuclear weapons, without having solid assurances about the strategy under which those tactical nuclear weapons would be used and the particular problems of control and release mechanism. We ought not to be too afraid of open discussion of this question.

  693
  The other problem with tactical nuclear weapons is that the existing ones are extremely vulnerable. Some fundamental questions have increasingly been asked about the overall ability of tactical nuclear weapons to survive, not just the tube artillery with the modest range of 18 to 22 kilometres, but also the tactical aircraft stationed at permanent air bases, the exact location of which is well-known.
  The theatre-based nuclear weapons and the concept of how to retain a tactical nuclear exchange are of the utmost complexity. I take a very pessimistic view about the outcome once one has gone even to a tactical nuclear weapon exchange. I would wish there to be the maximum steps in the escalation prior to making any such decision. However, I would prefer to see someone go through the nuclear threshold in a tactical rather than in a strategic sense. In that sense, I can see the declaratory aspect of tactical nuclear weapons having a part in a phased graduated response to any particular aggressive action. It is not a situation, I hope, that will ever occur. I do not believe that we can keep this limited nuclear exchange, as some people discuss it, to a virtually conventional war with rather larger mega-tonnage. That is not my view of any likely exchange.
  These are serious issues. If the Government are asking for money they have a responsibility to discuss these issues more openly than hitherto.
  The second major reason why this matter has to be discussed is that the French already have a tactical nuclear weapon. We understand from an interview with M. Debré, the previous French Minister of Defence, that the possibility of the Government purchasing Pluton was discussed. This has not been revealed by the Government. They have not felt it necessary to tell us why they have not bought Pluton.
  We have a legitimate concern that French tactical nuclear weapons may possibly operate on NATO territory. I understand that the French troops on German territory would need permission from the German Government to deploy Pluton on German territory. That may be the convention of NATO. I do not believe that Britain can opt out of that. I am extremely unhappy that French

  694
  tactical nuclear weapons are not under any form of overall NATO tactical nuclear doctrine operating in Germany. I hope that the Government will not agree or approve the Germany Government making that decision alone. I think that the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons in any NATO front-line area is an issue for the alliance as a whole.
  Equally, I wish the French to come into some form of discussion on the guidelines they would operate for their tactical nuclear weapon. This is a matter of fundamental urgency. Even if the Pluton tactical nuclear weapon is retained on French soil, it would still be fired on to German soil. It would still involve the NATO alliance and could pose serious problems.
  For us in this House to talk about European political unity and to have a situation where France, still a member of the NATO Treaty but not of the Organisation, can have in this sensitive area of policy a possibly totally different tactical strategy is a matter of grave concern. We need so to order our diplomatic arrangements and political and defence relationships with France that we can, as a matter of urgency, enter into discussions with them on that aspect.
  I will leave that subject and turn to a narrow but, I believe, very important point which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd. This subject has been discussed in the House on numerous occasions. It is the fact that widows of Service men who retire to pension after 1st September 1950 receive one-third of their husband's pension, but the widows of those who retired to pension before 1st September 1950 and who were not officers received nothing. Yet, if they were the widows of officers they received a pension.
  This anomaly cannot be allowed to continue. There are no party politics involved. It is well known that many Ministers of both Governments in the Ministry of Defence have tried to get this anomaly changed. We have all been fobbed off with the old Civil Service argument. But this is an intolerable situation. It is a distinction between officers and men which I do not think we should support or should allow to be maintained. Despite the fact that it means a retrospective change, I believe that it is high time that it was made.

  695
  The new evidence that I wish to bring to the attention of the Minister, who well knows the arguments, concerns the situation which I understand obtains in other European countries. We shall increasingly have to look at the pension provisions and terms of our Service men in the light of what our NATO European allies provide. France pays 50 per cent. to all widows. Germany pays 60 per cent. to all widows. Holland pays five-sevenths all of the husband's pension to his widow. Denmark pays two-thirds of the husband's pension to his widow. Italy pays 50 per cent. of the husband's pension to his widow, increased to 60 per cent., 65 per cent., 70 per cent. or 75 per cent. according to the number of minor children.
  In all these instances pensions are paid irrespective of the date of retirement to pension. I hope that the Minister can confirm those figures. My researches, which have been undertaken by one of my constituents writing to the embassies of most Common Market countries, indicate that the only country that has no provision for the payment of pensions to widows of Service men is Belgium.
  The anomaly in our situation is the existence of the distinction between offering a pension to a widow of a noncommissioned Service man and allowing it to an officer's widow, the cut-off date, and the consequential problems. This problem has often been aired in the House. I hope that the Minister will look at it again and that hon. Members on both sides will add their names to the many who believe that this anomaly should be changed.
  7.26 p.m.
  Major-General Jack d'Avigdor-Goidsmid: I shall not follow the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) except to say that I was a little worried at his restructuring of the Army. I entirely support what he said about pensions.
  In the recent defence debate I made certain recommendations about the integration of inter-Service training of administrative personnel who are common to the three Services. I have received no reply and no acknowledgment, but, quite unabashed, I shall continue with this fight.

  696
  We are talking about the Army Estimates. It is absolutely essential to cut out the wastage, particularly in view of rising costs and the high proportion of the budget that goes in salaries. To that end there was an announcement in the White Paper of the formation of the new headquarters of the United Kingdom Land Forces which was formed in April last year. In July the Defence Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee went there and took evidence. This evidence has been reproduced in the Expenditure Committee's Ninth Report. The results were highly satisfactory. It seems odd that the Army should have been so modest in its approach and should appear to have made no mention about it.
  The aim of that reorganisation is to simplify and to increase the efficiency of the administration of the Army at home. Under the new terms there is now a Commander-in-Chief, United Kingdom Land Forces, who has under his command virtually all the Regular units and Reserve units in Great Britain, with the exception of Northern Ireland which comes under a separate command. In this reorganisation four command headquarters have been eliminated: Northern Command at York, Western Command at Chester, Southern Command, which is the site of the new United Kingdom Land Forces headquarters, and Strategic Command. In addition there has been an amalgamation of district headquarters, and three district headquarters have gone. The effect has been to produce considerable savings in manpower, both officer and civilian.
  The Defence Sub-Committee was unable to be given the figures in July because Northern Command and Western Command and one or two of the districts concerned were still in operation. By now they will have been closed down. Therefore, these figures should be available.
  Apart from tidying up the chain of command, so to speak, the result has been to save the duplication of effort that went on before and, of course, to save a certain amount of real estate, in addition to personnel. District commanders have been given increased authority and, although this may sound a small point, one of the things we were pleased to see was that they had been given increased powers of

  697
  write-off, because this was one of the recommendations which our Committee made when we visited the forces in Rhine Army and found that so much time was being wasted on unnecessary paper work on matters such as write-offs. I believe that it would be of general interest to hon. Members if the Minister in his reply to the debate could perhaps give us some of the figures involved in these savings, because they were very considerable and credit should be given where credit is due.
  Another project which has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Undersecretary is the Hebrides range project. This is a Royal Artillery range which has been in operation for 14 years and is used for surface-to-surface guided missiles, it was here that the early training on Corporal took place. This range is now half way through a £12 million development scheme which is scheduled to end in 1975–76. When it is completed it will have compensations because two other range establishments, one at Manorbier in South Wales and one at Tycroes on Anglesey, will both go.
  The use of this range is interesting. It will be used throughout the year. The Army and the RAF will use it for Rapier, which is their low-level air defence guided missile; the Army and the Royal Marines will use it for Blowpipe, which is their very low-level air defence guided missile; the Army will use it for their training flights of their reconnaissance plane, the Midge; the RAF will use it for simulated bombing runs, and the Royal Navy will use the sea area around it for firing surface-to-air guided missiles. Taking into consideration the new establishment of the Hebrides range and the savings by the closing down of Manorbier and Tycroes, we get a saving in personnel of about 140 military and 167 civilians.
  When we were examining this we asked whether it would be possible for the Proof and Experimental Establishment at Shoe-buryness to be moved there because this, as has already been mentioned in the debate, is under threat because of the third London airport. But we were told that it was not practicable to combine a practice and an experimental range. The Nugent Committee, which, as hon. Members know, is examining all War Department lands, training areas and ranges with, a view to seeing what can be returned

  698
  to civilian use, has been up there and examined it. Although its report has not been published, it has given a hint that this particular range would not be likely to feature in its recommendations.
  In conclusion, therefore, there is this £12 million range project which will be open all the year round, which is to cover all three Services and which will produce considerable savings.
  I have gone into this matter in some detail because I think this is good, and it leads up to my third point. In the White Paper we read that in 1973, this year, all armoured regiments will complete conversion to the Chieftain tank and that the armoured reconnaissance units will get the new Scorpion tracked reconnaissance vehicle. Both these vehicles have guns. It is the duty of the regiments concerned to train the gunners to man those guns. For this purpose there is a gunnery school run by the Royal Armoured Corps centre at Lulworth. It runs courses for officer and NCO instructors, of whom about 450 a year go through the school.
  As a matter of interest, this school has been in existence for some time and the first time the ranges were used there— because obviously shooting plays a very important part in these courses—was in January 1917. The set-up consists of a school, barracks, instruction rooms, tank hangars and, of course, married quarters for the permanent staff of 240. This excludes civilians and the students. The students on each course fire on the ranges. It is an integral, essential part of their training. People will ask why simulators cannot be used. However intricate simulators are now, it is quite impossible to reproduce the conditions within the turret of a tank when firing. The noise, the flash, the smoke and the smell cannot be reproduced. It is this background which is so important because the people who are training there are the instructors who are going back to their regiments and who will have to train their own soldiers on the real equipment without simulators. Therefore the training must be on the real thing. That is why this range is so important.
  Over and above all these people who fire on the range there are six regiments at home, two of which are Territorial armoured car regiments which also fire on the range. For some years there has

  699
  been a pressure group attempting to get this range returned to it—not for building land but as a beauty spot. It has been lobbying and fighting, and recently the Nugent Committee has been considering this. As I have said, the Nugent Committee report has not yet been published, and it would be wrong to jump to any conclusions before it is out, but in fairness to the Army I want to disclose the ramifications that would occur if the Nugent Committee recommended that the Lulworth range area should be handed back.
  The gunnery school would have to move if the Government accepted those recommendations. I have said that, from the point of view of gunnery, simulation is not on. Therefore, the school would have to move elsewhere. When a 120-mm. gun is fired, even using modern practice ammunition, there is a wide danger area. As a result, there are only two places to which the school could move. One is the tank ranges at Castle-martin in Pembrokeshire, and alternatively there are some ranges in Scotland, at Kirkcudbright.
  I take the Castlemartin ranges first. These are occupied in the summer months, for a period varying from five to seven months in the year, by the Germans. There is a small hutted camp which they can use in the summer. The obvious answer is to share the range with the Germans, but that simply would not work. I cannot say that it would be impossible, but it would be almost impossible to make it work. If the German time on the Castlemartin ranges were reduced, or if they were asked to go, their natural inclination would be to ask for more time on the ranges in Germany, the Hohne ranges in the British zone of Germany, which are NATO ranges which we use, which other Germans use, which the Belgians use and which the Dutch use. The ranges are used flat out all the year round.
  Gunnery forms the most important part of an armoured regiment's training. The bulk of our armour is stationed in Germany. The practices fired there do not only train the gunners and the commanders. Towards the end of courses there they run what are known as battle practices which include fire and movement and tactical handling of units up

  700
  to squadron strength. This is a vital form of training. If the Germans left Castlemartin obviously they would want more time on the Hohne ranges. If that hap-pended the British armour in Rhine Army would suffer because it would lose time on the range, and that would be very serious.
  There is the alternative at Kirkcudbright. It is already occupied by the Military Vehicle Engineering Establishment. When we made inquiries about the possibility of moving Shoeburyness we were told that it was impracticable to combine a practice range with an experimental range. That means that the Military Vehicle Engineering Establishment would have to move. At the same time we would be faced with the need to build a barracks, instruction rooms, wings, tank hangers and married quarters for the gunnery school. The Hebrides project cost £12 million. I shudder to think what the cost of moving the gunnery school to Kirkcudbright would be.
  We have to remember that 50 per cent. of the Defence budget goes on salaries. Our job in the Defence Sub-Committee is to try to ensure that the money allocated to the defence budget is spent properly. If the gunnery school at Lulworth were forced to move as a result of the actions of a pressure group, the additional expense apart from being entirely unnecessary, would be an intolerable burden on the Army's share of a hard-pressed defence budget. It is unnecessary. The gunnery school is perfectly all right where it is now.
  If the Nugent Committee should recommend this transfer, I hope that the Government will give it the scrutiny that it so properly deserves.
  7.43 p.m.
  Mr. Ted Leadbitter: I listened to the hon. and gallant Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Major-General Jack d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) with a great deal of interest against the background of my own years as a gunnery officer. The hon. and gallant Gentleman's remarks brought to my mind some of the best features of the service. The House would do well to dwell upon his very thoughtful contribution. I confess that I was tempted on one or two occasions to ask him for clarification. I refrained from doing so in view of the limited time at our

  701
  disposal, and I wish to pay the hon. and gallant Gentleman the compliment of saying that I am sure that if he had had more time my intervention would have been unnecessary since he was completely absorbed in his subject and did his best to deal with it in an exceptionally brief speech.
  It requires little explanation and certainly no apology to refer, as other hon. Members have done, to Northern Ireland. The fact is that it is much easier to put troops into Northern Ireland than it is to get them out. Since 1969 a great many of our units and many sections of our Armed Forces have been there, and it must be obvious to any Government that serious problems are bound to arise from the situation.
  To have so many men and so many units of our forces, representing a considerable proportion of our total Armed Forces, engaged for such a period on an unusual security rôle within the United Kingdom is bound to create grave problems for the Government. Certainly it is bound to tax the thinking and the forward planning of the Army itself. Moreover, inevitably it brings in its trail difficulties regarding our commitments elsewhere in the world. There is no doubt that the borrowing of troops from the British Army of the Rhine creates a serious problem, which I shall seek to develop in another context later in my speech.
  There has been some relief in that the withdrawals from Singapore and the Persian Gulf have helped to minimise the state of overstretch, as it is termed in military parlance. One has noticed that the term "overstretch" is being used less and less. Despite this tie-up within the United Kingdom, we are fortunate to keep some of our military commitments, namely in Cyprus and in other parts of the world.
  Since 1969 we have had four units of the Royal Marines, 17 units of the Royal Armoured Corps, 23 units of the Royal Artillery, 29 units of the Royal Engineers and 28 units of infantry in Northern Ireland. But there is another aspect. In addition to the proportion of our military forces in Northern Ireland, one has to consider the turnover of those forces, by

  702
  which I mean the amount of time they serve there, the amount of time for which they are relieved of their duties there and the amount of time they are given for recall. This is a serious matter. Young soldiers, having had a taste of what might be called military activity in a counter-terrorist situation, face problems which are relatively new to military experience, with the possible exception of those of our forces who in recent times had guerrilla experience during the Malayan troubles.
  I suggest that we ought to consider the situations which our young soldiers in Northern Ireland experience. There is the impact on their family lives and on their personalities. There is a sense of uncertainty in their unusual rôle. All are matters of sufficient importance to worry this House and, I hope, the Government into taking immediate steps to do something about it. I asked in the last defence debate that the matter should be examined as a matter of urgency. We should know how young soldiers with less than one year's service are affected.
  It would be wrong if I did not express my concern about the talks that are taking place in Europe. If we have a proportion of our army committed to United Kingdom internal security and the present rate of turnover of forces, and in the international scene increasing pressures which would result from an American reduction of forces in Europe, there will be stresses and strains as a background to the talks which now have all the signs of not being the successes which we had hoped for a few months ago.
  A conference about security and cooperation is taking place in Helsinki. There are involved in those talks 34 nations. Talks are taking place in Geneva about mutual and balanced force reductions. Fewer nations are taking part in those talks—namely, the Warsaw Pact nations and the Western bloc. In addition, there are the strategic arms limitation talks. Russia and America are involved principally in those talks.
  We must be prepared to learn the lessons of the past. The talks are lacking in co-ordinating elements. The talks should be brought together so that the most can be gained from their objectives. It will be much more difficult, as the talks are taking place at different times, in different circumstances and with

  703
  different political objectives—some objectives being out of tune with what might be called the aspirations of many people —to reach the overall objective of peace and co-operation.
  Despite everything possible having been attempted to achieve mutual and balanced reduction of forces, and despite attempts having been made to get security, the very things that we have been trying to fight again appear to be proliferating. The Government, in the last defence debate, referred to Russia spending 8 per cent. of its gross national product on defence. I recall that a list of other proportions of gross national products spent by other nations was recited and that the United Kingdom is spending just short of 6 per cent. of its gross national product. It is yet to be decided whether increasing costs in defence expenditure, and in this case the Army Estimates, are producing in real terms an armaments increase or some other form of military sophistication.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Lichfield and Tamworth referred to the salaries which are paid to officers and men. I hastily add that I am not unhappy about that because we must ensure that we pay the highest possible salaries which reflect their importance to the United Kingdom.
  Major-General Jack d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: My point was that salaries occupied a certain percentage of the budget. I welcome the salaries which are paid.
  Mr. Leadbitter: I have already said that the standing of the hon. and gallant Member for Lichfield and Tamworth is not questioned. It is the proportion of the budget which represents salaries to which we are addressing ourselves.
  In spite of all the talks which are taking place in the civilised world to seek a balance rather than a proliferation of weapons, it is clear that year after year a situation is developing of a frightening build-up of armed forces.
  We agree that the nuclear deterrent is part of our overall strategy. But it seems inevitable that we must have an adequate deployment of logistic support for a conventional role. The economies of the modern world are strained and sapped because there is, despite our efforts to

  704
  get some sort of reasonable and sensible balance a continuing proliferation. The hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) said during the last defence debate:
  "One should always remember that the MBFR discussions concern Central Europe only. The move for detente and the discussions going on for a European security conference and for MBFRs concern Central Europe only, and the threat, therefore, lies in the sphere of maritime strategy, in the danger to the flanks of NATO. If there is detente in Central Europe, or, if one cares to put it like that, if there is lasting nuclear stalemate, then the flanks are in danger."
  That is an important paragraph.
  But I find conflict arising from the theme which I have developed and a statement that was made from the Government Front Bench on the Government's interpretation of the Opposition's amendment. The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, when referring to my right hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart), said that he had emphasised the importance that he attached to the military link with the United States. He then said:
  "Does he really believe that a unilateral British reduction will do anything except strengthen the voices in America which are calling for greatly reduced military commitments in Europe?"
  The point was specific. The Minister asked my right hon. Friend whether he thought he was doing the right thing by promoting the idea of unilateral action.
  I have referred to the speech of the hon. Member for Haltemprice. The paragraph which I read has greater significance when it is referred to the previous paragraph of the hon. Gentlemen's speech, which was in these terms:
  "About 10 days ago I attended a conference in Washington on MBFRs. All the American Senators and Congressmen with whom we had discussions said that they believed that even if there was agreement there there would be no short-term savings, because defence expenditure is rising as wages are rising. It is clear that the Americans intend to cut their forces in Europe—they have to because of political pressure—and it is equally clear, as some hon. Members opposite have said, that Europe should learn to defend itself. —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th March 1973; Vol. 853, c. 134, 158.]
  If it is right for America, which is a member of NATO, to take unilateral action because of political pressure, is it not valid for this country to consider unilateral action, not necessarily because of political pressure? To do so would not harm the Helsinki talks. Rather

  705
  would it bring into the discussions a more realistic attitude.
  A corollary arises from America's recent policy that we in Europe should do more to defend ourselves. If we believe it right to do more to defend ourselves, that does not necessarily mean that we have to spend more or that we must have more armaments or more men. We must always be on guard against waste. If it is right for us to search for a new, unilateral approach and a new rôle in Europe, deviating not one iota from the American concept, because America is taking unilateral action—
  The Minister of State for Defence (Mr. Ian Gilmour): Mr. Nixon has said the opposite. The Americans have said that they will not withdraw their troops for the moment.
  Mr. Leadbitter: If I were to listen to what President Nixon said on this or any other matter, I should be in doubt about the strength of my argument. At least I try to be consistent. President Nixon has never been consistent.
  The hon. Member for Haltemprice had been in Washington, and he said that political pressure was causing the Americans to take unilateral action. It does not matter to the House whether or not this comes about, because situations change during the passage of time. But taking the argument as it stands, if it is right that we should defend ourselves in Europe it is also right that we should say to other parts of the world where we are overstretched that they must learn to look after themselves a little more. The five-Power defence agreement in the Far East is not working out satisfactorily, for example. Pressures arise from our internal security commitment in Northern Ireland, and it is necessary for a review to be undertaken.
  I come now to a matter much nearer home and which affects the people who have so efficiently served the forces. The Government have decided over a period of three to five years to close down the Signals Research Establishment at Christ-church, the Services Electronic Establishment at Baldock and the Royal Armament Research and Development Establishment at Langhurst. In a Question I asked the Minister

  706
  "what savings in expenditure he expects to make in respect of the proposed closures of Ministry of Defence research development establishments; and when he expects to implement the proposals and complete the second phase referred to in the Statement on Defence, paragraph 29."
  The answer was:
  "Savings in expenditure from these closures will, it is estimated, be about £13 million a year.".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd April 1973; Vol. 854, c. 62.]
  I draw the Minister's attention to the recent attempt to close the Royal Naval Spare Parts Depot in Eaglescliffe, Durham, for the purpose of effecting certain economies. The depot employs approximately 2,000 people. We appealed to the Minister, who was kind enough to listen to us then. Jobs are involved here, including the jobs of scientists whose skills are essential to us. Their future is a matter of great concern to them and to us. We asked the Minister in the case of the spare parts depot to give a full assessment of the costs that had been taken into account in the closure proposal. When we received that information we had a meeting with him. We believe that he was compelled to do some rethinking, because he was kind enough to give us the costings.
  The £1£3 million saving in terms of the Defence Estimates is not a large sum of money, but it represents an essential part of military research. For that reason, and to make sure that the right decision is reached, I ask the Minister to accede to a reasonable request to have consultations with the people whose jobs are involved.
  The Minister should also give to those of us who are interested in this subject a full account of the costings, estimates and criteria which were made available to him before he arrived at the decision. I should not even attempt to impute that the Minister has examined wrongly what was before him. That is not my objective. He will have examined with great care what was put before him. It is the nature of what was put before him that deserves critical examination. That is another point of view. Perhaps the Minister will give the House an undertaking on those two matters which affect those who have served us well.
  I take for granted that the British Army is essential to the United Kingdom. But the United Kingdom should always have in its regard that the defence of the realm requires an adequacy of equipment, of

  707
  the right kind of personnel and training, and of the right kind of support from the House of Commons. I take for granted that anyone who talks in terms of reducing defence expenditure as an end in itself, without examining the best way of doing that, might not be serving the country well. The priority of defence is a very major priority.
  8.11 p.m.
  Mr. Philip Goodhart: I agree with the closing remarks of the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) on the question of expenditure. I should like to pursue the interesting remarks made by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) about technological advances that may transform the military scene in the next few years. I, too, attended the European-American conference which he attended at Amsterdam, and the group which was presided over by Mr. Packard, late of the American Department of Defence.
  There can be no doubt that the military scene will soon have dramatic changes to show. Weapon development is going ahead very rapidly indeed. There is the Smart bomb, developments in helicopter and anti-tank technology and surveillance techniques and the new laser techniques. We have seen the introduction of laser techniques when it comes to target finding. But it may not be very long before laser techniques will develop into the death ray, which used to figure so prominently in the boys' magazines one used to read many years ago. We are on the edge of that sort of development.
  Again, there is the mini-Nuke, which is of very substantial importance for the shape of the battlefield in the future. A very small nuclear charge can now produce an explosion equivalent to that of about 100 tons of TNT, with no radiation and no fall-out. The sort of control that can be exerted with this type of weapon changes the entire argument about the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons on the battlefield.
  These new technologies, however, are enormously costly. The pressure on the defence budget will be greater in the future than it has ever been in the past. Every army in the alliance is faced by this fact. The military establishment which has taken the closest look at future

  708
  projects is that of Germany. They have looked forward to 1980 and done a balance of what their manpower costs and weapon development costs will be then. At present they are spending 30 per cent. of their total defence budget on weapon procurement and the rest, basically on manpower. By the end of this decade, they will be down to about 8 per cent. on weapon procurement and the rest will be basically spent on manpower.
  Our proportion of spending is not nearly as bad as that, but certainly the pressures are increasing on weapon procurement just at the time that the new technologies are becoming infinitely more expensive. I note that the Germans and the Americans, and to some extent the French, are thinking in terms of smaller standing forces and greater reliance on reserve forces. I suspect that this may well be a pattern to which we are forced in the next decade or so.
  I welcome very much the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Undersecretary about the success of recruiting for the T & AVR in the last year and the build-up in the reserve forces under the present Government. I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) when he said that he hoped that the review of the T & AVR, which will soon be undertaken, would be much more far-reaching than appears to be in view at present. It is important that one should look at the military rôle of the T & AVR, at the call-out liability and at the cost—not because one wishes to cut the proportion of money spent on the reserves but because this may well have to be expanded.
  I have considerable doubts about the present rôle that is assigned to so much of the T & AVR, that is,the reinforcement of BAOR. I may have been unfortunate in the commanding officers to whom I have talked, both of the T & AVR and of the Reguar Army, but I have not met a senior officer of the T & AVR who believed that his unit would get to Germany in time, nor have I met a battalion commander of BAOR who thought that the T & AVR reserve would get there in time. The reinforcement of BAOR remains an important potential liability. But in the past there has been excessive concentration on this particular aspect of the reserve rôle in the Army.

  709
  We have been talking about things that cost a great deal of money, and the reserve forces cost a great deal. I should like to turn to something that costs infinitely less—the special allowances paid to certain soldiers. The time has come when we should take a new look at them. Some very curious allowances still exist. I see that officers can receive extra pay of up to 45p a day for colonial survey duties, and that other ranks can receive payment of 13p a day for arctic or tropical experiments, although it seems that officers are expected to undergo those experiments for nothing. Soldiers acting as accompanists at divine services or choir practice may receive 20p for each occasion. I know that our Prime Minister not only had a distinguished military record but was a distinguished organist, but that surely is ridiculous.
  I note that most of the special allowances for men in the Army go to those —parachutists, air gunners, helicopter pilots—who have a special skill which also increases the hazard of a normally hazardous profession. I have no desire to reduce the allowances paid to parachutists, helicopter pilots or air gunners. But a special case can be made out for paying a substantial special allowance to the bomb disposal squads that have done such magnificent work in Northern Ireland in the past three years and alas, have had some work to do on this side of the Irish Sea as well. This dangerous rô1e will go on for many months to come, and I fear that many members of the bomb disposal squads will lose their lives and be injured. More than 100 hon. Members have supported the motion which I helped to put down calling for a special allowance for them. I hope that the Minister will soon be able to announce that a special allowance will be paid to them.
  The Minister enunciated some time ago the very proper doctrine that those soldiers who went to Northern Ireland should not suffer financially. I thoroughly support that. But the sad fact is that a number of our soldiers, when they have to move from their comfortable quarters in Germany to Northern Ireland for an emergency tour, leaving their families behind and going into conditions of considerable discomfort and danger,

  710
  lose money—sometimes quite substantial sums.
  I hope that that can be corrected. One way to do that fairly easily would be to pay disturbance allowance, separation allowance, from the moment that the soldier lands in Northern Ireland rather than waiting for almost six weeks, as is the case now. I hope that there can be an earlier payment, because it is wrong that soldiers going into more dangerous duty in Northern Ireland should suffer financially.
  I fear that our Army will be preoccupied with its Irish rôle for a considerable time, but I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister is thinking about the Army's rôle in the new Europe. Last year I put down a Question asking how many officers were then posted to the headquarters or units of our NATO allies. I received an answer that nearly 250 officers were so posted. That seemed a reasonable figure, but almost all of them were posted to units or headquarters of the American forces. No one is stronger than I am in supporting the Anglo-American alliance, but when there are 200 officers posted to American units and headquarters and only four to German units or headquarters, I do not think it can be argued that that fits the political or the military realities.
  I hope we shall see in the next few years a substantial increase in the amount of cross-posting of Regular officers and NCOs to the armies of our European allies. Through regular service attachment to units they can broaden their experience and gain that insight into the tactical practices of other armies which is very important. It would increase the range of experience of our soldiers, and those foreign officers and NCOs who were sent back in exchange would benefit from the experience of serving with our Army, which in the past 12 months has shown that it has an almost unique capacity for serving with skill and good humour in the most difficult and dangerous situations.
  8.28 p.m.
  Mr. Patrick Wall: My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) will forgive me, I hope, if I do not follow him in the details of his speech, but I have promised to speak briefly. I want to raise only three

  711
  issues—first, tactical nuclear weapons; second, helicopters; and, finally, a point about Ulster.
  The whole of our doctrine of flexible response in Central Europe depends on the provision or adequate back-up of tactical nuclear weapons. It is essential to preserve the one advantage NATO has which is in the number of its nuclear warheads—the only hardware advantage that NATO has over the Warsaw Pact. Therefore, I am particularly pleased to know that the Government are now considering, with their allies in NATO, the replacement of Honest John by Lance, a weapon which was seen by many of us —hon. Members from both sides of the House—during the NATO tour in the United States last year, and by which we were most impressed.
  My first question about this weapon is the matter raised by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen), who suggested that, if NATO, or particularly this country, bought Lance from the Americans, the Americans would keep the nuclear warhead under their control. I accept that this is done as far as the Germans and other NATO allies are concerned, but normally a nuclear Power such as ourselves manufactures its own warheads so that the weapon is wholly under our control. I hope that, if we buy Lance, this will be done, as I believe it is done with Honest John and certainly with our naval nuclear weapons. Second. I wonder whether we may have some idea when these negotiations are likely to be concluded.
  On helicopters, I appreciate that we are now coming to a new generation of Anglo-French helicopters, and I wonder whether sufficient thought has been given to the deployment of the helicopter as an anti-tank weapon. The disparity in heavy battle tanks in Central Europe is 7,750 to NATO and 21,700 to the Warsaw Pact. Clearly, one of the most important factors that we must bear in mind is the strength of NATO in antitank weapons.
  Also, on the NATO tour last year, hon. Members from both sides were greatly impressed by the flexibility of the Cobra helicopter and its use against armour. It seems that, in the past, helicopters deployed in this rôle have been very vul-

  712
  nerable. But the modern helicopter is immensely flexible, being able to dart up from behind trees, and, with the new ranging techniques, one can obtain a hit practically straight away. This vulnerability of the helicopter therefore no longer applies.
  I am not sure that the helicopters that we are now building are as small, as versatile or as manoeuvrable as the Cobra. I would remind the House that two Cobras fitted with TOW, the American air-to-surface weapon, in Vietnam recently destroyed in two days 39 heavy Russian-built tanks, 13 lorries and 10 pieces of heavy artillery—practically a hit with every shot with the new ranging techniques. I raised this matter at Question Time and got the impression that we are not intending to buy TOW, as many of our NATO allies have done, the concept being that we have an equivalent or better weapon.
  I am not sure what this weapon is. I wonder whether it is Martel? I should like more information about this. Hon. Members on both sides would accept that, whereas we should normally buy British and make British, when there are first-class weapons like TOW, which has already been adopted by other NATO allies it might be more cost-effective, and it might also fit in with our common user policy to buy off the shelf from America.
  A matter which has already been mentioned from both sides of the House is the need for both the Army and the Air Force to have medium-lift helicopters. I will not dilate on the Army's need—that is obvious—but I would remind the Minister that the Harrier is not fully effective unless it had a medium-lift helicopter to supply it with POL and ammunition, bombs. I hope that the Army and the Air Force will get together on this and either produce or buy a medium-lift helicopter in the near future.
  Finally, I should like a reply on one fundamental point about Ulster. It is true that our Army is fighting under difficulties in Ulster. Perhaps these difficulties are unavoidable, but when I visited a Royal Marine unit on the border, I found, for example, that there were no designated places where vehicles could cross, that they could cross almost anywhere. It was practically impossible to check people crossing the border because identity cards

  713
  were not carried, and the soldiers were not allowed to shoot back across the border until they were actually under fire. Perhaps these restrictions have to happen, but what really worries me is what is happening in the cities.
  I would commend to hon. Members an article in the Evening Standard last night by Mr. Tom Pocock. He pointed out:
  "Under the Special Powers Act, those not yet aged 17 cannot be detained with an interim custody order …"
  In other words, the Army can detain people over the age of 17 but not under that age. This article underlined something of fundamental importance, to which the Government should address themselves, when it said:
  "In Belfast, it is known that one IRA company commander is a 17-year-old girl and an explosives instructor is a boy of 16 … "
  It said that adults can be stopped and questioned by the Army and taken into custody if necessary, adding:
  "But children who emerged from the shadows to taunt the commandos were immune even when they were known IRA activists. The company commander knew most of their names, addresses and activities—one boy aged about 14 was a trainee bomb-maker—but had no powers to detain them."
  That is a fundamental weakness of our position in Ulster.
  This is a problem on two counts. First, for the safety of the soldiers, one must be able to take some action to detain suspects even if they are under 17. Second, there is the future of the Irish themselves. If these youngsters are completely out of control—they are certainly not controlled at present by their families, their priests or their school teachers— the next generation will be a very difficult one indeed to deal with. So from all points of view, for the Ulstermen and for the soldiers, it is essential that there should be powers to detain and examine teenagers under 17. This is the most important matter that I want to raise, and I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to deal with it tonight in his winding up speech.
  8.37 p.m.
  Mr. John Wilkinson: I am sure you will appreciate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that if an aviator is to

  714
  intervene on an Army day it is best that he should get in and out quickly and achieve, if possible, a few well-aimed deliveries in the process.
  I should like to draw attention, as I did in the Army debate last year, to the growing imbalance in the military budget caused by the overwhelming preponderance of expenditure on BAOR. Last year I said that
  "… 60,000 men in uniform, plus 30,000 civilians, are in the British Army of the Rhine. They are hostage to fortune and well forward in the most exposed part of the defences of Western Europe. They constitute a third of our regular manpower. From the money point of view, £290 million is spent on BAOR, which is almost twice as much as the next biggest single item in the defence budget".
  I then went on, as others have done this evening, to suggest that,
  "in an area of mobility, when this country should be spending more on sea and air power, it is essential in our geographical position as the rear flank of NATO that more of this money should go on such things as counter-insurgency, greater air mobility, better officer educational training and so on, and not least to an expansion of the reserves, which we have already seen in small measure but which I should like to see augmented."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th March 1972; Vol. 833, c. 852.]
  Since I spoke last year the expenditure on BAOR has risen by a further £63 million. Over a two-year period, expenditure has risen by £100 million, or no less than 40 per cent. I am aware that the strength of BAOR has been augmented by about 5,000 men during this period but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) reminded us in the defence debate, the foreign exchange drain of BAOR is considerable. Offsets are a particular headache, especially with the up-valuation of the deutschemark.
  I suggest that, now that we are politically in Europe, we should press for the most urgent reappraisal and rationalisation of the rôles within the Alliance. It is especially urgent at present now that we are likely to embark upon mutual balanced force reductions. Surely the logic of these MBFRs, if carried through, is a reduction of foreign troops stationed in both parts of Germany.
  I may not be able to suggest whether the Russians will feel capable of withdrawing their 26 divisions from the Eastern zone or East Germany. They may wish to retain them there for their

  715
  own political reasons, to prevent any liberalisation of the régime. None the less, surely the rationale of what we are trying to achieve by diplomacy is a reduction of our own forces, and presumably the American forces, in Germany. If that is so, it would inevitably call for a more mobile strategy on our part. This again has been hinted at during the course of the debate.
  I should like to see more expeditionary brigades created on the lines of British contributions to the ACE mobile force. I feel that this is an extremely cost-effective idea for the United Kingdom, and it would do something to minimise the present imbalance which exists in the defence budget.
  If one is looking at the question of mobility for our land contribution for the defence of Europe, one must surely look at the role of the helicopter in the land battle. Again, I referred to that in last year's debate. I will not repeat what I said then but will turn to what was written by the Defence Committee of the Conservative Party in a recent pamphlet, "In Defence of Peace". We suggested there that
  "the Russian numerical superiority in tanks underlines the inadequacy of our anti-tank weapons whose numbers need to be increased and whose quality cannot be too high. Experiments with helicopter-borne missiles should be accelerated and an early decision should be taken as to which system to provide for the Army. An examination of the possibility of greater use of the helicopter in the land battle should be pressed ahead and a requirement for a medium lift helicopter for the Royal Air Force should be made."
  Last year we had an excellent "Sky Warrior" exercise, which is referred to in paragraph 31, on page 17 of the White Paper. It merely mentions that:
  "A major exercise Sky Warrior was conducted by units of the United Kingdom land forces supported by Royal Navy and Royal Air Force helicopters, to explore the problems of air mobile operations in Europe."
  We have not learned exactly what came out of that exercise. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can give the House some report because it is my belief, and that of our committee, that the Army could play a greater role in operating its own helicopters.
  On page 22 of our pamphlet we said:
  "The increasing use of the helicopter, however, as an integral part of the land battle

  716
  must lead to the RAF allowing the Army Air Corps to operate heavier helicopters than at present permitted. At the same time the RAF must receive a medium-lift helicopter for the logistic support of dispersed V/STOL aircraft in the field; to augment the troop carrying capacity available to field commanders and to provide a lifting capability for artillery."
  I very much welcome the fact that the Army Air Corps is now to be a permanent corps in the Army and that there is to be a larger proportion of permanent staff within Army aviation. This will increase expertise. None the less, I do not believe that we have moved nearly far enough. The Puma helicopter force at present operated by the RAF could be taken over by the Army Air Corps. That would facilitate Army operations in the field and leave more money for the RAF to conduct its primary role such as strike, reconnaissance, tactical transportation and so on. I urge this on my hon. Friend.
  I should also mention anti-tank missile equipment. I know that the SS11 could well be succeeded by Hawkswing if the development of this missile goes through as planned. But TOW has a much shorter time of flight and might be a more appropriate weapon for the antitank role. I must also mention, as my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham has done, the question of reserves. I believe that the logic of the increased pressure on the defence budget of manpower cost will lead us to examine the possibility of moving more closely towards the concept of a citizen force. Without some radical departure of this kind we shall be unable to keep down manpower costs sufficiently to buy the sophisticated equipment which we shall need.
  I turn to a matter considerably further afield, namely the ANZUK force. It is possible that the Australian withdrawal may lead to deficiencies in manpower on the ground. If that is to be the case, and if the shortfall cannot be met by Malaysians and Singaporeans, I suggest that one of the Gurkha battalions could be transferred from Hong Kong to operate in Malaysia and Singapore.
  My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Major-General Jack d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) referred to the report of the Expenditure Committee which suggested that much more could be done to rationalise

  717
  functions among the three Services. A classic area of activity in this respect would be officer cadet training. I have mentioned this matter in earlier debates. Indeed. I first raised the point on 21st June 1971.
  The Army subjects its Regular officers to a 21-week Regular careers course at Sandhurst. The cadets enter for three major academic subjects—political and social studies, which include international affairs, contemporary Britain and military technology. All this is aimed at mind-broadening and it is also highly relevant to a professional officer's career. These are all academic disciplines which are basically common to the officers of all three Services. Therefore, I suggest that it would be rational if these officer cadet training courses, not just in the Army, were combined at Greenwich so that the educational staffs could be minimised and costs reduced.
  I welcome almost all that has been said in this debate, and I welcome particularly the rôle undertaken by our Services in Northern Ireland. I pay special tribute to the local Yorkshire regiments which are serving in Northern Ireland. I refer in particular to the Duke of Wellington's regiment which is in Londonderry and the Prince of Wales regiment which is serving in Belfast. Two of our locally-recruited regiments, one of Gunners and the local cavalry regiment, are also serving in Northern Ireland. The fact that those local regiments are serving there shows the extent to which the task of preserving the unity of our country is commonly shared by all arms of the Army. I unhesitatingly pay those regiments a tribute.
  8.48 p.m.
  Mr. Iain Sproat: I wish to confine myself to making a few observations about T & AVR, and perhaps I should declare an interest since I am a reasonably active serving member of the fourth Royal Greenjackets. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkingson) paid tribute to the splendid work of our forces in Northern Ireland, and I would hardly presume to praise the way in which they have behaved.
  I wish to pay tribute to the UDR. I recently spent a couple of weeks training with some of its personnel. I do not

  718
  think that people realise the tremendous sacrifice that those men make, because after undertaking their normal civilian occupations during the day they spend a number of evenings each week engaged upon military duties. I pay high tribute to them for that sacrifice and for the spirit in which they undertake their tasks.
  Although it must be said that T & AVR members are not totally satisfied with the Government's attitude, they are convinced that the Government believe in the value of the Territorials. They feel that there is a will to help on the part of the Government and the build-up in recruitment figures is heartening proof of this fact.
  A number of hon. Members have mentioned that although we all look forward very much to the review which is to begin in July, it will not be satisfactory if it ignores such questions as fresh definitions of the rôles and functions of the T & AVR, the role of the T & AVR in peace time as opposed to that in war time, and whether there should be a special basis for internal security. These matters must be discussed, but I do not think that this is the time or place to do that.
  One matter which I wish to discuss in this connection is the question of the flexibility of the call-out, in particular the call-out in certain specific emergencies. The Secretary of State for Defence has always been rather sticky about this and I am not at all sure why. I know that some hon. Members are in favour of a call-out in Northern Ireland. Some would favour a call-out for strike-breaking and that sort of emergency. But there seems a very clear rôle for the T&AVR in certain natural disasters. The disaster at Aberfan has been mentioned, and there were the floods in Kent and in Surrey. I should have thought that they were absolutely suitable situations in which T&AVR units could be used.
  I am sure that the men are keen to help in such emergencies. They have the transport and the equipment and the command organisation which is necessary. In some natural disasters men of the T&AVR have rendered help, although they have appeared not in their uniforms but in civilian attire. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will look again at the question of

  719
  when the T&AVR could be called out. We should have more flexibility about this.
  I make another specific, fairly small but important point. Mention has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) of the shortage of officers in the T&AVR. I draw attention to the present situation at Sandhurst. There are a number of two-week courses held at Sandhurst and I say unreservedly that they are first class. The quality of instruction given by the officers and NCOs is absolutely outstanding. I cannot think of a word of criticism that I could make about the way in which they run the courses. The trouble is that this year there will be only five such courses and after June there will be no more at Sandhurst this year. I suppose that about 30 people take part in each course and we commission another 150 men every year.
  I do not think that is enough. I appreciate that there are real difficulties and blockages with other courses, short commissions and direct entry, but I ask my hon. Friend to see whether more funds can be made available in some way so that more courses may be held at Sandhurst and so that we do not have an absence of courses there in the last six months of the year. If a man goes into the T&AVR hoping to get a commission, spends a year in the ranks and is then told by his commanding officer "We shall put you up for a commission", and he is later told that there are no more places for a whole year ahead, that man may say, "I will not spend two years in the ranks: I shall leave". It is a very considerable problem and I hope that my hon. Friend will look into it.
  On the question of recruiting, has my hon. Friend statistics of the number of short-service officers coming back into the T & AVR? Is anything specific being done to encourage them to come in? When I asked a Question about this some months ago I believe he said that the figures were about to be collected, but they had not then been collected.
  The T & AVR has an annual wastage rate of about 20 per cent., but perhaps it is wrong to think of this as wastage in the sense that these men are wasted, because they are not. They go back to civilian life

  720
  and take with them the attitude of service to the public and so on which made them join the T & AVR in the first place. They do not forget their basic drills. Nevertheless, the fact that there is an annual wastage of 20 per cent. means that it is necessary to recruit at least 25 per cent. if the T & AVR is to make up for those who slip away through wastage and keep up to the figures which the Government want it to have.
  In the recent Press campaign for the T & AVR, £25,000 was spent on national advertising and £15,000 on local advertising. The "coupon" campaign produced about 200 responses. Many were from old gentlemen of over 75 asking what part they could play, and some were from schoolchildren under age. It is doubtful whether the T & AVR got 100 more men as a result of the campaign.
  That is a very low return in terms of normal commercial acceptability for the money that was laid out, and without being too critical of that campaign I must say that it was not very successful in many ways. There must be more effective advertising. Advertising for officers is not satisfactory, and more money must be spent for this purpose.
  The Regular Army gets £1·7 million for advertising while the T & AVR gets about £100,000. I do not regard that ratio as satisfactory when one considers what a supremely worthwhile institution the T & AVR is, and I hope that my hon. Friend will consider whether more funds can be made available to increase advertising for recruits for the T & AVR.
  8.57 p.m.
  Dr. Alan Glyn: In the few moments left to me I should like to make three points. My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) and the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) seemed to put forward two different themes, but I believe that they are not different but are basically the same. We have to face the fact that, however much technology we introduce into the forces, be they laser beams or tactical nuclear weapons, it will be many years before there is any significant change, and in the meantime we are faced with the necessity for the ultimate deterrent of nuclear strategy based on Polaris. As the hon. Member for Sutton

  721
  said, I hope that we shall be able to combine with the French to produce a coherent nuclear policy. Whether they produce the tactical nuclear weapon and we produce the strategic nuclear one does not matter. We must work together.
  I support what has been said about the T&AVR. Many years ago some of my hon. Friends and I were instrumental in persuading the Government to allow the reserve forces to train overseas. We should now go a stage further and allow the T&AVR to be called up without a general proclamation. The T&AVR should be used far more as part of the Regular Army. It should be employed in civil operations for which it is well equipped. I am certain that the T&AVR would welcome the change because it is a force which is increasing and which, thanks to the Government's policy, is strong, well equipped and mobile. It most certainly could be used to reinforce the Regular forces.
  I am glad to know that housing is being given priority in the Army. Not only shall we be able in future to see our way to negotiate with the German Government about the purchase of property, rather than expensive renting, but we shall also be in a position to offer very much better accommodation.
  Many of us are worried about men who leave the forces—there is one case about which I shall be writing to the Minister—occupying quarters which should be occupied by serving men because this ex-Army family are not able to get a civilian house immediately. We have a duty to soldiers leaving the Army to make sure that they get accommodation, or at least to help them in finding it.
  I think that we must consider the question of the standardisation of equipment, because it would represent a considerable saving in NATO. Whether it is a joint operation in tank building or ensuring that the small arms of various countries are identical, the matter must be looked at seriously.
  I should like to pay a tribute to activities in Northern Ireland of the Guards regiments of the Household Division from my constituency in Windsor, who have served well in the Province.

  722
  May I ask my hon. Friend the Undersecretary the most sticky question of all? I believe that it is possible to seal off the border between Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland. When I was attached to the Foreign Legion we sealed off the entire border between Algeria and Tunisia and did so very effectively and at low cost. Sophisticated weapons were used in the operation. It would be possible at relatively small cost to seal the border and if this were done it would save many lives and much work. I am told that it is a long frontier but it is certainly not as long as the Algerian frontier.
  9.2 p.m.
  Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: In the recent defence debate hon. Members on both sides of the House inevitably focussed their attention on cost. This is inevitable in peace time given the competing claims of other spending Departments, especially for the social services. There is bound to be competition. Just as we subject those Departments increasingly to cost-effective analysis, so we must subject the Estimates to the most searching scrutiny. That scrutiny is directed tonight at the Army.
  I have been an appreciative listener to all the contributions from both sides of the House. All were informed, some were critical, but I hope the House will forgive me if I single out my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), not only because he is a former soldier of considerable experience but also because we have origins in common, having been brought up in the same village.
  Some of the contributions were inclined to be critical in one respect or another. That delivered by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) was forward looking. None lacked understanding or sympathy with the subject before us. I hope that I shall prove worthy of their company and I express my warm appreciation to my right hon. Friends for this opportunity to speak. I also want to say to the Army that we think it in their interests that we should satisfy ourselves that the right balance has been struck in the ceaseless teeth versus tail argument, that the distribution of the defence budget between hardware and research and development

  723
  on the one hand and personnel and support on the other is initially beneficial. Such a scrutiny is all the more urgent in view of the mounting financial pressure developing for the defence budget for the late 1970's. The budgetary costs of some projects are already casting their shadows ahead. The steady upward drift of defence as a percentage of GNP is likely to continue if present policies are maintained. My hon. Friends have nothing but good will for the services but they must be disturbed by such a forecast when we are on the verge of talks on mutual and balanced force reductions in central Europe, and the Government must be prepared for a renewed interest in the economics of defence by the Opposition. We recognise that it is a subject on which a delicate balance must be struck between the need for informed debate on one hand and the wisdom of a certain amount of discretion on the other. Yet, as David Watt pointed out in the Financial Times on 23rd March,
  "The only way in which this Government can cope with the ebb and flow of public opinion on an emotional subject like defence is first, to be genuinely open about the arguments, and secondly to put forward a policy in which commitments, strategy and purpose of defence equipment can be clearly seen to march hand-in-hand."
  For our debate tonight that means some assessment and evaluation of the size, the equipment and the deployment of the Army, with particular reference to its major commitment in Northern Ireland, and the possible consequences for its morale. That is my brief.
  On such occasions as this, however, it is conventional to invoke fulsome praise and to make ritual genuflections. The best compliment that can be paid is to see the Army as it sees itself, to assess it in terms of its own advertising material, though I accept that there could be something in the criticism by the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. David Walder), but only in so far as it refers to advertising for officer recruitment. I do not believe that it applies to the advertising material that I have here for boy soldiers and youth recruitment. I regard that as absolutely first-rate.
  Above all I like those advertisements that present the Army as a professional body. I see it then as a body which is concerned not only with skills but with standards, and that is my approach. Size

  724
  means manpower, and manpower is now dependent upon voluntary recruitment. The expectation is that recruitment should yield a regular flow of new recruits providing a balanced distribution of age, experience and skills. That is the ideal situation.
  But what about reality? Recruiting figures for boy soldiers are good but the Donaldson Option wastage rates are disturbing, as are the adult recruiting figures, which have declined from their buoyant level of 1971–72. A fall had been expected, but will the Minister confirm that the actual decline was greater than was feared? The fall has been cushioned so far by the continuing improvement in junior recruiting, but this will be shortlived because of the raising of the school leaving age.
  Furthermore, as the Secretary of State reminded us two nights ago when addressing the Royal United Services Institute for Defence Studies,
  "Demographic trends suggest that our recruiting prospects are not going to become any easier; if anything, the reverse".
  Re-engagement figures are disappointing and so is officer recruitment. Clearly the Army will have a struggle to reach its manpower targets in the short term, given intense civilian job competition, to which there was also a reference from hon. Members opposite.
  Is the Minister sure that he is doing enough to attract recruits? Is he sure that the Army can hang on to those men already in the Service and thus retain its soldiers for a full 22 years instead of their leaving for other jobs while still in their twenties? Has he taken full cognizance of the pressures building up in the US congress for a 50 per cent. reduction in American troop levels in Europe, and what contingency plans are there for such a situation?
  Equipment is a vital factor in the attraction of recruits. The effectiveness of the Army depends on the most modern equipment—and it is heartening to read in the Defence White Paper of the details of improvements planned for 1973–74. However, what is to be the future rôle and strength of the helicopter—a question that has been asked in the House frequently in recent weeks. The present force would appear to reflect the views of those who see the helicopter as a useful addition to the Army's mobility but

  725
  not one sufficiently valuable to replace tanks, other ground vehicles and artillery.
  On the other side of the controversy are those who see it as a new multi-purpose vehicle and weapon platform. Supporters of that view include the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeen-shire, West (Lieut.-Colonel Colin Mitchell) and the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson). Do not their persuasive arguments deserve some reply? This development may be so costly that it can take place only on the basis of that co-operative project referred to by the Under Secretary in his opening speech, the Anglo-French helicopter. Is this what is meant by the policy reference on page 1 of the Defence White Paper to the fresh opportunity 1973 will provide for
  "Increased scope for developing closer European defence co-operation within the framework of the Alliance.
  The White Paper proceeds:
  "Meanwhile the task of assisting the civil power in Northern Ireland remains a major commitment of the Army."
  Henceforth I shall be concerned not only with the deployment of the Army in Northern Ireland but also with its morale and its welfare. Finally, I shall touch upon a new trend in military thinking that could lead the Army into a departure, no matter how slight, from its traditional non-political stance.
  How far are the recruitment difficulties and the re-engagement difficulties due to Northern Ireland, where some battalions are now going for a fourth and fifth tour? At present, according to the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) in the recent defence debate,
  "we are putting too much strain on the troops."
  The hon. Member said that many senior officers and junior ranks to whom he had spoken in recent months agreed that a 12-month break between emergency four-month tours was reasonable. But at the moment, in the judgment of the hon. Member, far too many units are being sent back to Northern Ireland on emergency tours after a break of only eight months or even less. He concluded:
  "These frequent tours have a particularly bad effect on re-engagement, especially as a high proportion of those involved are young married men".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th March 1973; Vol. S52, c. 1535.]

  726
  It is interesting to recall that every speaker on this side of the House has taken up this theme or has otherwise expressed some concern about the possible strain on soldiers resulting from service in Northern Ireland.
  I wonder: is this the explanation for 28 soldiers of 16 Parachute Brigade suddenly wanting to buy themselves out of 2nd Battalion last December when it came under orders to return to Northern Ireland in March for its fifth tour in just over three years? The Commander of 16 Parachute Brigade explained that only 15 out of the 28 specifically mentioned Northern Ireland as a reason for leaving and about 28 men might well ask to buy themselves out in a normal year anyway, for a variety of reasons. But the fact that he felt it was necessary to call a Press conference at which he was flanked by a team of experts on military personnel matters, and supported by the Deputy Adjutant General at Headquarters UK Land Forces, suggests that if there were no problem of morale among the paras when they came under orders to return to Northern Ireland, there is certainly one on the part of their brigadier. Should there, then, not be some appraisal of the kind called for by my right hon. Friend at the beginning of the debate of the effect on our troops of service in Northern Ireland?
  Can the Minister assure the House that he is doing all that can reasonably be done to reduce the strain on the soldiers now serving here? Is he satisfied with their accommodation? A year last January, following careful, responsible and sympathetic on-the-spot investigations by the then "Crusading Journalist of the Year", Colin Brannigan, editor of the Sheffield Star, I drew the attention of the House to the primitive conditions with which many of them had to contend.
  The Minister of State for Defence may smile, but the then Minister for the Army admitted that the Government were aware of some of the deplorable conditions in which Service men lived in Northern Ireland, some of which were subsequently described by one of our newspapers as fit only for pigs.
  Mr. Ian Gilmour: I was not smiling at the hon. Member's reference to the deplorable conditions, but I was sharing a smile with his right hon. and hon. Friends.
  Mr. Duffy: The hon. Gentleman's predecessor pointed out at the time that some of these conditions were imposed by the tactical nature of the posts where they carried out their duties, but considerable improvements were being carried out based in part, he promised, on a £500,000 comforts fund.
  Colin Brannigan is now satisfied that a colossal improvement has taken place during the last year. The new camp at Aldergrove is most appreciated, though the Lurgan camp is also impressive. The biggest success is probably the portable shower. New swimming pools at Shackleton and Holywood Barracks have been provided, but when does the Minister expect they will come into use? Commanding officers have still to grapple with complaints and problems arising from food, welfare, discotheques and girls. Nevertheless, there is a more hopeful feeling abroad following the publication of the White Paper on Northern Ireland. Moreover, there are some welcome signs of de-escalation especially in Derry. But the continued morale of the Army should not be taken for granted.
  Accommodation in Dungiven is still very bad. Is there a difficulty here in engaging local contractors? The Short Strand bus depot is still a problem. This raises the question of the continued use of bus depots by the Army. When are the troops to be allowed to get out of them?
  The Antrim Bridging Camp facilities are also terrible for some soldiers, as are some RUC stations. Is the Minister aware that in the RUC station in Dungiven one constable occupies one room while eight soldiers have to do with the other room?
  Is the Minister aware that, after only nine months or so, some of the amenities installed, such as washing machines, are already jiggered. This is hardly surprising. They are not used once or twice a week by housewives, but 24 hours a day by soldiers. Nothing less than heavy, purpose-built equipment will do, and maintenance is vital.
  Telephones are still in short supply. My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield reminded us just how urgent they can become on the evening of a particular
  728
  day following some incident and given its early broadcast.
  Clearly the Minister should have given more attention to the problem of accommodation in Northern Ireland in his opening speech. It was not good enough to say that it had been covered in the defence debate. Nor, if he looks at HANSARD afterwards, will he agree that that was strictly accurate.
  What of the provisions for death or injury attributable to service in Northern Ireland? The Minister of State, opening the defence debate, informed the House that he hoped to be able to make a statement shortly about improved provisions which will apply to all regular Service men who are in the Forces on or after Saturday last. Does he know how his statement has been received? Many of the troops, when they observe the size of the compensation sums currently awarded to civilian casualties, fear that it will be too little. Where they are garrison troops with more than a year's service in Northern Ireland behind them, or non-garrison troops on their fourth tour, they are sure that it comes too late.
  What of Service pay? The next biennial review is due in April 1974, though the Armed Forces Pay Review Body has said that it will keep Service pay under continuing review and will be free to put forward recommendations on particular aspects of the subject whenever it believes them to be necessary. It must surely consider soon the need for such a review, given the erosions of inflation. But given phase 2, the Review Body would have to take account of the guidelines. As it is all too plain by now that the prices side of phase 2 is not developing to plan, those guidelines cannot possibly do justice to Service men anywhere, particularly in Northern Ireland. Does the Minister think that this state of affairs can be anything but seriously detrimental to morale?
  Mr. Biaker: I should like to be clear for my own purposes that I am following the hon. Gentleman. Is he talking about the ex gratia payments for injury and death or about pay?
  Mr. Duffy: I made no reference to the ex gratia payments, but rather to the provision that will be made for Service

  729
  men after Saturday last, details of which are to be made available, and about which there is already much speculation, as the Minister will expect, among the troops. I was faithfully reflecting early reactions on the part of some troops to that announcement. Then I moved on to talk about pay and the way in which I suspect that Service men's pay will be affected by phase 2 and by the guidelines even more than any other body in our society. I am asking whether the Minister thinks that would be seriously detrimental to morale.
  What of leave? Given the severe restrictions on the movement of off-duty soldiers, is the Minister quite certain that more imaginative and generous leave arrangements cannot be worked out?
  What of resettlement? In view of the recent study by the Defence sub-committee of the Expenditure Committee and the imaginative speech in the defence debate by the hon. and gallant Member men who are in the fotrces on or after for Lichfield and Tamworth (Major-General Jack d'Avigdor Goldsmid), does he not think that an entirely new approach may be required if soldiers are to be persuaded that they will not lose out by staying in for the full 22 years?
  There can hardly be an hon. Member on either side of the House who has not had a constituent who has served in the Army in Northern Ireland. Each of us knows, therefore, of the appalling strain on them. Their loyalty and dedication to duty is not in question. But, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition observed in the debate last week on the White Paper on Northern Ireland:
  "… we have a duty, too—and that is not to impose on the loyalty and dedication of the Armed Forces more than they can reasonably be asked to bear. They were put in to hold the ring and observe an impartial security authority…. They were never asked by their presence to provide a political solution, still less to provide a military solution in the absence of a political solution".
  May I remind the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) that the White Paper is an answer to our demand for a political solution. "It is perilously late", my right hon. Friend pointed out,
  "but it accepts our point, that while the security forces must be given every backing in getting on top of violence, there is at the end of the road no military solution but only a political solution".
  Mr. Critchley: I did not, I think, suggest that there was only a military solution to the problem of Northern Ireland. I suggested only that the two things went hand in hand.
  Mr. Duffy: In that case, I withdraw what I said, but I received the impression that the hon. Gentleman put more emphasis on a military solution than on a political solution.
  Giving the Government full support in the Lobbies last week did not mean, as my right hon. Friend warned,
  "… that we endorse all the decisions and policies which have held us and Northern Ireland to the point at which this White Paper is presented."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th March 1973; Vol. 853, c. 1538–47.]
  We may be moved yet again to criticism, but it will be of the Government, not the Army. For only the Government of the day can define the policy limits within which the military forces must plan and operate—and it is those policies which at present place the Army in a pitifully vulnerable position on the streets of Ulster.
  Therefore Ministers must stand their ground and defend their discharge of these policies. They have no right to share the soldier's privileged position, nor to seek refuge behind a pompous summons to patriotism, much less impugn the motivation underlying the concern expressed continually by hon. Members on this side of the House. It is possible to endorse and support the British Army, as we unhesitatingly do, and still despair occasionally, as I have done, of, say, the Minister of State for Defence. There is no inconsistency here and no betrayal.
  For all its warlike features, for all the violence and the agony, Ulster, like Aden and Cyprus, the East African mutinies and the Borneo confrontation, is not a war involving the survival of Britain but a political disaster which must be resolved in the end by democratic politicians and democratic methods. One common characteristic of all those campaigns, however, was the rôle of the Army. It has been and still is in Northern Ireland to stabilise a disturbed political situation, to contain conflicting elements which were prepared to resort to force in order to disrupt the normal political process, and to enable that process to be peacefully resumed.

  731
  This presumably explains why two distinguished soldiers, Brigadier Michael Calvert, a wartime leader of the Chindits in Burma and responsible subsequently for the reorganisation of the Special Air Service, and Brigadier Frank Kitson, commandant of the School of Infantry at Warminster, have given so much attention and thought in recent years to counter-insurgency.
  While anti-riot architecture and anti-insurrection urban structure exercise the mind of Brigadier Calvert, Brigadier Kitson seeks to re-structure society itself in terms of civil-military relations.
  Early in his book called, "Low Intensity Operations", which has attracted a foreword by the Chief of the General Staff, General Sir Michael Carver, we read it described as
  "… written for the soldier of today to help him prepare for the operations of tomorrow",
  Brigadier Kitson observes that apart from Northern Ireland
  "… there are other potential trouble spots within the United Kingdom that might involve the Army in operations of a sort against political extremists who are prepared to resort to a considerable degree of violence to achieve their ends."
  Mr. Wiggin: Quite right.
  Mr. Wilkinson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that very point?
  Mr. Duffy: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press me. I may say that I heard one of his hon. Friends say, "Quite right".
  Mr. Wiggin: Yes. I did.
  Mr. Duffy: Brigadier Kitson acknowledges that the British, with their traditions of stability, find it hard to imagine disorders arising beyond the powers of the police to handle, yet
  "… already there are indications that such a situation could arise. Fighting subversion may therefore be right on some occasions, in the same way that fostering it may be right on others, and the army of any country should be capable of carrying out either of these functions if necessary…".
  We recognise that it is the duty of soldiers to prepare for contingencies which civilians would rather shut out of their minds. We also recognise that it is to the great credit of the Army that it should throw up two such good minds. But the children of the mind are some-
  732
  times like the children of the flesh: if their parents could foresee their future development they would strangle them at birth. As right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench have had reason to know at Question Time recently, these books have caused a great deal of unease among my right hon. and hon. Friends.
  We are all too well aware of the clearly perceptible trend in this country. We do not have to be told that there is a malaise. It is a universal malaise. It is not confined to our society. It is a malaise towards violence, towards anarchy and even towards a contempt for established order. We are equally aware that these are problems which call for remedies conceived in this House and not by soldiers which would involve them in an infringement, no matter how well in-tentioned, of the well-established frontier of civil-military relations.
  We have to go back a very long time, to 1655, to find the last occasion on which the military power controlled the political power in Britain. That was when Cromwell set up an emergency rule of 12 major-generals who were entirely responsible for the administration of justice and so on in their areas, after the dissolution of the first Parliament, or the Protectorate or, as it is known in the history books, the barebones Parliament.
  We say gently to such gentlemen as Brigadier Calvert and Brigadier Kitson, "We respect you. We honour you. We are grateful to you. We look to the Army to continue to throw up men of your stature and your intellectual qualities. We are anxious to help you become the finest exponents of your military craft. But in exchange we expect you voluntarily to sacrifice some of the basic freedoms of the society that you serve so well—the freedom of expression and political activity and the freedom to engage in public controversy—for this is the well-founded basis of the relationship between the Armed Forces and the rest of the community in a liberal democracy."
  9.29 p.m.
  Mr. Blaker: The House will agree that this has been a high-level and a serious debate on both sides. I am sorry to say that it is clear to me that I shall not be able to take up anywhere near all the

  733
  very valuable points which have been made and the serious and important questions which have been asked. But I assure the House that they will all be considered and, where it is appropriate, that letters will be written to hon. Members in answer to their questions.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) on what I believe to have been his first appearance at the Dispatch Box. The hon. Gentleman made some good points. In his latter remarks—I make this comment in the kindest possible way—he rather took off into the stratosphere. I am glad that he was pleased about the advertising directed towards young future soldiers. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Mr. David Walder) was dissatisfied with the advertising for future officers. It is too early to assess the value of our advertising campaign. We shall be doing so in due course. We have had indications from the people who matter in this context, such as schoolmasters, that it goes down rather well.
  The hon. Member for Attercliffe described the re-engagement figures as disappointing. I do not think that is fair comment. The re-engagement and the wastage figures tend to be satisfactory at present and have helped to offset the drop in recruiting.
  The hon. Gentleman was concerned about the strain on our forces imposed by service in Northern Ireland. He drew the wrong conclusions from the incident involving a number of soldiers from one of the parachute battalions who wished to leave the Army some months ago. The facts as I recall them were that a battalion had been in a situation for some months before where it was not possible, either because the soldiers were in Northern Ireland or were warned for Northern Ireland, or were on leave or doing special tasks, for them to leave the Army at that time. The 28 soldiers who wished to leave all came in a bunch. That incident should not be taken as alarming but should be considered proportionately.
  It is my impression that I dealt with accommodation in Northern Ireland at some length during the defence debate. I have not had time to check whether I did. I shall return to that matter in due course.
  734
  A statement was made last year at about this time about pay for the Armed Forces. It is open to the Pay Review Body to recommend an improvement in pay within phase 2 if that is regarded as appropriate.
  I am sure the right hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris) will be delighted that I return to the subject of the Welsh Guards and their motor cars. For some time that has been the right hon. Gentleman's favourite subject. He accuses the Ministry of Defence of inactivity between the first half of December 1972, when the problem came to light, and 25th January, when I was able to give him a reply about the special arrangements which had been agreed upon. Somebody once said something about ducks appearing fairly inactive above the surface but perhaps paddling furiously underneath. It is sometimes like that in Whitehall. The various Departments involved in the matter were considering the problem from the first moment it arose. It is not necessarily an indication of slowness if a problem of this kind takes six weeks to decide.
  The right hon. Gentleman knows from his own experience that it is possible to take decisions rapidly. Some of the worst decisions are taken very fast. If I wished to be controversial I could revert to the time when he was a Minister and refer to some of the rapid decisions taken within the Ministry of Defence at that time. The Welsh Guards problem took up six weeks to decide. That included the Christmas and New Year periods. By the end of our consideration we had reached a satisfactory solution. From now on, the arrangements at which we arrived will enable similar problems to be solved rapidly. We have made a change in the system which had lasted for many years.
  Mr. John Morris: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the care with which he has attended to this matter. Does he care to remind the House that as soon as I finished speaking today I received a letter which he had kindly sent to me? I sent him a letter on 11th February and the reply came today, 5th April. Does he regard that as the fast paddling of Whitehall ducks?
  Mr. Blaker: This is a most difficult case. The guardsman gave notice of his

  735
  intention to leave the Army as soon as he returned to this country. I have been giving particular attention to this case to see whether anything can be done. According to the rules, nothing can be done. It is because I want to consider it with care that I have taken the time I have.
  I repeat what I said earlier about the soldiers who sold their cars. All the soldiers concerned were advised by the commanding officer not to sell their cars because he hoped to get a concession, and loans from regimental funds were available to cover the bridging period. I take the view that this story does not reflect badly on the Ministry of Defence but rather shows how much trouble we are prepared to take to make sure that soldiers receive a fair deal.
  The right hon. Member for Aberavon asked about the Malaysian Army Training School, formerly known as the Jungle Warfare Training School. Last year one minor and one major unit trained there and this year two major units and one minor unit will train there.
  The hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), who did a world tour, seemed to be questioning the value of holding our forces in certain places. The answer in brief is that they are where they are because we believe that there is a military need for them to be there. Hong Kong, for example, is a British dependency. It is entirely appropriate that we should have forces there, and the forces which are there are appropriate for the rôle they have to play.
  Several hon. Members asked about Oman. There is in Oman a small British Army training team which is assisting in the training of the Sultan's forces. In accordance with the Treaty of Friendship, members of the British Services are serving on loan with the Sultan's forces. In this capacity they may take part in operations against Communist-supported troops in the south-western province of Dhofar. The Sultan's troops are fighting an important campaign to prevent the subversion from spreading in the area, and it is very much in our interests from the point of view of stability in the Gulf that the campaign should continue to make good progress.
  I turn to the question of the effects of service in Northern Ireland on our forces,
  736
  to which several hon. Members have referred. The job which our forces are carrying out in Northern Ireland is uncomfortable, dangerous and disagreeable. No one can pretend anything else. But it is striking that, in spite of the problems of turbulence and family separation that have arisen, the Army's standards of morale and discipline remain so high. On my visits to units of the Army in Northern Ireland, Great Britain and, more recently, Germany, I have met officers and soldiers who have served or are serving in Northern Ireland who are in good heart. I believe that that is due to good leadership and man management at all levels, and to the soldiers' understanding of the importance of the job that the Army has to do in Northern Ireland.
  At individual level, junior leaders acquire in four months experience that years of barrack and exercise training cannot give, and all ranks acquire heightened alertness. At senior level the demands of leadership are exacting, and units are welded together by the self-confidence which is achieved by operational service anywhere.
  As regards the military effects, it is true that service in Northern Ireland, and the training for internal security which is necessary, must restrict the time available for formation and battle group training in BAOR. This certainly is what has occurred. The result has been that the scale on which training takes place has had to be reduced from—I give one example only—brigade group level to battle group level. The effect on training differs from unit to unit. If an armoured regiment, a gunnery regiment or an engineering regiment has to convert to an infantry rôle, it will obviously suffer in its special training compared with the training of an infantry battalion. In addition, deployment to Northern Ireland reduces our ability to send units on overseas exercise. All this is fairly clear. We cannot ignore the effects but we can congratulate ourselves on the fact that, despite all these difficulties, the Army has risen very well to the occasion.
  I was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) whether we had had any complaints from our allies about the effect of the Northern Ireland situation on our training. The answer is that we have not. Indeed our

  737
  NATO allies have shown full understanding of the problems which result for us from the Northern Ireland situation. We are very grateful for that understanding.
  Concerning the effect on the numbers in BAOR compared with the situation before the emergency in Northern Ireland began, there has been a net loss of only 500 men because, while we have at present about 5,000 men from BAOR in Northern Ireland, the numbers otherwise have been increased by sending more men from this country.
  I was asked by the right hon. Member for Aberavon why the ex gratia payment scheme for casualties in Northern Ireland was not applied to soldiers injured elsewhere. The answer is that in the case of Northern Ireland we felt that there was a distinct group of cases, small in number but important, for whom it would be right to make a special provision outside the scope of the formal pension scheme. When we made this decision we knew that it would be bound to cause disappointment to those not covered by it. But we did not think on balance that this should stop us from giving limited special payments where they would do most good for the Northern Ireland casualties. The right lion. Gentleman asked whether the ex gratia payments go to the disabled. The answer is "Yes".
  I was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Dr. Glyn) and by the hon. Member for Mansfield about helping soldiers to find accommodation when they leave the Army. All ranks are given guidance and information on the choice of a civilian career and on all other matters affecting their resettlement, including housing, before they leave the Army. Advice on housing is not given in isolation. It clearly is connected with the other advice they receive at the same time.
  From a housing point of view, Servicemen fall into two main groups, namely, those who wish to buy a house of their own and those who wish to rent a house from a local authority. We have different arrangements for the two categories. For the former we have special schemes which assist them to set aside the money for purchasing a house. For the latter, hon. Members may remember that a circular was issued in 1965, by the then Ministry
  738
  of Housing and Local Government, to all housing authorities on the subject of housing for ex-Servicemen. That circular commended to the authorities certain special arrangements for ex-Servicemen. Time does not permit me to go into those arrangements now but I assure the House that before men leave the Army the council housing situation is carefully explained to them, and they are advised to apply to the appropriate council as soon as they know where they want to live.
  Mr. Fred Peart: Is the Minister satisfied that every local authority conforms to the spirit of what he has just said? The ideal is right, but I suspect that some authorities are very hostile.
  Mr. Blaker: I cannot say that I am satisfied that all local authorities conform to the spirit, but very many do. I was about to say that there is a case for consulting my right hon. Friend on whether it is time for another circular or for similar action.
  Dr. Glyn: Even when a local authority wishes with the best will in the world to house somebody, there is often an intermediate period when a man cannot find somewhere to fill the gap between the time when he should leave his quarters and local housing becoming available.
  Mr. Blaker: I note my hon. Friend's point.
  Mention was also made of soldiers discharged as a result of injuries received in Northern Ireland. They appear before a medical discharge board on which advice on all aspects of their resettlement is given. The Department of Employment is represented by a disablement resettlement officer who arranges rehabilitation and vocational training where such training is recommended. Assistance is given in finding suitable employment.
  The number of soldiers invalided out of the Army totals 27 out of about 120 very seriously ill or seriously ill casualties so far.
  I was asked how we propose to retain the interest of the 16-year-olds in joining the Army after the raising of the school leaving age. I said that we would intensify our efforts to recruit boys at that age. We must remember that the same

  739
  rules will apply to everyone. Therefore, we shall not be adversely affected compared with industry or anyone else.
  We propose to introduce a guaranteed vacancy scheme under which boys can apply for a vacancy in the Army's junior training organisation and attend an Army youth selection centre during their last year at school. They will not be enlisted into the junior Army before reaching the new school leaving age. A guaranteed vacancy places them under no obligation. We hope that by this arrangement and by keeping in touch with the boys who are accepted for vacancies under the scheme we shall be able to help to retain their interest against the day when they leave school.
  A question about fuses was asked. A statement on the matter will be made soon, and I can say no more about it now.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Alder-shot discussed the length of the unaccompanied tour in Northern Ireland. We have considered the matter very carefully. My hon. Friend suggested that it should be six months instead of four. There would be certain advantages in making it six months, and my hon. Friend mentioned some, but there are good reasons why the soldiers should not in general remain for longer than four months at a time. The reasons have to do partly with their training and availability for NATO or national exercises, but the overriding factor is the degree of strain to which the soldiers are constantly subject while they are operating in Northern Ireland. Those hon. Members who have visited them, as my hon. Friend has, will understand that they are under considerable strain.
  My hon. Friend also referred to the adequacy of search equipment for use on the border. The main problem is not the equipment that we have for the searching but the choice of whom to search. I do not think the House needs reminding of the very large number of people and vehicles still moving between the North and the South every day. I am not saying we are fully satisfied with the present equipment. There have been enormous technical advances in this field and we wish to take advantage of them as the new equipment is developed.
  740
  The hon. Member for Mansfield expressed concern about the anxiety caused to families when they hear on television or radio that there has been a casualty in Northern Ireland. This is a subject to which I have given considerable attention. We have been able during recent months to speed up considerably the notification of casualties to the next of kin. I believe that this has made a great difference to those who unfortunately are next of kin or relatives of those wounded or killed and also in relieving the anxiety of those people whose relatives are not affected.
  I was asked by the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) about a replacement for the P&E Establishment at Shoeburyness. All I can tell him at the moment is that redeployment of those facilities is still under examination. I can be rather more forthcoming to him on one other question he asked, about SSAFA assistance to BAOR. We have recently provided more and we will see that still more is provided as and when the work load requires it. I was also asked about standardisation of the terminology of character assessment. We have now achieved what the hon. Gentleman asked us to do, so at least I have been able to answer satisfactorily two of his three questions to me.
  I was asked about the use of the T & AVR in Northern Ireland. I will not go into that again because I did so in the defence debate and time does not permit my going over it now. A number of my hon. Friends referred to the terms of reference for the forthcoming review of the T & AVR. I cannot hold out any hope that those terms can be altered to take account of its rôle and various other wider factors mentioned by my hon. Friends, because the review has the particular purpose of looking into the structure of the T & AVR as it is, with its present rôle. I will, however, study carefully what my hon. Friends have said.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson) asked about the helicopter and its rôle in the land battle. I can assure them that the importance of the helicopter in the land battle is fully recognised. A new generation of helicopters—the Gazelle and the Lynx—is

  741
  being introduced to meet this need. Certainly, one of the factors we have very much in mind is the rôle of the helicopter in an anti-tank capacity. The results of exercise Sky Warrior are still being evaluated.
  My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Major-General Jack d'Avigdor Goldsmid) pointed out that some points he had made, I believe in the context of (he Sub-Committee, had not been replied to. I gave an undertaking earlier to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison) with reference to what he had said, and I shall look into the integration of training. As regards the UKLF, I shall write to my hon. and gallant Friend.
  The important question of remuneration for the ATOs was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart). My hon. Friend the Minister of State said in the defence debate that we would consider the suggestion of special remuneration for them. There is no doubt about their gallantry and bravery. I must tell the House there are difficulties about doing what is recommended, but I recognise the strength of feeling in the House on this matter. I would point out that since 1969 these officers and other ranks have received 13 decorations, including one George Cross, seven George Medals and three mentions in despatches.
  The hon. Member for Attercliffe referred to accommodation in Northern Ireland. I was glad that Mr. Brannigan had reported a considerable improvement in the situation. I am sure he is right and we have reason to congratulate the Department of the Environment and others on the speed with which they have dealt with the problem.
  The figures of new construction have been mentioned in other debates and I shall not go into them again now. Next year we intend to keep up the impetus and we expect to spend nearly £4 million on troop accommodation—for example, on items such as new temporary accommodation, kitchen equipment, improvements in electricity and water supplies, and so on. We shall go on making improvements in terms of better lavatory accommodation, better eating facilities
  742
  and all the rest. Some 30 industrial washing machines have recently been installed. Furthermore, two swimming pools have almost been completed. We also plan to improve the accommodation for the UDR at a cost of nearly £2 million.
  It is clear that even this will not eliminate all unsuitable locations or the overcrowding in some accommodation. This is inherent in any operational situation. The changing levels of the force in Northern Ireland compel us to occupy certain locations even though they are unsuitable. But we have made progress and we hope to make even more.
  In regard to troop welfare in general, we have taken a number of other important steps in recent months, including privilege leave flights from Northern Ireland and Germany to the United Kingdom. I was asked how much these privilege flights to the United Kingdom were used. I cannot give the House the figures but I can say that those flights are well patronised. More television sets have been bought and live entertainment has also been increased.
  Much of the debate has rightly turned on the difficulties which have resulted from the Army's role in Northern Ireland, and the problem of housing has been highlighted. We have heard comments about the effects of the Army's training programme in terms of its main rôle, the effect on the troops and their families, and so on. I have tried to tell the House what we are doing about these problems but to some extent they are an inevitable consequence of the Northern Ireland situation.
  I have also tried to look at the more optimistic side of the picture—for example, at what we have done in improving the amenities of our troops and their families, and also in terms of giving our forces the equipment and training to fit them for their major rôle in Western Europe and their task generally.
  In Northern Ireland the Army has an important job to do and the Government intend to make sure that it has the means and support necessary to enable it to do it. This does not mean that we are seeking a purely military solution. In the long run the solution can only be a

  743
  political one. The Army's rôle must be seen in the light of the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to that end. For a political solution to work, the Army must master the terrorists and help to create conditions in which reason can prevail among reasonable men.
  We cannot tell how long this will take, although in recent months there have been encouraging signs. The necessary troops will be provided and we must do all we can to maintain their morale and give them a wider understanding of the job they are doing. We shall not let them down, and I am sure that they will not let the nation down.
  It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That at this day's Sitting the Costs in Criminal Cases Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour; and that the Motion relating to Road Traffic (S.I., 1973, No. 180) may be proceeded with, though opposed, until half-past Eleven o'clock.— [Mr. Murton.]

  COSTS IN CRIMINAL CASES BILL [Lords]
  Considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.
  Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading) and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

  MOTOR CYCLISTS (HELMETS)
  10.3 p.m.
  Mr. Ronald Bell: I beg to move,
  That this House takes note of the Motor Cycles (Wearing of Helmets) Regulations 1973 (S.I., 1973, No. 180), dated 7th February 1973, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th February.
  Perhaps I should say a word about the form of this motion. It started life as a Prayer against the statutory instrument requiring those riding on motor cycles to wear crash helmets, but before time could be found for it to be debated the 40 days applicable to a Prayer had run out. Accordingly, my motion has been transformed into one to "take note" of this statutory instrument. That is the procedure to be adopted, but I assure the House that the last thing I want to do is to take note of this instrument. Since I consider that an important question of principle arises here, having moved that motion, I shall ultimately vote against it and invite my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite to adopt the same procedure of principle with me and to vote against taking note of this instrument, that being the only way in which at this stage after the 40 days have passed the House can indicate its dissent from the course that has been taken.
  This statutory instrument, which comes into operation on 1st June, is the end of a long story. There have been those who for many years have tried to bring the compulsion of the law upon those riding motor bicycles as drivers or passengers to wear safety helmets. This first arose to my recollection in 1956 in the Road Traffic Bill of that year. I am happy to say that I made then very much the same speech I propose to make tonight.
  I am glad to say that on that occasion both sides of the House took very much the same view. Both Front Benches took the same view very emphatically and vigorously. At that time it was the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) who was on the Opposition Front Bench, and he was both emphatic and explicit in his condemnation of this gross infringement of persona] liberty.
  On the Government Front Bench there was my right hon. Friend who is now
  746
  Lord Watkinson. Ministers of the Crown are not usually explicit and staunch in their vindication of principles. They lend to adopt a rather more empirical view of life but my right hon. Friend was on the right side anyway. There was also Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett. He, too, spoke vigorously against what was proposed. There were other good men and true on both sides of the House. The general feeling was that this would be an outrage against the established principles of freedom which we in this country prize so highly.
  At the time that that debate took place in 1956, 40 per cent. of motor cyclists —I use the word in the broad sense of passengers and riders—were in the practice of wearing safety helmets. That was the figure that we were given. It was in that situation, when 60 per cent. of those on motor cycles did not take this sensible precaution, as I am sure we all think it is, that right hon. and hon. Members, without much hesitation, took this stand of principle.
  The next stage was in 1962, on the Road Traffic Bill of that year, when there was proposed on Report—an awful lot of mischief happens on Report, but I must not digress into that, tempting though it be to do so—a new clause to give the Minister power to make an order such as the one that has been made and is before the House tonight.
  That again was a matter of great controversy. By that time the right hon. Member for Vauxhall had changed sides. He has done what I think is nowadays called a U-turn. I had the pleasure of quoting some extracts from his speech in 1956—I think somewhat to his displeasure. On the Opposition Front Bench was the present Minister for Local Government and Development, my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr Graham Page). I shall not quote what he said, because I have not given him notice. I have not given anyone notice, so I must not quote what others nave said. But there were again good men and true, and they stood up for the right principles and opposed the infringement of personal liberties which this kind of thing involves.
  That was only a question of power, but that is how liberty is lost—never all

  747
  at once. Ministers are given power to do something if it seems desirable that it should be done. I ask right hon. and hon. Members to cast around in their memories to discover whether they can recall any instance when a Minister has been given a power in such circumstances and has not ended up by using it.
  Mr. Ernie Money: Would my hon. and learned Friend agree that, the House having taken that view, it was equally incumbent upon it to take a far stronger line on a matter of far deeper concern to the majority of motor cyclists, namely, the raising from 16 to 17 of the age for licences?
  Mr. Bell: My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Money) has raised a very interesting, but I am sure he will not mind if I say, a not very relevant, point. This has to do with motor cyclists of course, as has the cost of petrol, tyres and repairs. These regulations are all about motor cyclists, but they have nothing whatever to do with the issue of principle before the House tonight, namely, whether it is a right use of the law-making power to interfere with people solely for their own good and without having to take into account at all the good of the rest of the community.
  The point at issue in 1956—I have not mentioned this before because I thought it was clear—and in 1962 was the principle of liberty as to whether it is legitimate to use the power of Parliament to interfere with somebody to prevent him from doing harm to somebody else, but not in order to force him to live his life as we think wisely and to his own best advantage.
  Indeed, I cannot improve on the way it was put by the right hon. Member for Vauxhall. The right hon. Gentleman will not mind my quoting this because I quoted it in 1962 and he made his protest then. As he said then, the motor cyclist could harm himself and nobody else:
  "… if a motor cyclist chooses not to wear a helmet, in spite of all the propaganda and all the pressure which has been put upon him he will not in fact be causing the death or injury of anybody but himself. That is a point to bear in mind. Therefore, by insisting on everybody wearing crash helmets, we shall not be reducing casualties on the roads except

  748
  those of motor cyclists themselves. It is different introducing regulations providing that the motor cycle must conform to certain mechanical principles".—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 31st May, 1956; Vol. 553, c. 501–2.]
  That might affect other people. That, of course, is the principle. There cannot be a free society if its law-making body interferes with people on occasions when they can damage only themselves and not other people.
  It may be foolish and, indeed, it is foolish, for a motor cyclist to go on the road without a crash helmet or for somebody to ride pillion on his motor cycle without a crash helmet—the order does not apply to those in sidecars—but he puts nobody in danger other than himself.
  Mr. Patrick Cormack: Would my hon. and learned Friend give way for a moment?
  Mr. Bell: If my hon. Friend will be, first, relevant and second, short.
  Mr. Cormack: Would not my hon. and learned Friend agree that the motor cyclist who rides without a crash helmet encourages his pillion passenger also to ride without a crash helmet? Does that not involve somebody else?
  Mr. Bell: This does not apply to the pillion passenger. My hon. Friend may have been short, but he was not, if I may say so, relevant.
  The regulations make it an offence for somebody to ride without a crash helmet. That person, whether it be the driver of the motor cycle or the pillion passenger, can harm only himself or herself by the decision which he or she takes. He or she cannot harm anyone else.
  Mr. Money Mr. Money rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bell: No, I do not. I sat down, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I thought you had stood up when you said "Order", but you had not. We have only one and a half hours for the debate and, if I let my hon. Friend in, none of that time would remain.
  The decision could harm only the person who takes it. If one person persuades another to take a foolish

  749
  decision in any branch of life, never mind motor cycles and crash helmets, that does not constitute an offence, even under the order. Everybody must be responsible for his own decisions and I question whether it is necessary to make it a criminal offence to take a foolish decision affecting only the person who takes that decision. It was said on the two previous occasions, and it will be said tonight, I am sure, that a man is not alone in society, that he has parents or a family, that others would be bereaved or affected by his death, and that society would lose the lives of young people. But these are all arguments which could be advanced in defence of any other interference with the liberty of the subject. No man is isolated even when he makes an error of judgment whereby he deploys himself to less than his best advantage. If that is an argument for imposing on him, by law, a wise course of conduct, then all freedom is indeed lost.
  It was said in 1956 and in 1962 and it will be said no doubt again tonight, "Oh, but if a man does not wear a crash helmet he is likely to be very seriously injured if he has an accident and so he will impose expense and the expenditure of time and energy on the health service. So you are entitled to interfere with him." On the last occasion that we debated this I said that I did not think I had ever heard a more flagitious principle than this when a man has to be restrained by law from doing anything which might cause extra expense or trouble to the community. Upon that basis also all freedom is certainly lost, because we are all part of one another. If a man makes foolish decisions he may impoverish his family and be a burden on the community. At the very least he subtracts a benefit from the community that behaving more wisely he would have conferred upon it. If we are to define occasions when we interfere with people through the criminal law, surely it must be only on those occasions when the detriment they cause to others is direct and significant, not indirect. If we choose to establish a health service and to insist upon people paying for it communally through their taxes and not individually we must not use that as a lever in depriving them of their ordinary freedom and their right to make their own decisions.

  750
  The thing which slightly depresses me about this evening is that unlike 1962 and 1956 there are not a great many people here. I have not felt, although perhaps I am wrong, that same concern with principle which was so strongly and explicitly present on previous occasions.
  Mr. Money: My hon. and learned Friend might have if he had given way.
  Mr. Bell: Very well, I give way.
  Mr. Money: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. The point I was seeking to deploy was that surely the State has a duty towards plaintiffs just as much as it has a duty towards defendants, and that being so it is entitled to create a situation in which damage to other road users legitimately is mitigated to its utmost extent.
  Mr. Bell: My hon. Friend has raised another interesting point. First, I do not understand it and secondly I am convinced that if I did it would not be relevant.
  Mr. Money Mr. Money rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot have two hon. Members on their feet at the same time, however learned.
  Mr. Money: Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?
  Mr. Bell: No.
  Mr. Money Mr. Money rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must resume his seat.
  Mr. Bell: I think that to give way twice is quite a lot, but three times would be too many.
  I was saying that what worries me is that there is not the same preoccupation with the principle tonight. The importance attached to the wearing of crash helmets has been declining. There has been an increasing willingness to say that there must be a tangible advantage— that is, pure accident and less of these dreadful broken skulls. Apparently any principle must be sacrificed provided we can show a tangible profit in what we are about to do.
  I am aware that when I divide the House, as I shall at the end of the debate, even though there may be only one or

  751
  two hon. Members in the Lobby—I hope that there will be more—I shall probably not carry the day. However, I venture to suggest to hon. Members on both sides of the House that if Parliament goes on taking the power of decision away from people, forcing them by law to be wise and right or to adopt what is thought to be the best practice, it is weakening the people of this country as individuals. We cannot have a strong community made up of weak individuals. It is much better to take these risks, to incur these tangible losses, in order to have a vigorous, even stiff-necked and slightly rebellious people.
  What are we throwing that away for? I gave the figures earlier. In 1956 40 per cent. of motor cyclists were wearing crash helmets. In 1962 the figure was 70 per cent. It had moved up 30 per cent. The position of principle was in a way abandoned, but only contingently. Now it is being abandoned in substance.
  What is the position now? It is that 88 per cent. of motor cyclists are wearing crash helmets under the voluntary dispensation. If we have a law about it— we are to have it on 1st June unless we prevail tonight—may I ask whether anybody imagines that we will get 100 per cent. conformity? Of course not. Will the figure be much higher than 88 per cent.? I wonder.
  It is a difficult law to administer. When Mr. Harold Watkinson rejected it in 1956 he said that he had been advised by the police that it would be impossible to apply it thoroughly. So, for probably a marginal and trivial advantage, we are abandoning this position of principle.
  It is sad that so few hon. Members should attend this debate. They are always here for the shadow boxing on economic issues, but when it comes to issues which really matter in the long run, which are allowed to drift through on a Friday or in the middle of the night, nobody knows or cares. I ask the House to support me in order that we may establish this proposition.
  10.24 p.m.
  Mr. William Hamling: I must first declare an interest in this matter. I rode a motor cycle for many years and the only time that I wore a crash helmet was when I was in His

  752
  Majesty's service. Subsequently as a private citizen I refused to wear a crash helmet on the ground that it carried purchase tax and I took the view that purchase tax on an article of safety, such as a crash helmet, was immoral.
  I have sat on a motor cycle as a matter of principle, just as the hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) has spoken as a matter of principle. I support him on this, which may surprise him. A Socialist should support him on this, and it should not really surprise him. I take the view that this is a matter in which we are dealing with intelligent people, because motor cyclists are intelligent people. As the hon. and learned Gentleman has said, 88 per cent. of them already wear crash helmets voluntarily. They do not need a law to make them do that. I do not believe and have never believed that morality or good conduct can be forced on people by passing laws. That is really what this is about. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I hope that hon. Gentleman who are cheering will walk behind me in the Lobby on subsequent occasions. But, as they say across the Channel, "A litres temps, autres moeurs".
  Certainly I do not believe that passing these regulations will save any lives, because I take the view that most sensible motor cyclists wear crash helmets— and there are many in the House tonight carrying their crash helmets who are lobbying against these regulations and will carry their helmets with them into the Lobby. Why? I did not catch that remark.
  Mr. Cormack: I merely said they might get pinched if they have left them outside.
  Mr. Hamling: I did not catch it that time either. The hon. Member's articulation is not so hot.
  They are people who understand what motor cycling is about, and they will not accept compulsion. One of the nice things about Englishmen is that they do not like compulsion. I do not myself. I will not be pushed, and I hope that other hon. Members of this House will not be pushed.
  Mr. David Crouch: A pillion passenger.
  Mr. Hamling: I did not catch that one either. The articulation of hon. Gentlemen opposite is not so good tonight.
  I am all in favour of people behaving in a sensible way but I do not believe that we can make people do that simply by passing a law and making something a criminal offence, and this is really what these regulations are about.
  The other question I want to ask is this: why pick on motor cyclists? Why not pick on motorists? There are far more people killed through not wearing safety belts in motor cars than are killed through not wearing crash helmets on motor cycles.
  Mr. Jerry Wiggin: A very good idea.
  Mr. Hamling: Listen to the authoritarians on the Government benches. They talk about Socialists being authoritarians, but when it comes to authoritarianism they have nothing to learn.
  There are far more people killed on the roads today through not wearing safety belts in cars than are killed through not wearing crash helmets on motor cycles. Why do not the Government introduce regulations on that one? I wonder why. I know that the hon. Gentleman who will reply to this debate is a motor cyclist like myself. We are two Members of the House who can claim to be motor cyclists. Obviously the Government do not get a motorist to reply to this, they get an old motor cyclist. They nobble him. I know that he used to wear a crash helmet because he believed in it, not because he was compelled to do so. Since the hon. Gentleman is a decent Englishman, I have no doubt that if someone had said to him, "You will do this", he would have said, "Like hell I will." That is how Englishmen behave, is not it?
  Mr. J. D. Concannon: My hon. Friend could have fooled me.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) would help the House if he did not ask too many rhetorical questions. They tend to receive answers.
  Mr. Hamling: I would not mind if we got some sensible answers.
  Most motor cyclists, including those who have lobbied us, wear crash helmets.

  754
  The law falls into disrespect if it tries to lay down conditions which ordinary people will not accept. That is really what this order is about. They will not accept something which is partial and which, if I may say so, is based on a prejudice in certain circles against motor cyclists. Other hon. Members may have differing views, but I believe, like anyone who has been a motor cyclist or has had anything to do with young people who are motor cyclists, that in certain circles there is a prejudice against motor cyclists who are a minority of road users. The belief is that the state of public opinion is such that motor cyclists can be pushed around in a way that motorists cannot be. But if the Government are to be logical, they will lay down conditions for all road users and not just pick on a small minority.
  I return to what the hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South said. What evidence is there that these regulations are needed? An obligation lies with the Government to prove that the introduction of compulsion will work, when all the evidence is that most responsible motor cyclists already wear crash helmets and accept a personal obligation to look after themselves. Surely that is all we ever expect a reasonable and sensible law to lay down. Any law which does not measure up to that standard, we in this country traditionally have rejected.
  10.33 p.m.
  Mr. Patrick Cormack: I shall be brief, because I know that several of my colleagues wish to take part in the debate.
  I am afraid that I cannot associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) or those of the motor cyclist who spoke before him, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell).
  I have received a great many letters on this subject. Many people have written to me to claim that this is a great issue of principle. I cannot accept that.
  I must admit that my reaction is partly a subjective one—everyone's reaction to any situation is—in that as a young boy I witnessed a particularly hideous accident involving a motor cycle and it left

  755
  a deep impression upon me. But I cannot accept that this is a grave infringement upon the liberty of the individual, in spite of the forensic skill employed by my hon. and learned Friend. He could have deployed a similar skill to argue against almost any of the restrictions that we have placed upon the individual over many years, especially with regard to road traffic regulations—
  Mr. Ronald Bell: I do not wish to prolong what my hon. Friend promises will be a brief speech, but this is quite wrong. All the regulations on the motorist are in the interests of other users of the road.
  Mr. Cormack: These regulations fall into that category too, as I shall seek to explain.
  We have repeatedly said in this House that people should not do certain things. For example, those who travel on the roads may not travel above a certain speed; those who own a car must have their cars tested for roadworthiness; and those who drive must be a certain age, must have insurance and must have a licence. Surely all those requirements are in a sense an infringement or a limitation of the individual, just as the regulations are which we have passed concerning the use of drugs. Those regulations may be considered to be an infringement of the liberty of the individual as they stop him from doing something and damaging himself in the process.
  This cannot be compared with the safety belt argument. It is possible to produce evidence and to explain how the wearing of a safety belt can possibly add to an injury or even induce a fatality. It is, however, impossible to point to an accident where the wearing of a crash helmet could harm the individual. The wearing of a helmet can only increase the individual's chances of survival; it can only increase his safety. It can also induce in him an attitude towards the machine which he rides, towards the road and towards other road users which can only be helpful.
  I intervened in the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckingham, South, and my hon. and learned Friend felt that my point was not relevant. I suggest that it was. A young motor cyclist who takes out a

  756
  pillion passenger and who encourages her, if it happens to be a girl, not to wear a crash helmet is helping to place somebody else at risk and in jeopardy. Riding without a crash helmet too often leads to a certain recklessness. Many of us, when we have driven cars into the countryside, have been passed by motor cyclists who have not been wearing crash helmets. No doubt we have thought that they have been reckless. I have had that experience on many occasions, and I am sure that other hon. Members have had such experiences.
  If we consider the Factories Acts, we find that guards must be put on machines, even if they were to be used by oneself. If a person opens a hotel he must provide a fire escape. All these matters might be said to be infringements upon the individual's freedom. It is a semantic argument to say that this is a special matter, one which is unique and particular. I do not accept that.
  The latest available figures indicate that 13,400 people were killed or seriously injured in 1971 while riding on motor cycles. If the regulations could have saved even one life they would have been proved worth while. It is not necessary to go along with the figure of 300 or 400 which has been mentioned recently to contend that far more than one life could have been saved. It is almost a prostitution of principle to try to erect the sort of argument which my hon. and learned Friend put forward with such great skill. The regulations have my unqualified support.
  10.38 p.m.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: It is a matter for censure, for censure upon the manner in which the House conducts its business, that we have been unable to avail ourselves of the opportunity provided by statute for having a proper debate upon these regulations, a debate which could be brought to a conclusion in a proper way. None of us can take any satisfaction from the fact that instead we are debating a motion in formal terms and that the Division which will take place will be a means not of deciding whether the regulations are to remain in effect, but of expressing an advisory opinion.
  Another ground for regret about this debate is that, for reasons which we well understand, the attendance in the

  757
  House is not one which matches the importance of the issue, and is likely to be interpreted outside as indicating that we disregard either the opinions or the interests of a considerable section of our fellow citizens.
  All hon. Members have had considerable correspondence on this subject in recent weeks. Whatever conclusion they have reached, they will have been impressed with the responsible attitude which virtually all their correspondence showed, and by the fact that most of the people from whom it came were people who have had long experience of motor cycling and who place the strongest emphasis on example as well as personal practice in taking all reasonable precautions when motor cycling.
  Mr. Frederick Mulley: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this has been compounded because a Prayer was tabled on the raising of the age—another important matter for motor cyclists—but that Prayer was not debated. Motor cyclists feel that they have been totally neglected by the House.
  Mr. Powell: I share the right hon. Gentleman's concern that we cannot debate issues at the time when we have ourselves laid down that they should be debated.
  The correspondence showed a greater grasp than many of my hon. Friends of the real principle that is at issue in these regulations. The writers of the letters realise that the law is making it a criminal offence for a person to behave in a way which endangers solely the person concerned and in no way places any other person at risk. At no stage, either in this discussion or on the previous occasion to which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) referred, has it ever been suggested that a motor cyclist by wearing or not wearing a helmet increases or diminishes the risk to other road users.
  Mr. Alan Haselhurst: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that if another party is involved in an accident with a motor cyclist who is not wearing a helmet and that motor cyclist perishes, the other party might suffer considerable mental anguish for the rest of his life?
  Mr. Powell: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is not trying to strengthen my argument. Certainly, his intervention must direct hon. Members' minds to what precisely is at issue and what this criminal offence is concerned with. It is not concerned with the effect upon other people's minds, upon their emotions, upon their feelings. The issue is whether any increase of risk whatsoever to any other road user is involved, and no one has claimed that it is.
  Mr. Money Mr. Money rose—
  Mr. Powell: No, I cannot give way. We have to be brief, and my hon. Friend's previous interventions were not such as to encourage his colleagues to permit their repetition.
  In creating this criminal offence we are doing something for which at present there is no parallel. There is no criminal offence to be found on the statute book the nature of which endangers the safety of the person concerned and no one else.
  Of course, my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack) can quote innumerable cases—
  Mr. William Shelton: Suicide.
  Mr. Powell: Suicide is not a criminal offence.
  Mr. Norman Fowler: Drugs.
  Mr. Powell: I am aware of the point about drugs. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock can quote innumerable instances where an employer or a person who sells an article or offers a facility is required to behave in a particular way with a view to the potential safety of the employee or the purchaser or whatever second or third party it may be; but we shall look in vain for a parallel to this criminal offence where the individual himself is solely concerned and inflicts no risk upon any other.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Fowler) mentioned drugs, and I admit that this is the nearest we have come to establishing a criminal offence such as I have defined. Nevertheless, even there the nature of drug-taking in many cases is such that it cannot but inflict harm upon others. I am not saying that can be absolutely

  759
  stated, and I concede that we have an approach to this nature of criminal offence in the context of drugs; but certainly in no other area has a criminal offence of this nature been created. We are debating something which is new and which is a major departure of principle; and it is at any rate right that we should recognise that we are doing it and consider why.
  Mr. Phillip Whitehead: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is very courteous in doing so. He has sought to draw distinctions between industrial safety legislation, where the onus is laid upon the employer, and this proposed measure. Would he favour extending the law to, for example, employers of people in a motor cycle dispatch organisation—those employed by an organisation to carry messages?
  Mr. Powell: Certainly, where one person employs another, although I must look at the details, I am prepared in principle to say that it should be made an offence to employ a person if at the same time one does not provide for his health, safety, and the rest.
  Mr. Whitehead: And insure?
  Mr. Powell: And insure as far as an employer can. I am entirely with the hon. Gentleman in that. His intervention has helped to bring out the new character of what is being done here and the essential importance of the line which is being crossed.
  On what ground are we invited to do this? We are told, first, that avoidable accidents—and nearly all accidents are in one sense or another avoidable—increase the cost imposed on the National Health Service. That is a fallacy, because the cost is not determined by the demands on the NHS but upon the supply, by what we decide from year to year to spend upon the Service.
  But then it is said—and the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) said it in a previous debate—that it shifts the resources of the NHS from one sort of case to another. Of course we could enter into endless consideration of the reasons which brought patients to be treated under the NHS—all manner of avoidable accidents, unwise courses of

  760
  life, unwise behaviour of every kind. Are we to make all these criminal offences because the consequences might be to divert the use of resources inside the NHS?
  At other times the argument is broadened. We are told that every one has people who are dependent on him— most of us do—or linked with him humanly in one way or another, and that therefore we ought to create a criminal offence in order to punish a person for endangering the support or affectionate feelings of those with whom he is linked, or to prevent him from doing so.
  The House must perceive how far we shall be taken if we embark upon that course. There is hardly a single decision which a man can take, certainly no important decision, no decision even about what sport to engage in, without affecting potentially the welfare of his family, the interests of his friends and the affections of those with whom he is linked. If we do this thing on such grounds, we shall be laying the basis for a series of new laws which will reach right into every act, every form of behaviour, every choice of the average citizen.
  The last and the most beguiling argument—and I imagine it is the argument which operates upon those hon. Members who will reject my argument and that of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South—is that if this crime is created there will be fewer road casualties from this cause. That is the most alarming argument of all that could be used in this House of Commons: that because by doing so we could reduce the number of deaths from a particular cause—not deaths inflicted by other people's carelessness, not deaths resulting from the omission of precautions which those who manufacture articles or sell them could have been caused to take, but deaths resulting from private and uniquely personal decisions—therefore we can make it a crime to take that sort of risk.
  That argument is the most dangerous because it is the most beguiling. When one bastion after another of individual freedom, of independence, is breached, it does not happen in an unpopular context. It does not happen when the reasons for doing so are unattractive. It does so when sentiment and emotion and the

  761
  feelings of all of us are engaged. None of us likes to contemplate the notion of a young man whose life could have been saved being lost because he was not wearing a crash helmet. Our first natural instinct and reaction, having legislative power in our hands, is to use that legislative power.
  But that is where the danger lies. The abuse of legislative power by this House is far more serious and more far-reaching in its effects than the loss of individual lives through foolish decisions. [Interruption.] I say just that and I repeat that, as a Member of the House of Commons speaking to the House of Commons. The maintenance of the principles of individual freedom and responsibility is more important than the avoidance of the loss of lives through the personal decision of individuals, whether those lives are lost swimming or mountaineering or boating, or riding horseback, or on a motor cycle.
  We are sent here to make laws and to preserve liberties. If we allow this regulation to stand, we shall have failed in the duties we were sent here to perform.
  10.52 p.m.
  Mr. Frederick Mulley: I agreed very strongly with what the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) said about the unsatisfactory character of our proceedings. The harsh fact is that whether or not the House heeds his passionate appeal that we should get rid of the regulations, we cannot. The only question before the House is whether we note the regulations.
  We have the comic opera situation that the hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) has given us notice that he will vote against the motion which he himself moved. No doubt the Government Whips will be put in to support the motion.
  This is an absolutely absurd situation. It is made very much worse, as I want to show, because on issue after issue it is delegated legislation, and not the legislative powers of this House. Because of the total failure of the Government's Whips to provide time, we do not have an opportunity of discussing very many issues.
  Mr. Angus Maude: I naturally agree with what the

  762
  right hon. Gentleman says but, to be fair, he will admit that this is something which has happened under every Government. I have heard his Chief Whip complaining that he was unable to find time for Prayers. The Select Committee on Procedure has reported on this and tried to find means of doing it. It lies within the power of the House to remedy this.
  Mr. Mulley: That may or may not be, but I ask the House to consider what the situation would have been if a Labour Government had not found time for a debate of this kind.
  Mr. Maude: They did not.
  Mr. Mulley: If the hon. Gentleman wants to make a party political point— [Interruption.] I am not making a party point. I am making a point about the right of the House to discuss statutory instruments. It is a House of Commons point, on which I think I have support on both sides. A great deal of the trouble stems from a wrong view when Bills are passing through the House as to whether to have delegated legislation subject to the affirmative or the negative procedure. It happens to have been a Labour Government's measure that causes us to be debating on Monday rather minor variations in speed limits, because the Government then decided that they needed the approval of the House, the affirmative resolution, whereas the very wide powers with which we are here concerned were sought by Ministers in a Conservative administration.
  I do not think that the power to make such regulations as these without prior approval of the House should be sought or given, because of their fundamental character. But I do not accept that we can have absolute individual freedom. It is very rarely possible to have that absolute freedom without impinging on the freedom of someone else.
  I accept that, and in my short time as Minister of Transport was guided by the principle that there is a vast difference between what we are discussing and many other regulations made with a view to preventing accidents rather than minimising their consequences, and preventing actions by road users that would have a consequence for other road users.

  763
  An accident whose seriousness could have been diminished if the motor cyclist had been wearing a safety helmet could lead to more accidents, simply because there is always a tremendous hold-up after a serious accident. There is also the question of competition for medical facilities, because hospital provision in many areas is not what we should like it to be.
  There is a distinction between the two kinds of decision. When I considered the matter during my short period as Minister, I preferred persuasion, although it cost the taxpayer money. The very satisfactory figures of the number of motor cyclists who voluntarily wear helmets is to some extent linked with the amount of advertising and expenditure of public funds. There is evidence to suggest that when that expenditure goes down the number wearing helmets also goes down. It could be argued that the money could be better spent in other ways, possibly on the education of young motor cyclists, for which all too little provision is made.
  Anyone who seeks to introduce regulations of the character of those before us should be required to give substantial reasons for that step. My own view will to a large extent be coloured by the Minister's explanation. The House may well find itself faced with a similar, and in some ways more difficult, decision about safety belts in cars—more difficult because it would be much more difficult to enforce.
  As the possibility of a Division has been raised, I should make it clear that we on this side do not regard this as a party political matter, as it is largely a road safety issue. We have not issued a Whip, and my hon. Friends will vote or not vote as they deem expedient. The Government Chief Whip took out a pretty substantial measure of insurance by having the subject put down for debate at this time in an otherwise uncontentious Thursday's business. Whether or not we vote, the regulations are law already. I am advised that there is nothing we can do about that.
  The Department's recent history has not been very good, in its treatment of motor cyclists in particular or in the general way in which it handles these matters. This matter has been kicked

  764
  around for about two years, and everyone whom one could possibly think of has been consulted but the House of Commons.
  I am advised that there could be substantial difficulty in providing enough helmets for those either who do not wear them now or whose helmets are not of the required type. Are the Government satisfied that the stocks exist? I hope that they are not going to make some panic purchases of helmets from abroad and make further inroads into our balance of payments difficulties.
  The real anger felt by motor cyclists and motor cycling organisations is due to the fact that we did not even discuss the important decision, taken a little over a year ago, to raise the minimum age from 16 to 17, against all advice. It was introduced in the last few days before Christmas, without any interval allowed, so that many people who had been expecting their motor cycles at Christmas had got licences, and the Department, the Government and the taxpayer had to pay substantial compensation.
  Most motor cyclists and their organisations are responsible, but the way in which statistics are used to support these measures gives rise to the suggestion that the Department wants to see motor cyclists off the road. There is no argument that it is much more dangerous to ride a motor cycle than in a car, to have two wheels instead of four, but there is a conflict about the statistics. The Government say that motor cycles are 30 times more dangerous, whereas a recent independent review sponsored by the motor cycling organisations claimed that it is between seven and eight times as dangerous. People who had the good fortune to back the winner of the Grand National would have thought it significant if the odds had been 30 to 1 rather than 9 to 1.
  Motor cyclists feel that they have been discriminated against. I am not sure whether they are all such political philosophers as the hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South or the right hon. Member for Wolverhamp-ton, South-West, but they feel, as a body, not only that they are not given a hearing in the Department by Ministers and civil servants but also that there is a desire to push motor cyclists off the road in the interests of better road safety statistics.

  765
  The hard fact is that there is strong public feeling that Ministers and Parliament should do something to improve road safety. One can understand Ministers being horrified at the figures. Having for a short time been the Minister myself, I can have sympathy with those who say, "What is the worst category in the figures? If we cannot get them to behave better, can we not at least get them off the road so that the figures will look better?".
  Having met many people in the motor cycling world in recent weeks, I know that this feeling exists. If this debate achieves nothing else, I hope that either the Minister for Transport Industries or his Under-Secretary, preferably both of them, will make a point of meeting the motor cycling bodies to see whether they can sort out their genuine grievance. Whatever the view of the House tonight, this is already law and will become effective on 1st June, whether we note or fail to note the regulations. I think something good and positive could come from it if the Under-Secretary of State said that the Government will certainly do what they can to allay fears in the motor cycle industry and among motor cyclists that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) said, they are being picked on.
  The matter is even more absurd when motor cyclists find that in the draft Council directive from the EEC the proposal is that the age for driving motor cycles should be put back to 16, which was the subject of last year's argument. That is about the only sensible part of the very strange document, which I recommend hon. Members to study. It is an extremely strange document and putting back the age for driving motor cycles is probably its most sensible aspect. Mopeds, as used on the Continent, will be much more used and the time may come when the age should be dropped to 15 for riding mopeds. That could be linked with education at school. I rode a motor cycle only when I was in the Army. I am told that most people who have ridden motor cycles are very much better and more considerate car drivers than those who have not ridden on two wheels and had cars passing so close to them as nearly to knock them off the road.

  766
  This House and the Government should show much more concern over this matter. I hope that we shall have a real case presented why the Government feel the regulations are necessary and some explanation of why we could not discuss it when we had the power to say "Yes" or "No".
  11.7 p.m.
  Mr. Angus Maude: If anyone were in doubt that the regulations were ridiculous, it should be made obvious to them by studying page 2, where it is said that regulations shall not apply to anyone
  "driving or riding on a motor bicycle if it is a mowing machine."
  Who other than a lunatic or the Department of Transport would have thought that a motor cycle is a mowing machine. If by any strange coincidence in certain circumstances it can be, it only shows that the law which the Department has promulgated is even more ridiculous than I suspect.
  These are ridiculous regulations and arguments so far deduced for them do not stand up for a moment. The only analogy produced so far to justify them has been the one on drugs. That does not stand up for a moment for two reasons. The first is that drug taking is a social habit and a catching disease. No one has ever suggested that the non-wearing of crash helmets is catching. It is a fact that those who take drugs—the soft drugs, anyway—tend to take them socially in a group and if one does it, it spreads. The non-wearing of crash helmets does not.
  There is the second argument, which is perhaps more important, that if steps are not taken against the drug taker one cannot suppress the drug pusher. There is very little argument for trying to suppress the non-seller of crash helmets, very little indeed. So the drug argument does not stand up. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) was perfectly right when he talked about the slippery slope we are on when we take a decision such as this. If the only precedent which has so far been adduced—that about drugs—does not stand up, let us be careful before we provide another one.

  767
  If we pass the regulations my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) will use them as a precedent for enforcing the using of seat belts, and after that we shall be told that the alcoholic is just as great a danger to his family, causes just as much suffering and agony to his dependants, just as much expense to the National Health Service as the young man who gets his skull cracked against a kerb, and therefore we must do something about him. We shall be asked to extend the activities of the "nannie State" from precedent to precedent until there is no aspect of human life in which a decision will not be subject to some interfering Minister or bureaucrat who wants to tell us whether we should commit suicide, and if so, how.
  Perhaps I may tell my hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Mr. Haselhurst) that attempted suicide has been adjudged by this House no longer to be a crime. If someone can take a gun and try to shoot himself, surely he can fall off a motor bicycle without being a criminal.
  The more one looks at this, the more dangerous the precedent becomes, but what is perhaps even more absurd is that it is totally unnecessary. If the Government want to encourage young men to wear crash helmets when riding motor cycles, there is no need to introduce legislation. We have been told that the precedent of industrial safety helmets, safety boots, and so on, is relevant. But of course it is not. There is nothing whatever to prevent the State from saying that an employer must not send somebody to work in certain circumstances without making sure that he is properly procted against the risks which the employment involves.
  I should not object for a moment if the Army, the Post Office, or anybody else said that its motor cyclists must never go out without wearing a crash helmet. That would be a condition of employment, the employer would be entitled to impose it, and nobody would have to take the employment if he were not prepared to accept that obligation.
  What the Government are saying is that the individual must not go out on his own private motor cycle without
  768
  wearing a crash helmet. Government regulations are not necessary to ensure that. This is entirely in the hands of the insurance companies. If they want to do it, all that they have to do is to say that the premium for insuring a motor cycle shall be £X, provided that a crash helmet is always worn, that the premium for riding a motor cycle if a crash helmet is not worn shall be £2X, and that no claim will be met if, in the event of an accident, the rider of a motor cycle is found not to have been wearing a crash helmet.
  Mr. Haselhurst: It was not I who referred to suicide.
  Mr. Maude: Then it was my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Mr. William Shelton).
  Mr. Haselhurst: Does my hon. Friend think that if insurance companies can be allowed to lay down standards of this kind the House ought not to be allowed to do so?
  Mr. Maude: Of course. The insurance companies lay down conditions in their policies in two pages of foolscap in tiny print for everything that can be insured against. They say that one must have a Chubb lock or whatever it may be. The insurance company is entitled to say anything it likes, but does the House of Commons say "You must lock your door every night when you go out to the pub"? Of course not. It says that it is a matter between you and your insurance company whether you get burgled and whether the insurance company pays if you are burgled. That is the obvious way to deal with the matter. This is not a matter for the Government and if we allow the Government to get away with this one there is no limit to what they will get away with in the future.
  11.15 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Keith Speed): We have had an interesting debate and the main issues were raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell), as he said, 11 years ago. I must remind my hon. Friend the Member for Wolver-hampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) that he was at that time a distinguished member of the Government and at that time no doubt was content with the 1962 legislation that established the principle of the

  769
  regulations which we are debating tonight, tonight.
  Certainly it was made clear at that time that the Government could take powers to provide for compulsion if, in spite of continued exhortation to wear helmets head injuries to motor cyclists continued to be unacceptably high. I propose to show in response to the invitation of my right hon. Friend that this stage has been reached and we believe now that the Government would be failing in their duty if they did not take positive action.
  In one respect I can thank my hon. and learned Friend for raising the subject tonight because it gives me another opportunity to remind the House of the Government's continuing and not entirely unsuccessful fight to keep this distressing social epidemic of road accidents within bounds. Perhaps I could draw attention to a few general accident statistics because they are connected with the theme of things we have been discussing. The United States involvement in Vietnam has ended and during that involvement since 1961 at least 45,000 United States combat troops were killed. Yet in 1971 alone there were 55,000 deaths from road accidents in the United States and well over 55,000 people are killed or seriously injured each year on the roads of Britain. It seems a curious and inexplicable fact that the public's attitude to road accidents is fatalistic, complacent and sometimes ill-informed.
  It is the job of any Government to publicise the facts and to keep death off the roads. It is extremely important that we should look to every conceivable method of reducing the accident toll, even where the methods used appear at first sight to be radical or out of the ordinary.
  I must first deal with the misconception referred to by the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley), which is widely held among the motor cycling world that this Government and governments generally are pursuing a vendetta against motor cyclists. It is true that as part of the 1971 road safety package the minimum age for motor cyclists was raised to 17 for all but riders of the smallest motor cycles. The reason for this was simply that the Government believed that it was wrong to encourage young people to have their first experience of driving on the most dangerous vehicles.
  770
  There was then no intention of driving motor cyclists off the roads and there is no intention under the new regulations of doing so either. I want to make motor cycling safer, and that is something we should all aim at. I have been riding a whole series of motor cycles since 1950 and I am currently the owner of a well-known 500 cc twin—it is made in my constituency but I dare not mention its name because that would be advertising—so I have some personal experience in the matter. I respond to the invitation of the right hon. Member for Park by saying that I have made arrangements already to meet in the near future representatives of both the industry and of motor cyclists to discuss problems generally and to see how we can help in those problems. We hope to rebuild a few bridges. I can assure the House that we have received from the manufacturers of crash helmets an assurance that there are adequate supplies to meet the requirements of the regulations.
  We are dealing with circumstances which are not materially changed since 1962. Since that year the number of fatal and serious accidents to motor cyclists has dropped by 38 per cent. This is paralleled by the drop in the number of motor cyclists during that period. In the year 1971 there were 13,400 deaths or serious injuries to motor cyclists, 7,100 of which concerned teenagers. The drop in the number of casualties among teenagers since 1962 has been only 11 per cent.
  Mr. Anthony Fell: May we have the numbers for deaths and seriously injured in each case?
  Mr. Speed: I am afraid that I cannot give the exact figures. I will certainly write to my hon. Friend and give him the details. Those were the total figures for deaths and serious injuries.
  What I am coming to now is of particular concern because various figures have been bandied about regarding the wearing rate of safety helmets. In 1962, 66 per cent. of all motor cyclists wore safety helmets. In 1971, the latest figures that we have, 80 per cent. of riders of motor cycles and scooters and 50 per cent. of riders of mopeds—in other words, about 75 per cent. of all motor cyclists, taking the two together—wore safety

  771
  helmets. This proportion has remained steady for some years.
  In 1962 it was hoped that a period of exhortation by publicity might increase the rate of helmet wearing to almost 100 per cent., but sadly that has not happened.
  Our estimate, taking all these figures into account and bearing in mind that there are no longer people of 16 years of age riding the larger motor cycles, is that some 300 to 400 deaths and serious injuries would be saved each year. One-half of these casualties would involve teenagers. I believe that this is a particularly tragic waste of life and a heavy cost to the community.
  Mr. Whitehead Mr. Whitehead rose—
  Mr. Speed: I hope that hon. Members will forgive me for not giving way. I am limited for time and I want to try to reply to many of the points which have been made. I hope that hon. Members will bear with me.
  Before getting to the main issue of principle, I should like to consider the various attitudes to the wearing of helmets as distinct from the issue of compulsion. It appears to be generally agreed by everyone—I do not think that anybody has challenged it, with the possible exception of the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) who apparently had a particular aversion to purchase tax— that it is sensible to wear a helmet. Even the most vociferous opponents of these regulations agree with that.
  I come now to the issue which I think lies closest to the hearts of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South and others who have taken part in the debate. I respect the sincerity of those who have championed the rights of the individual against what must sometimes appear to be the wilful dictates of the bureaucratic mind.
  We have in this country what is called "freedom of speech". Yet people are constrained by the laws of slander. We have freedom of dress. Yet people do not take their clothes off in the street. Indeed, they are not allowed to do so.
  It is not true that a new principle is involved in making people take reasonable precautions for their own safety.
  772
  Since the inception of road traffic legislation it has rightly been accepted by this House that the Government have a right, if not a duty, to restrict the freedom of action of road users, vehicle manufacturers, and others concerned with the use made of public highways to prevent road accidents or to mitigate their effects.
  Mr. Maude: That is to protect third parties.
  Mr. Speed: Perhaps I may give my hon. Friend an example where it does not apply to third parties. Many road traffic measures are aimed, directly or indirectly, at forcing the individual to protect himself. One could say that the requirement to fit anti-burst locks on a car applies to passengers, but it certainly applies to the occupant of the car. There is also the fitting of seat belts and the provision of safety glass in cars and a collapsible steering column.
  Mr. Powell: That is for the manufacturer.
  Mr. Speed: With respect to my right hon. Friend, it is not for the manufacturer of the car. The House will know that it is an offence for anyone to use a car first used after 1st July 1972 unless it has a collapsible steering column. [Interruption.] I suggest that people who are worried about that had better stick to cars used before 1st July 1972.
  For example, pedal cyclists are forbidden to hold on to any vehicle in motion. Non-statutory restrictions include guard rails which restrain pedestrians from taking risks.
  People have argued that these are matters for the employers. That is not so. Section 143 of the Factories Act 1961 provides:
  " No person … shall wilfully and with out reasonable cause do anything likely to endanger himself or others."
  Mr. Powell: That is in a factory.
  Mr. Speed: In a factory perhaps, but this applies to the person, there is no question of a third person being involved. Section 143(1) says:
  "where any means or appliance for securing health or safety is provided for the use of any such person under this Act. he shall use the means or appliance."
  This is not new. This is the 1961 Factories Act. If we go to 1903 we find

  773
  such a curious thing as the File-Cutting Regulations. Those say that:
  "Every file-cutter shall when at work wear a long apron reaching from the shoulder and neck to below the knees. The apron shall be kept in a clean state."
  That applies to file-cutters, not to third persons.
  With the greatest respect to my hon. and right hon. Friends there are meaningful precedents in industrial legislation designed to protect the individual, without regard to third persons or whatever may happen to them. Perhaps I should also tell the House that motor cycle racing and sports events are governed by the Auto-Cycle Union and its rules require, with one or two minor exceptions, that people taking part in these events shall wear an approved helmet.
  In each case I have mentioned the unqualified freedom of the individual is opposed by a principle or set of reasons which justify restrictions by the State. My hon. and learned Friend may complain that none of these analogies is precise. I would argue that certainly the steering column and the various things from the factory regulations going right back to 1903 are analogous to this situation.
  Where does this leave us with motor cycles? The Government wish to compel certain motor cyclists who do not now wear safety helmets to wear them in future. That is, they want to deny them the freedom not to wear helmets. What are the opposing principles or reasons which make this a worthwhile sacrifice? They are twofold. First, the Government have a duty to save lives and prevent injuries, especially when they occur on the scale of motor cycle accidents and particularly when they are concentrated on the younger section of the community.
  There is, too, the question of the burden placed on others. May I quote a personal experience? In 1955 I was driving a motor cycle from the Naval College, Greenwich, to my home in Buckinghamshire on the A5, probably travelling a bit too fast. It was a wet Saturday morning. An Army lorry suddenly came out ahead and I was faced with three possibilities—going straight into the back of it, going into a car com-
  774
  ing the other way or laying the machine down. I laid the machine down and thumped my head on the road. I was wearing a safety helmet. Perhaps some of my hon. Friends regret that, because if I had not been I would not be here tonight.
  I am not trying to make the point that I survived because I was wearing a helmet. I am making the point that a comparatively minor infringement by the driver of that lorry in coming out of that side road in front of me—something that all of us have done at some time or other—could have had serious results. If I had not been wearing a safety helmet I could have been killed and that could have led to that event being on the conscience of a sensitive person for the rest of his life.
  I do not believe that one can dismiss this kind of situation. This thought occurred to me afterwards and that is why I decided—and I will be honest with the House—as long ago as 1955 as a keen and active motor cyclist, which I still am, that it was essential for the Government of the day to make the wearing of helmets compulsory.
  Having tried to deal as quickly as possible in the time available with the question of principle, perhaps I could turn briefly to the seat belts issue raised by my hon. Friends. It is asked, why make the wearing of helmets compulsory on the one hand yet do nothing about making the wearing of seat belts compulsory? The issue is complex. There are different designs of belts. Some are awkward to use and there are various categories of people who cannot wear belts. For example, few designs of seat belts are really suitable for children. Nevertheless we are convinced of the enormous potential for preventing casualties which seat belts offer. That was the reason for the introduction of regulations to make the fitment of certain types of seat belts compulsory in all new cars sold after 1st January, 1965. That is why we are devoting a great deal of money to publicity. We are confident that this publicity will have a worthwhile effect. Whether the effect will be sufficiently great we do not know. Certainly, we hope that it will have an effect. My right hon. Friend told the House that we must consider carefully the arguments

  775
  for and against compulsion if it did not have an effect.
  As regards motor cyclists, many countries in other parts of the world—Australia, Tasmania, Belgium, Luxembourg, France and many states of the United States of America—have to a greater or lesser degree made compulsory the wearing of safety helmets, leading to a substantial reduction in injuries in all countries where they have been introduced.
  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House takes note of the Motor Cycles (Wearing of Helmets) Regulations 1973 (S.I., 1973, No. 180), dated 7th February 1973, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th February.
  ADJOURNMENT
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Murton.]

  POTATOES (EXPORT BAN)
  11.41 p.m.
  Mr. Ian MacArthur: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for coming to reply to this debate as we have already
  I hope that, having heard the arguments, my hon. Friends will realise that I am by no means unmindful of their strong views, which I respect, but that from my personal experience and all the evidence before me I am convinced that the Government are right in laying these regulations.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 54, Noes 15.

  Division No.98.]

  AYES

  [11.30 p.m.

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Goodhew, Victor

  Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

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

  Blaker, Peter

  Green, Alan

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Bray, Ronald

  Gurden, Harold

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Carlisle, Mark

  Havers, Michael

  Scott, Nicholas

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Hawkins, Paul

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Clegg, Walter

  Jopling, Michael

  Speed, Keith

  Cohen, Stanley

  Knox, David

  Sproat, lain

  Concannon, J. D.

  Lane, David

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Tebbit, Norman

  Costain, A. P.

  MacArthur, Ian

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth]

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Moate, Roger

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Money, Ernle

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Fortescue, Tim

  Morrison, Charles

  Mr. Oscar Murton and

  Fowler, Norman

  Onslow, Cranley

  Mr. Hugh Rossi.

  Fox, Marcus

  NOES

  Bell, Ronald

  Hamling, William

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

  Body, Richard

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Bowd'en, Andrew

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Coombs, Derek

  Maude, Angus

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Crouch, David

  Pendry, Tom

  Mr Anthony Fell and

  Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton.

  Faulds, Andrew

  discussed the matter. However, the outcome of our discussion was disappointing and, I submit, wrong. I trust that my hon. Friend will be kind enough to reconsider that outcome in the light of the debate.
  The problem concerns a firm of potato merchants—J.E. England & Sons (Wellington) Ltd., a substantial public company, whose head office is in Wellington and whose main Scottish office is in Aber-nethy, in my constituency. It was Mr. Howard England, one of my constituents, who first brought the problem to my attention. My hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne), who I am delighted to see in his place, was also approached by the manager of a subsidiary company in Forfar in his constituency.
  I shall turn to the facts of the case before expressing my opinion about the

  777
  Government's reaction to the facts which I presented to them. On 15th March the firm was approached by Italian importers who wished to buy ware potatoes. Messrs. England made a preliminary offer which was accepted in principle on 16th March. Various negotiations followed with which I need not trouble the House, and 620 tons of potatoes were finally accepted on 21st March.
  The Italian customer opened a credit account with Barclays Bank on 22nd March, and confirmation by way of a letter of credit from Barclays Bank International Limited, Fenchurch Street, London is dated 23rd March. In the meantime Messrs. England had obtained the option to charter a vessel, the "Gulf Crescent", which was to come from Le Havre to Montrose for loading between 2nd April and 4th April. The charter was confirmed on 23rd March, and the contract confirming charter is dated 23rd March. As the dates and times are significant, I add that the Telex confirming the charter which I have seen is timed 15.35 that day—23rd March.
  I ask the House to note carefully that by Friday 23rd March, Messrs. J. E. England had thus completed a contractual obligation to supply 620 tons of potatoes to Italy, and had completed a contractual obligation to charter a vessel. The date of 23rd March is critical to my argument because the Government that same day decided to impose a ban on potato exports.
  My constituent's brother, a co-director, was first alerted to the possibility of a ban at 17.05 on 23rd March, when he was told on the telephone by a customer in Ireland of a rumour that a ban was to be introduced. By then the contractual obligation for the sale had been completed by the firm. The next day, Saturday 24th March, my constituent read of the ban in a newspaper. That ban was to take effect from midnight on Thursday 29th March. The House will recall that the vessel chartered by the firm had been engaged to load at Montrose between 2nd April and 4th April.
  On Monday morning, 26th March, the firm got in touch with the Ministry of Agriculture to ask what was the position. The firm was referred to the Department of Trade and Industry. My constituent tells me that the first reaction of the
  778
  Department was to the effect that a prior commitment would probably be covered but that it would have to find out. Later that day the firm was told by the D.T.I. that the ban was absolute and there could be no exceptions to it. The firm, therefore, accepting this advice, was forced by this Government decision to cancel its contract with its Italian customer and to cancel the charter of the vessel.
  At my request a director of the company called to see me here later that day and gave me photo-copies of all the documents of the case and some originals. I went to see my hon. Friend the Minister of State and explained the position to him. I expressed my opinion that the Government—a Conservative Government—would surely wish to enable the firm to honour its obligations. I know that my hon. Friend accepts totally that the documents are in order and that the obligations had been entered into as I have described.
  Yet, having informed the firm categorically on Monday, 26th March, that there could be no exceptions to the ban, the DTI telephoned my constituent on Wednesday afternoon, 28th March, to say that a licence would be granted after all in certain circumstances, one of which was in the event of loading starting before midnight the next day, Thursday, 29th March. But the firm had already engaged a vessel in good faith, before the ban was known, to load a few days later. It was impossible to conjure up another vessel at this absurdly short notice.
  If that were the whole story it would be disgraceful enough, but it is not. No exception was made for this contract by my constituent, although natural justice surely demands that it should have been, but I understand that among the exceptions that were made were one or two where the vessel was delayed and loading started after the deadline date. I fail to see any distinction between delay by storm or some other cause and delay to my constituent's chartered vessel because it was already committed to complete is previous charter in France.
  I do not question that the ban was necessary in the national interest, but I do question—and invite the House to question penetratingly—the Government's action in requiring my constituent

  779
  and possibly others to dishonour contracts properly entered into and legally concluded. My hon. Friend may well say that there are precedents for this action. Some time ago the Government introduced a ban on the export of meat, and I have been told that some existing contracts were cancelled thereby. Bans on potato exports were introduced by the Labour Government in 1950 and at the end of 1969, but I understand that they were applied in such a way that they would not have required my constituent to dishonour his obligations in similar circumstances. I have seen the instructions on the ban at the end of 1969, and that is so.
  Whatever the precedents, they provide no justification for the Government's action on this occasion. It is no defence for a sinner to maintain that he should be excused his sin simply because he has committed it before.
  In passing, I should say that today I have learned of another similar act by the Government affecting this company, the details of which I shall be sending to my hon. Friend.
  I suggest that there are now only two remedies, although the error perpetrated by this Government cannot now be reversed because the contract has been cancelled by decree of this Government and the contract of the vessel has been cancelled also. The first remedy is for an undertaking to be given by the Government—and especially this Conservative Government—that there will be no recurrence of this ugly affair. Secondly, I ask my hon. Friend the Minister of State to make it clear to the House tonight that compensation will be provided to Messrs. England for the financial loss which it certainly will have suffered and which has been forced upon it by this unfortunate Government decree.
  11.51p.m.
  Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne: My hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) has exposed the details of this extremely sorry story with the greatest possible clarity and precision, but as the vast bulk of the potatoes involved in the consignment came from my constituency I want to add a few words. I regard this as about the worst instance of abuse by the State—
  780
  with all its powers over the individual citizens—that I have experienced in my eight years in this House.
  Not only is it an example of the Government's intervening to enforce the breaking of existing legally binding contracts, which in itself is the last thing I like to see from a Tory Government; the Government have compounded their misdemeanour by an obvious and understandable display of guilty conscience which has led them, belatedly, to reverse the original decision in part and thus to allow most of those who had concluded contracts before the ban was imposed to honour them while, at the same time, making an exception of this one firm whose circumstances my hon. Friend has so graphically exposed.
  We were eventually told that contracts could be fulfilled if loading had not been completed by the deadline laid down last week—if loading had been started but not completed before the deadline came —provided the loading was continuous, or if the loading should have been completed but could not take place because of factors outwith the merchant's control. I regret to say that I have incontrovertible evidence that in numerous cases these conditions have been waived. I shall not give those cases because I am delighted that those concerned were able to honour their contracts.
  What is the scale of this transaction? The total amount contracted for but not ready when the ban was imposed was 7,500 tons for the entire United Kingdom —one-half of one day's United Kingdom consumption. It is for this derisory quantity that the Government have broken every canon of decent ministerial behaviour. The kindest thing to say is that they acted in panic over fears of the effect of an increase in domestic potato prices on the prices and incomes policy. Since that policy is the responsibility of the Department of Trade and Industry, it is a little hard on the Minister of State that he should be expected to pick up the pieces of this affair tonight.
  The firm concerned is a major potato merchant in the east of Scotland and, indeed, in other parts of the United Kingdom. Serious and perhaps lasting damage has been done to its good name with customers in our farming community and overseas by the way it has

  781
  been debarred from fulfilling contracts that its competitors have been allowed to fulfil. I entirely agree that it is richly entitled at the very least to complete compensation for its loss of profits and its overall losses and, by God, it had better get it!
  11.55 p.m.
  The Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Anthony Stodart): My task tonight is to try to persuade my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) and my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne)—whose interest in this matter I regard as totally and absolutely praiseworthy—to view this ban and the way that it was imposed against the background of the world supply position and recent developments in this country.
  I hope that my hon. Friends will forgive me if, before coming to the case which they have deployed with great sincerity and skill, I say something about the background.
  There has been a general shortage abroad of potatoes from the 1972 crop. This has produced an unusually strong demand for exports throughout the season. The crop here, though smaller than in the two preceding years—which saw an unusually large surplus—was not a short crop. Indeed, estimates of potato stocks at the end of November indicated that the 1972 main crop had produced a significant surplus of nearly 400,000 tons of marketable potatoes, even after allowing for considerably larger numbers of exports. This would have been much more than enough to meet the demand for the good quality, reasonably-priced potatoes which we aim to provide.
  Unfortunately, however, because of the very circumstances in which the crop was lifted last October—in probably the best weather that farmers have ever enjoyed for the job—the quality of the crop has suffered as a result of the dry harvesting conditions. Although this was taken into account at the time that the earlier estimates were made, the very mild winter has resulted in an unexpectedly high wastage.
  I have mentioned the figure, provided to us by the Potato Marketing Board, of a surplus of 400,000 tons at the end of
  782
  November. But by February it was quite clear that although there still seemed to be no risk of shortage, the surplus would be a lot down from 400,000 tons. Therefore, in February, I asked the Chairman of the Potato Marketing Board to see me in order to discuss whether any action was needed to conserve our supplies as a safety-first measure.
  I hope that my hon. Friends will believe me when I say that we were obviously most reluctant to interfere with the export trade in potatoes, especially as we seemed to have plenty to meet expected demand with something to spare. But we decided, as an insurance, to ask the Potato Marketing Board to relax the riddle sizes, thus providing the market— again, I am quoting the board's estimate —with about 50,000 tons more potatoes. Relaxing the riddle sizes simply meant reverting to the wider sizes of riddle used for crops in previous years, so as to allow the sale of potatoes of a diameter between 1½ in and 1⅝ in and which are large enough to go over a 3¼ in mesh. Except for their size, these are otherwise of perfectly good quality.
  I asked the board at the meeting in February to keep in the closest touch with me on stock figures and on the export trade. Following upon the census of stocks which it took in March, it became clear that the demand for exports was continuing so strongly that there was a possibility of some shortage by the end of the season if they were allowed to go on. We therefore decided that we must stop them.
  I hope I do not have to assure my hon. Friends that we wanted to avoid difficulties for exporters and farmers, but we had to put the national requirements for potatoes first. We considered a longer period of notice, but that could easily have produced a rush to export, because the price is very high compared with what is available in this country.
  I need hardly say that we also considered allowing the fulfilment of all existing contracts. But this could have been ineffective, because there remains only a little more than two months of the main crop season, and a large volume of exports might well have been contracted already.
  No licences or any kind of registration of exports have been needed, and

  783
  we thus have no means of knowing how many tons had been contracted for. Moreover, it is very difficult to establish exactly when a contract is made. Contracts are frequently made by telephone and confirmed later.
  My hon. Friend referred to the occasion in 1950 when a similar ban was imposed. It is true that the Government of the day allowed what were described as existing contracts to be fulfilled. I assure him, from my knowledge resulting from the examinations I have made, that terrible difficulties ensued as a result of that decision.
  Mr. MacArthur: Is not my hon. Friend completely satisfied that in the case I have described the contracts were clearly entered into and were legally binding before the ban was introduced?
  Mr. Stodart: I am about to deal with the case my hon. Friend mentioned.
  It would be quite impossible to ensure that only contracts in existence at the time of the ban were fulfilled.
  So the balance of considerations was this: on the one hand a short period of notice would leave merchants and growers holding potatoes contracted and graded ready for export, and facing additional expense; against that an adequate period of notice from the exporter's point of view might have left us short of potatoes.
  We saw no real alternative but to impose a ban effective from seven days after the announcement—a longer period of notice than when meat exports were banned in 1970—to conserve at that time, just as at this, the national stocks of a basic foodstuff.
  This has, of course, resulted in grave difficulties for some exporters and their supplying merchants and farmers. Nor do I for a moment overlook the fact that contracts have had to be broken. I hope that my hon. Friends will believe that no one who serves in the House can ever under-estimate the value of keeping one's word. But there is a matter of national interest involved, as my hon. Friend accepted. We believe that by our prompt action we have avoided the risk of shortage and unduly high prices later in the season.
  784
  I now turn to the case to which my hon. Friend referred, and the other cases involved. In all, there have been eight cases in which licences have been granted for the export of ware potatoes after the coming into force of the ban. I have examined all of these very carefully. Two were special cases—one involving a supply to Gibraltar, which is a British colony that grows no potatoes of its own. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that we have a special responsibility to ensure that that requirement should be met. The six remaining cases, to one of which my hon. Friend has referred, related to shipments where loading had begun before midnight on 29th March, or was scheduled to begin before then but the transport concerned had been unavoidably delayed. I would not wish to question anything that my hon. Friend has said about the case he mentioned.
  For example, heavy weather conditions in the North Sea delayed a ship which should have begun loading at Montrose on 27th March. Again, I hope that I shall win agreement when I say that in a case like this, in which the delay was quite beyond the control of anyone concerned, it was right to allow the shipment. It is a difficult judgment to make, but it had to be made. These were the only types of case in which exceptions were made.
  I think that the line, which was a hard one to draw, was drawn fairly, and has been applied quite objectively, but if any hon. Member has evidence that anyone has secured a licence by misrepresenting the facts I shall, of course, be very ready to look into it. Under the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1970 it is an offence punishable by a fine of up to £100, or imprisonment of up to six months, or both, to make any statement or furnish any document or information which the applicant knows to be false in any material particular in order to obtain an export licence. But I have no information suggesting that there is any question of this in any of the cases I have mentioned.
  My hon. Friend has suggested that compensation should be paid to those who, in his view, have been treated unfairly. I can well understand his feeling that those who have made contracts and chartered shipping in the best of faith

  785
  —and who have now lost money because they are not allowed to go through with the export—have a case which should be considered. But I must point out to him that there have been similar export bans in the past—for example, when meat exports were prohibited to conserve national stocks of a basic foodstuff, as I said, in 1970. Then, as now, we had most regretfully to reject claims for compensation.
  The reasoning behind this may appear harsh, but I am afraid that it is unanswerable. If the Government were once to agree that compensation should be paid whenever they took action in what they believed to be the national interest and that action had the effect of compelling
  786
  individuals or companies to break contracts or to pay penalties, the cost to public funds could be very great and the implications very serious. Because that is so, and is known to be so, I am afraid that possible losses stemming from Government decisions simply have to be regarded as one of the commercial risks which traders must accept.
  Mr. MacArthur: Oh, no. Really.
  Mr. Stodart: I regret that I can hold out no hope of the Government's being able to make any such payments.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes past Twelve o'clock.

NORTHERN IRELAND
  Plebiscites
  Plebiscites
  House Purchase
  House Purchase
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Slaughterhouses
  Slaughterhouses
  Prices
  Prices
  Commonwealth Sugar
  Commonwealth Sugar
  Butter
  Butter
  Pigmeat
  Pigmeat
  Buttermilk
  Buttermilk
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Maintenance Payments
  Maintenance Payments
  Picketing
  Picketing
  Lartin Prison (Interview)
  Lartin Prison (Interview)
  Mr. Parviz Moini
  Mr. Parviz Moini
ENVIRONMENT
  Road Building (Property Demolition)
  Road Building (Property Demolition)
  Road Construction
  Road Construction
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  Road Accidents
  Road Accidents
  Preservation Orders (St. John's Wood)
  Preservation Orders (St. John's Wood)
  Motorways (Central Barriers)
  Motorways (Central Barriers)
  Office Rents
  Office Rents
  Local Government Reorganisation
  Local Government Reorganisation
  Rate Support Grant (Hampshire)
  Rate Support Grant (Hampshire)
  Hoverway Service
  Hoverway Service
  Legislative Assembly, Tonga (Presentation)
  Legislative Assembly, Tonga (Presentation)
  Water Authority (West Midlands)
  Water Authority (West Midlands)
  House Building
  House Building
  Exeter Station Car Park (Charges)
  Exeter Station Car Park (Charges)
  Ordnance Survey
  Ordnance Survey
  Planning Appeals (East Suffolk)
  Planning Appeals (East Suffolk)
  RAILWAYS
  RAILWAYS
  STRIKES (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  STRIKES (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  SUDAN
  SUDAN
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  PRIME MINISTER (BROADCAST)
  PRIME MINISTER (BROADCAST)
  KIELDER RESERVOIR PROJECT
  KIELDER RESERVOIR PROJECT
  OBSCENE LITERATURE (DISTRIBUTION)
  OBSCENE LITERATURE (DISTRIBUTION)
DEFENCE
  FINABEL Meeting, Bonn
  FINABEL Meeting, Bonn
  BAOR (Leave)
  BAOR (Leave)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Deaf Children
  Deaf Children
  Handicapped Children
  Handicapped Children
  Student Grants
  Student Grants
  Nursery Staff
  Nursery Staff
  Nursery Education
  Nursery Education
EMPLOYMENT
  Emigration (Wales)
  Emigration (Wales)
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Fishing Industry (Health Services)
  Fishing Industry (Health Services)
  Crane Drivers
  Crane Drivers
  Worker Participation
  Worker Participation
  Industrial Health and Safety
  Industrial Health and Safety
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Icelandic Fisheries
  Icelandic Fisheries
  Training Levy
  Training Levy
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Opticians (Goods and Services)
  Opticians (Goods and Services)
  Battered Wives
  Battered Wives
  Separated Wives (Benefit)
  Separated Wives (Benefit)
  Special Shoes for Children
  Special Shoes for Children
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970
  Cohabitation
  Cohabitation
  "Supplementary Benefits and Trade Disputes "
  "Supplementary Benefits and Trade Disputes "
  Discharged Prisoners (Aid)
  Discharged Prisoners (Aid)
  Hospitals (Medical Consultants and Ancillary Workers)
  Hospitals (Medical Consultants and Ancillary Workers)
  Abuse of Benefits (Report)
  Abuse of Benefits (Report)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Concorde
  Concorde
  West London Air Terminal
  West London Air Terminal
  North Sea Gas
  North Sea Gas
  Hybrid Companies
  Hybrid Companies
  "Burtonia"
  "Burtonia"
  "Royston Grange"
  "Royston Grange"
  Industry Act Applications
  Industry Act Applications
  Industrial Development Certificates (Hampshire)
  Industrial Development Certificates (Hampshire)
  Clothing Industry
  Clothing Industry
  Air Fares (North Atlantic)
  Air Fares (North Atlantic)
  Newsprint
  Newsprint
  Pit Closures
  Pit Closures
  Oil Imports
  Oil Imports
WALES
  Health Services (Bronglais Hospital)
  Health Services (Bronglais Hospital)
  Hospital Patients (Family Visits)
  Hospital Patients (Family Visits)
  Cottage Hospitals
  Cottage Hospitals
  Infrastructure Works (Capital Expenditure)
  Infrastructure Works (Capital Expenditure)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Import Levies
  Import Levies
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Mortgage Interest Rates
  Mortgage Interest Rates
  PAYE
  PAYE
  Thatched Cottages (Rateable Value)
  Thatched Cottages (Rateable Value)
  Lump Labour
  Lump Labour
  Corporation Tax
  Corporation Tax
  Crude Oil
  Crude Oil

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The Low CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Wakefield.
The Earl of Wemyss and March—Took the Oath.

CONTROL OF FIREARMS
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when is it proposed to draft revised regulations relating to control of firearms in the light of the Report of the Working Party whose review of this matter was said by the Government to have been completed last September.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS): My Lords, my right honourable friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland have nearly completed their consideration of the results of the review of the firearms law. They intend to publish in the near future a consultative document setting out their provisional conclusions and to invite comment before deciding what proposals to place before Parliament.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, while thanking the noble Viscount for that Answer, may I ask him whether he would impress upon his right honourable friends the great urgency of this matter, since it is more than two years since I first raised it in your Lordships' House? In particular, will he ask his right honourable friends to give high priority to the regulations relating to shotguns, inasmuch as I understand it is still legal to have as many shotguns as one likes on one certificate and to hang them all on the front door, for any passerby to help himself?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I think we do understand the urgency. As for shotguns, I did not understand that they were on the front door: I thought they were kept loaded in the garage. But the situation is indeed extremely serious, and it is one of the matters in the forefront of the minds of both my right honourable friends.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Viscount.
BARONESS STOCKS: My Lords, if the situation is extremely serious why do we have to wait so long for a Report on it? Further, does it mean that, pending such Report, it is possible for borstal boys and approved school boys, boys' clubs and public schools to engage in shooting practice with guns which are accessible?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, as to the urgency of the matter, first of all, we have moved as quickly as we possibly could, and I would suggest to the noble Baroness that in fact the Report has been followed up with considerable urgency by the Government. The consultative document is really a constructive approach towards going ahead. As to the possession of firearms by schools, I think that, on the whole, these consist of small-bore rifles. I speak without any particular information on this matter, but, if that is so, then of course they are subject to severe controls under the existing firearms legislation. There have been instances where they have been stolen, I know, but as far as I am aware it is not the control on these arms which has particularly engaged the attention of noble Lords, although it is very much one of the things that we shall bear in mind, together with control of shotguns.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, may I further ask the noble Viscount whether he would agree that, rather than reintroduce the death penalty, which means, in the case of a shooting murder, the loss of a guilty life and of an innocent life, it might be better to make the regulations controlling firearms so strict that people are not able to shoot other people in murders, in which case no innocent life is lost at all?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, wide though that may be of the apparent Question, I agree with the noble Baroness that it is exceedingly relevant and that one cannot dissociate one's decision on this particular matter from the much wider issue that she has mentioned. I will draw her remarks to the attention of both my right honourable friends.

PALACE OF WESTMINSTER SECURITY ARRANGEMENTS
3.12 p.m.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask the Leader of the House whether it is a fact that the handbags of women visitors to the House, but not the pockets of men, are now searched in the interests of security; and if so, what is the logic of this procedure.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): Yes, my Lords. This is in fact specifically provided for in the Rules which I moved and the House approved on January 31 last. The logic is that all bags may need to be opened for inspection, irrespective of whether they belong to men or to women. The same logic would apply to pockets, irrespective of the sex of the owner of the pocket, if it were decided that the searching of pockets was necessary.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his Answer. This is intended as a perfectly serious Question relating to security matters. May I ask whether or not he agrees—and if he does not, would he convince himself by experiment—that it is just as easy, and possibly slightly easier, to carry a grenade in a man's jacket or overcoat pocket than in the average woman's handbag?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I was giving a perfectly serious Answer to a perfectly serious Question. I should be glad to go experimenting with the noble Baroness. My Lords, we live in violent times and there are many dangers to which all in society are exposed, include-
408
ing Members of your Lordships' House; and it has been felt—I do not wish to go too far into the question of security—that on the whole it is the unattended package which is likely to present the greatest danger. On the whole, it has been felt that handbags are more likely to be left unattended than trousers.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, does the noble Earl think that a woman leaves her handbag unattended even in your Lordships' House? This is a very serious matter. Will the noble Earl not give some assurance that steps will be taken to see that dangerous weapons are not secreted in the pockets of either sex?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I will pay careful attention to what the noble Baroness has said but I think that we have to strike a reasonable balance in the interest of security. Noble Lords will have noticed that our security measures have recently been very stringently tightened up. But I will gladly give an undertaking to keep these matters under review. I am open to suggestions from any Member of your Lordships' House on this particular and very difficult area.
BARONESS STOCKS: My Lords, while it may be true that trousers are unlikely to be left unattended, is it not also true that there are larger and more pockets in overcoats than in trousers?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords. I think that on the whole that is correct.
LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY: My Lords, with a view to saving the lady visitors from any possible embarrassment, will my noble friend consider installing Geiger apparatus as used at airports—which is quicker and more efficient?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that suggestion. We are a very progressive House and we must move with the times. This is another matter.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that there is a slight whiff of the male Chauvinistic animal about his replies?
EARL JELLICOE: In which case, my Lords, I deeply regret it and I plead guilty to the noble Baroness.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that men have eight capacious pockets in their coats and trousers and that a woman has only one handbag? Is this not a blatant case of discrimination?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, it seems that many ladies have quite capacious pockets in their trousers.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, is my noble friend satisfied that the security checks on women coming in are adequate?—since I understand that some ladies carry explosives and weapons under their skirts.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I will give very careful thought to the implications behind my noble friend's question.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, will not the Government seriously consider the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Harvey of Prestbury, rather than encourage pickpockets within the precincts of the House?
LORD BROWN: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the way in which this Question has been treated has been somewhat discourteous to many ladies in the House?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I do not think I am aware of that. If that was the impression which the noble Lord received, I should like to take this opportunity of apologising to the ladies. Most of them, I think, do not share the noble Lord's opinion.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: We do not need protecting.
LORD ANNAN: My Lords, will the noble Earl care to move from deductive to inductive inferences? Is he aware that in the British Museum since the searching of handbags has been introduced—not for the purpose of seeing whether bombs are concealed but of seeing whether books are concealed—there has been only one complaint from any lady whose handbag has been searched?

KINGSTON BY-PASS SCHEME
LORD AMULREE: 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 area of Wimbledon Common will be taken to enable the Kingston Bypass to be widened at Robin Hood Gate; what is the cost of this scheme and what is held to be its purpose.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, it will be necessary to acquire approximately four acres of Wimbledon Common. The scheme, which is the last of a series of improvements of the A.3 trunk road in Greater London, will alleviate the severe congestion which occurs, particularly in peak hours, at the Robin Hood Gate junction and along Roehampton Vale. The latest estimated cost of the improvement is £6,000,000.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for that reply. May I ask one or two supplementary questions? May I take it that the consent of the Conservators was received before work was started? Furthermore, what piece of land is to be given back to the Conservators of the Common to replace that which is being proposed for the new road? Thirdly, supposing that the traffic down West Hill were to increase because of the new roadwork there, will it be necessary to widen West Hill? If so, what effect will that have on the Royal Hospital and Home for Incurables on the South Side of West Hill, with which I have been associated for a very long time?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, the noble Lord may not know that we have to consult the Wimbledon and Putney Commons Conservators to determine suitable areas of exchange land. We are not allowed to take land from Wimbledon Common without giving some back, and the Conservators are perfectly happy that we are going to give them back a suitable amount of four acres. With regard to the supplementary question about West Hill, I think that is beyond the scope of this Question. If I am right, West Hill is quite a long way East-North-East of this junction. This flyover improvement will not be much more than just over a mile long. The Department of the Environment is involved because the A.3 is a trunk road. We are not, of course, involved further East because that is G.L.C. land and so

411
we would not be involved in the preplanning. I think the short answer is that the hospital will not be affected.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that he has been imperfectly advised on this? This is not the first part of the Common to be taken away from the Conservators, and they are not perfectly happy about these exchanges. Can the noble Lord say whether they have agreed to any exchange of land in this case? Can he give me an assurance that they have agreed? Secondly, may I ask whether the noble Lord is satisfied that incursions into common land, and the cost this time of £6 million, really are justified by the transfer of the traffic jam just a mile and a half further up the road, for that is all that is happening?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I must confess that I am slightly surprised when the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, tells me that we have taken common land away from Wimbledon without replacing it, because my information is that under the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act 1946 we are bound by law to supply land back. I am further assured that in this case Mr. Quixley, who is the ranger, the professional agent responsible, and the Conservators are perfectly happy. With regard to the further supplementary question about common land and whether this action is justified, I think we must get clear that this is not just a matter of speeding traffic in and out of London; it is speeding traffic in and out of London combined with taking it away from the local traffic. I think, my Lords, that that is the important point. Local traffic will have a better deal, and local residents will not have to go through the mill of passing traffic. Furthermore, equestrians, pedestrians and mothers with prams going from Richmond Park to Wimbledon Common will in future have an underpass. The underpass will be available for horses and pedestrians, and there will also be a footpath for pedestrians.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that he misunderstood what I said in the first place? I did not say that there had been no transferance. I said that the Conservators were not
412
perfectly happy with the transfers. Can he tell rue that there has been an agreement as to the precise land which is to be transferred in this case? Secondly, does the Minister realise that although one appreciates the difficulty of pushing perambulaters across the A.3 by Robin Hood Gate, it is now almost impossible to get across West Hill?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I think I have pointed out that West Hill is out of the scope of the Question. I must repeat that the Conservators are happy to take our word that we are going to give them back four acres for common land. I cannot say at the moment that we have exactly earmarked which four acres. We have certainly earmarked 2½ acres. The remaining 1½ acres are still slightly under negotiation and your Lordships cannot expect me to say anything further.

POSTAL SERVICE DELIVERY FAILURES
3.24 p.m.
LORD SHINWELL: 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 to what extent letters and parcels sent through the postal service have gone astray or failed to be delivered between the year 1970 and the last available date.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, these are matters for the Post Office, but I understand that about one in 60,000 of the letters and parcels handled in the financial years 1970–71 and 1971–72 were reported missing.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the first part of his Answer has staggered me so much that I have the greatest difficulty—probably for the first time—in framing a supplementary question? I am trying my best to recover. Am I to understand that a matter of this sort, which concerns the public interest to a remarkable degree, is to be left entirely to the Post Office? Is it not an appropriate subject to be raised in your Lordships' House? And may I ask—since I am now fully recovered—is not there an organisation called the

413
Post Office Consumer Council in existence, and have they not adequate information, which is conveyed to them from time to time, to enable us to judge to what extent letters go astray?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, the fact is that this House as well as another place passed the Post Office Act about two years ago, and these day-to-day matters are for the Post Office and not for my right honourable friend. If there were some really seriously bad results I think that my right honourable friend would certainly have a statutory duty to look into them. But I cannot think that a failure rate of 0…0016 per cent. is very serious.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he would inform whichever Minister is responsible that the reply given by the Post Office is absolute and complete nonsense? Is he aware that since the introduction of the two-tier system of delivery the loss of postal letters has greatly increased? Is he further aware that if it is only one in 60,000 letters, I cannot think how many letters which I have had lost or mislaid must come into that figure?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, although the responsibility for the Post Office is not that of my right honourable friend, the responsibility for my reply is the the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government and not of the Post Office. I cannot accept that the sort of worsening that the noble Baroness fears has happened. If the noble Baroness has any complaint about this, I only hope that she will get in touch with the Post Office about it.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: I am sorry, my Lords, this is not my Question, it is the Question of my noble friend Lord Shinwell, but I have been in touch for some ten years with the authorities about my post. Would the Minister consider the possibility of not having the two-tier system any longer but one tier, because there is a very considerable belief that postal deliveries would be enhanced if this were done?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I am sure that the Post Office will take note of what the noble Baroness has said, but the
414
question of the two-tier system is a little wide of the Question on the Order Paper.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, when the—
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords—
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think that on our normal principle of give and take between both sides of your Lordships' House it is now the turn of my noble friend Lord Conesford. I say that with respect to the noble Baroness.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I ask the Minister this? In computing the statistics which he gave in answer to the Question, did he consider only the reports of those who sent letters which did not arrive or those also who did not receive letters of which they did not know the existence?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, unfortunatly the Post Office can know only when the items are brought to their notice and then the Post Office can inform Her Majesty's Government when Questions like this are being answered.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, did I understand the Minister to say that one in 60,000 was lost in the period under discussion?
LORD DENHAM: Reported lost.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, to get some indication of how many letters were in fact lost, could the noble Lord say what was the figure of posting during that period?
LORD DENHAM: Yes, my Lords, about 10½ million in each year.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, is it not obvious from the percentage figures that the noble Lord has furnished that the postal authorities have a remarkable facility for covering up their mistakes and that they are very anxious to avoid anything that might be regarded as undue criticism? But does the noble Lord recognise that the postal service is a public service which concerns the public weal and that we are entitled to ask Questions about any administrative misdemeanour or error which affects the public interest?
LORD DENHAM: Yes, my Lords. I know that the Post Office is very conscious of the need to deliver the mail safely and to take all practical steps to that end, but it would be impossible to keep a special watch on each item when over 30 million are handled daily. Of course the noble Lord is quite entitled to ask questions on matters of this sort but it is always a little difficult, when dealing with national corporations, for a Minister at the Despatch Box to reply to matters which really appertain to the Post Office. However, I hope that the noble Lord will not inhibit himself from asking any questions that he feels it is in the public interest to ask.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, for clarification, can the Minister say, when he gave a figure of 1 in 60,000 covering two financial years, whether that was arriver at by aggregating the two years or whether the figure was exactly the same in each of the two years?—because if they were aggregated, we cannot know whether the situation was improving or deteriorating.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I can give the noble Baroness the actual figures and perhaps she will work it out for herself. In 1970 to 1971, 85,000 were lost out of 10½ million, and in 1971 to 1972, 97,000 were lost also out of about 10½ million. That may seem a bit of a worsening of the situation, but I would tell the noble Baroness that in the first of the two years the postal strike took place, which could account for the lesser figure.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, the noble Lord has twice used the figure of 10½ million. What does this mean? If the Post Office are handling only 10½ million packets a year, they must be "bust".
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, if I am wrong about that—
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, the noble Lord must be wrong because he referred to 30 million in a day.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I think it must be 10½ thousand million.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, with this Government, a comparatively minor error.

THE EASTER RECESS
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, with the leave of the House my noble friend the Leader of the House will at a convenient moment after 3.30 be making a statement on Mortgage Interest Rates.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I inform your Lordships that, subject to the progress of business, the House will rise for the Easter Recess on Wednesday, April 18, and return on Tuesday, May 1.

PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCIES (SCOTLAND) (NORTH LANARKSHIRE AND COAT-BRIDGE AND AIRDRIE) ORDER 1973.
3.33 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD POLWARTH): My Lords. as the italics note on the Order

417
Paper indicates, I propose to move these seven Parliamentary Constituencies Orders together, but if any noble Lord objects to my taking this course I will move any one or more of the Orders separately, as desired. Since there seems to be no objection, I beg to move that the seven Draft Parliamentary Constituencies (Scotland) Orders 1973, the Motions for the approval of which stand in my name on the Order Paper, be approved. I might just add that these Orders affect the boundaries of 16 Parliamentary Consituencies in Scotland. They result from an interim review by the Boundary Commission for Scotland. The changes are all essentially of a minor character, and no objections were lodged against the Commission's recommendations.
My Lords, it is of course true that the local Government (Scotland) Bill at present passing through another place will, subject to your Lordships eventual approval, alter local government boundaries in a way which will require a much more fundamental reappraisal of Parliamentary Constituency boundaries. Clearly, however, such a reappraisal would be appropriate only to a general review. The Commission are bound under the Statute to report on their next general review between 1979 and 1984. In the meantime, it is desirable that the anomalies disclosed by the Commission's Report should be cleared up, for two reasons. First, existing local authority boundaries in Scotland will remain in use up to May, 1975. Secondly, for the period after 1975 until the new Parliamentary Constituencies are adopted after the Commission's next general review, it will be helpful to have constituency boundaries based on local government boundaries as they existed immediately before they were reorganised rather than on such boundaries as they existed several years ago. I hope that those explanations will be sufficient to enable your Lordships to approve the Orders.
Moved, That the Draft Parliamentary Constituencies (Scotland) (West Aberdeenshire, North Angus and Mearns, Aberdeen North and Aberdeen South) Order 1973, laid before the House on March 5, be approved.
That the Draft Parliamentary Constituencies (Scotland) (East Renfrewshire and Paisley) Order 1973, laid before the House on March 5, be approved.
That the Draft Parliamentary Constituencies (Scotland) (Midlothian and Edinburgh East) Order 1973, laid before the House on March 5, be approved.
That the Draft Parliamentary Constituencies (Scotland) (Central Fife and Kirkcaldy) Order 1973, laid before the House on March 5, be approved.
That the Draft Parliamentary Constituencies (Scotland) (South Angus and Dundee West) Order 1973, laid before the House on March 5, be approved.
That the Draft Parliamentary Constituencies (Scotland) (West Stirlingshire and Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth) Order 1973, laid before the House on March 5, be approved.
That the Draft Parliamentary Constituencies (Scotland) (West Stirlingshire and Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth) Order 1973, laid before the House on approved.—(Lord Polwarth.)
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, for the clear explanation of the position, and particularly for going on to explain the consequences of the Local Government Reorganisation Bill presently before another place, and when it will affect the Parliamentary position.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PRESCRIPTION AND LIMITATION (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
3.35 p.m.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This Bill implements the Report of the Scottish Law Commission on Reform of the Law relating to Prescription and Limitation of Actions; and I must acknowledge the Government's debt to the Commission, not only for a very clear and comprehensive Report, but also for the major part they have played in preparation of the Bill. In so far as the proposed legislation differs from their Report, the changes have been agreed with or, indeed, in the majority of cases, suggested by the Commission.
On First Reading of this Bill your Lordships displayed some interest, verging at moments almost on levity, in the wording of the Long Title, which is rather splendid and certainly shows that the subject we are dealing with is not exactly

419
new. Your Lordships may be glad to know that having visited the Register House in Edinburgh in person and inspected the contemporary manuscripts of the Acts of the Scots Parliament of 1469, 1474 and 1617, referred to in the Long Title, I can vouch for their actual existence. And while there do not appear to be records of those present at the passing of the two earlier Acts, the record of sederunt, as it is called, of the 1617 Acts contains names as well known to your Lordships as Lothian, Lauderdale, Perth, Home and others.
Perhaps before dealing with the Bill's provisions I should say a brief word about the subject matter. "Prescription" is the term used to describe the legal effect of the passage of time on various rights and obligations. Thus, for instance, under the positive prescription, a title to land which is not challenged becomes, after a period of time, unchallengeable; and under the negative prescriptions rights or obligations which are not enforced become, in time, unenforceable. The Bill also deals with the limitation of actions for damages for injury or death. Again, the limitation refers to the period of time within which an action may be brought by the injured party or his representatives. On expiry of the limitation period such an action is no longer competent.
At first sight, the subject may appear somewhat technical, but the law on prescription and limitation affects a very considerable number indeed, probably the majority, of the people in Scotland, either directly or indirectly, in a variety of ways. For example, if we wish to buy or sell a house in Scotland, the cost of the transaction will include fees for a search through the appropriate registers to check the quality of the title, and to confirm that the property is free from any undisclosed burdens; and the amount of work involved in examining earlier titles will depend in part on the length of the prescriptive period. Then again, those involved in business or in a profession will, in part, determine their policy in the extending of credit and in the recovery of debts due to them by reference to the period within which the claim for repayment may legally be made; and this in turn will affect their respective customers or clients. And, of course, the limitation of actions will be of immediate interest to
420
anyone who is unfortunate enough to suffer industrial injury or to contract an industrial disease, or who may simply be involved in a traffic accident. This Bill is therefore an important measure, which seeks to make the law on these matters both clearer and more readily ascertainable by those affected by it.
Part I of the Bill, comprising Clauses 1 to 16, is concerned with prescription, both positive and negative. Part II deals with the limitations of actions, and Part III, which consists of only two clauses, regulates the scope, commencement and extent of the proposed legislation. Clauses 1 to 5 make certain amendments in the law relating to the positive prescription. At present, the prescriptive period for feudal titles—and the great majority of titles to land in Scotland are feudal—is ten years. Under the provisions of the Bill the same period would be applied to all recorded titles, including registered leaseholds which are at present subject to a 40-year period. On the other hand, so far as unregistered leaseholds are concerned, the Commission took the view that the period of positive prescription appropriate to an unrecorded title should be longer than that for a title recorded in the public register. Nevertheless, in modern times, the existing period of 40 years seemed unduly long. For all unrecorded leasehold titles, therefore, a 20-year period was considered fair, both to the party in possession of the title and to anyone who might have an interest in challenging the validity of that title. The Commission's recommendations are implemented in the Bill. Similarly, for servitudes and public rights of way, a 20-year period is substituted for the present prescription of forty years. Again, in modern times, forty years seemed excessive and presented problems in the provision of evidence necessary to establish the right.
These are the major changes proposed in relation to the positive prescription and, while important, they are of a relatively minor nature. They will affect fewer people than the rather more radical amendments proposed in Clauses 6 to 13 dealing with the negative prescription. At present, the law on negative prescription is derived from a number of Statutes dating back to 1469. Apart from the long negative prescription, which cuts off rights and obligations to which it applies

421
after twenty years, and which is retained substantially in its present form, there are a number of short prescriptions applying to various categories of debts and having different effects in relation to the obligations to which they respectively apply.
Thus, there is the triennial prescription which applies to actions of debt for urban rents, board and lodging, tradesmen's accounts, and other similar items. This prescription does not extinguish the debt, but simply imposes a limitation upon the mode of proof available to establish the creditor's right to repayment. After expiry of the three-year period, the creditor may only prove the existence of the debt, or the fact that it is still due, by reference to writings of the debtor or to an acknowledgment given by the debtor under oath. Similarly, the quinquennial and sexennial prescriptions, applying for example to verbal contracts of sale or hiring—to which the five-year period applies—and bills of exchange and promissory notes (which are subject to the six-year prescription) affect not the existence of the debt but the mode of proof whereby the debt can be proved. The septennial prescription, on the other hand, which applies to certain types of cautionary or guarantee obligations, totally extinguishes these obligations after seven years.
These various shorter prescriptions, based on old Statutes, have been the subject of considerable judicial and professional criticism over the years. The Scottish Law Commission recommended that they should be replaced by a new short negative prescription of more general application. This recommendation is given effect at Clause 6, which enacts a new short prescription of five years, applying to the majority of everyday commercial transactions and to a number of less common obligations which are listed at Schedule 1 to the Bill. The effect of this prescription will be to extinguish the rights and obligations to which it applies.
For those obligations which are not caught by the new short negative prescription, the long prescription of twenty years is retained, subject to the exclusion of certain imprescriptible rights and obligations which are listed at Schedule 3. These imprescriptible rights include, for example, a real right of ownership in land, or the
422
right to exercise the ordinary uses of property, which the proprietor may assert or not as he pleases, without the risk of losing the right by failure to assert it.
The Bill also makes provision for the interruption of prescriptive periods, either by the making of a formal claim by the creditor in terms of Clause 9, or by an acknowledgement by the debtor in appropriate form, as set out in Clause 10. The methods of ascertaining the commencement date for, and the computation of, prescriptive periods are provided for at Clause 14 and Schedule 2. It is, I think, unnecessary to go into the proposed rules in detail to-day. Perhaps it would suffice to say that these are not markedly different from existing rules of law, and are mainly aimed at resolving any possible doubt or difficulty by providing a clear statutory code, readily ascertainable and understandable by both debtors and creditors.
Subject to four minor amendments, Part II of the Bill simply consolidates existing enactments relating to the limitation of action. These amendments are made at the instance of the Scottish Law Commission for the purposes of interpretation, clarification and the removal of anomalies. Part II of the Bill contains the usual provisions concerning extent and date of commencement. The provisions of this measure have been carefully thought out by the Scottish Law Commission who have consulted widely on the reforms proposed. They have met with a wide measure of acceptance, and I trust they will commend themselves to your Lordships' House. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Palwarth.)
3.45 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, for the explanation he has given of this rather complicated Scottish legal Bill. If what he said throughout was not a source of complete information to all the Members of your Lordships' House, we can at least congratulate the Minister on having read it beautifully! I doubt very much, for instance, whether everyone in the House knows exactly what "prescription" means. He did not explain that. I am not inviting him to do so because I doubt very much whether there are many people all that interested. I did have a joke

423
about the Long Title of the Bill when it was introduced. I notice on reading Schedule 5 that it starts by repealing 13 Acts of the Scottish Parliament. Of these, 8 are described as Prescription Acts but, for some reason which is perfectly sound but is not obvious, only 3 of those Acts are listed in the Long Title. I am perhaps now about to hand out a bonus for the Scottish National Party when I say that the Scottish Parliament seem to have been a more efficient body than the Westminster Parliament, because 13 Acts of Parliament between 1469 and 1696 appear to have been sufficiently good as not to require to be repealed before 1973. I doubt whether there will be many Acts of the present Parliament which will last so long.
I have no objection at all to the principles contained in this Bill. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, that the Scottish Law Commission have done a good job. I congratulate the Government on having accepted their advice on this matter. On the subject of the short prescription, it is obviously a more sensible procedure in modern circumstances to have a single period of 5 years for the greater part, rather than to have periods ranging from 3 to 10 years and, in one case, even 20 years being characterised as a short period.
What I would have thought reasonable, having brought the Acts into the 20th century, would be to have gone a stage further and brought the language into the 20th century at the same time. I do not expect the Minister to give me an answer to what I am going to ask today. If the Election had gone the other way I have not the slightest doubt that I would have been moving this measure instead of him, and if he had asked me the questions which I am now about to ask him, I would not have known the answers offhand; so I do not expect him to know them either. The sort of thing which may be perfectly clear to a lawyer but which is nothing short of nonsense to a layman is contained in Clause 1(3) which reads
"In the computation of a prescriptive period for the purposes of this section in a case where the deed in question is a decree of adjudication for debt, any period before the expiry of the legal shall be disregarded."
One would expect that there was a word missing after the word "legal". To
424
most people "legal" is an adjective. Incidentally, I consulted a lawyer friend in Scotland about this and he ought to have known about it; but what he said was that there was obviously a word or words missing after "legal". However, I looked up the word in the dictionary in the Library this afternoon and discovered that "legal" in Scottish law is apparently only a noun. It is a piece of legal shorthand and means the legal period within which reversion is permitted. Generally speaking, I am in favour of using fewer words in Bills rather than more. I think that there is something to be said for using sufficient words to make clear, both to those affected and the lawyers who are going to act for them, exactly what is meant. This becomes more so when I read Clause 6. In the middle of subsection (1) it says:
"then, as from the expiration of that period, the obligation shall without more be extinguished".
The obvious thing one would ask is: without more of what? It was suggested to me that if this was not a legal Bill, but was in ordinary English, one would say perhaps, "without more ado". But that is too simple a word to appear in an Act of Parliament, so obviously that word is not missing. Neither the large Murray dictionary nor the shorter two volume one can give me any help; the word "more" does not appear there as a noun anywhere. It may be another piece of Scottish legal shorthand, but we are entitled to know what it means.
To take some of the other things: there is reference to the "owner of the regalia". That explains itself; but I was told that "regalia" means in the possession of the Sovereign. It seems needless to say, "against the Crown as owner of the regalia". If "regalia" means in possession of the Sovereign, why does it need to be described as the owner of the regalia? A reference is made to something in possession of the relative dominant tenement. To any Scot this would be taken as meaning the high buildings which we have in Scotland. It is not; it is something much more complicated and wide ranging.
These are some of the examples; and then there is the regular use of Latin words when English is possible. For instance, right at the early part of the Bill there is reference to:
"or in land of a description habile …"

425
I am told that means competent or proper. Why cannot we put these things in English? I had a brief discussion with a Member of your Lordships' House who suggested that we might put these things into Gaelic. Even fewer of us would understand if that were done.
The Bill is a good one; it makes this important subject suitable for modern usage. It would be an even greater improvement if anyone affected could, for the greater part, understand it by reading it, and did not have to consult a lawyer in the first instance, because the language is so peculiar, to see whether or not he is affected.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I readily accept Lord Hughes's invitation not to answer the specific questions that he has raised, while thanking him formally for his general acceptance of the Bill. I am all in favour of anything to simplify what, with deference to my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, I would call legal "mumbo jumbo". I am assured that the difficulty in this Bill is that it deals only with the law in relation to prescription and limitation; in other words, the effect of time on a number of other matters. Terms of this kind are in use in other areas of the law. Consequently, it would not be appropriate to make changes of this nature in this Bill, even if they are considered desirable. Whether such a change is desirable is another question which, with regret, we cannot discuss to-day in the context of this Bill with its limited effect. Nevertheless, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his acceptance of the Bill in principle.
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

MORTGAGE INTEREST RATES
3.55 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, with the permission of your Lordships' House, it might be convenient if I now repeat a Statement which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment about building society mortgage lending.
The Statement is as follows:
"The House will know that on March 16 the Building Societies' Asso-
426
ciation recommended to its members an increase in the rate of interest offered to investors to 6·3 per cent., but deferred a decision on the recommended mortgage lending rate.
"Since then the building societies have not attracted a sufficient inflow of funds and the Association has indicated to the Government that it would have to raise the recommended investment rate to 6·75 per cent.
"It also indicated that this higher investment rate implied an increase in the recommended mortgage rate to 10 per cent.
"The Government regard it as a high priority that building societies should continue to attract sufficient funds to support a high and stable level of housebuilding.
"They accept that to achieve this result an investment rate of as high as 6·75 per cent. may well be necessary at the present time because of the operation of certain special factors such as the recent marked increase in consumer spending which has affected the current pattern of savings.
"The Government think that it would not be right to increase the mortgage rate fully to correspond with an investment rate of 6·75 per cent. in these special circumstances.
"The Government have therefore offered a temporary bridging grant to those societies who find it necessary to have an investment rate of 6·75 per cent. but who nevertheless do not increase their annuity mortgage rate above 9·5 per cent.
"This grant will be available for a period of three months beginning with the date at which for each class of mortgagors a society's mortgage rate is increased to 9·5 per cent. or to-day, whichever is the later.
"The grant will be equivalent to the difference in receipts of interest for the three months period between a 9·5 per cent. and 10 per cent. mortgage rate on all new and existing loans to individuals for home ownership.
"The cost of the bridging grant is estimated at £15 million and supplementary provision will be sought from Parliament at the earliest opportunity.

427
"In the meantime recourse will if necessary be made to the Contingencies Fund.
"In order to ensure that the funds attracted by building societies are used to the best advantage, the Building Societies Association has agreed to recommend to its members that the amounts used for special advances of over £13,000 to individual purchasers should be limited as far as possible and that special consideration should be given to first-time purchasers.
"In order to avoid an increase in the total of public expenditure I will make off setting savings from other expenditures for which my Department will be responsible.
"As the House knows, the Government attach overriding importance to the success of its counter-inflation policy.
"They have already demonstrated by their decisions on rates and on the needs allowance for council and private tenants that at this crucial time they are willing, in appropriate cases, to take direct measures to keep increases in household costs within reasonable bounds.
"The present decision on mortgages forms part of the same pattern."
That, my Lords, concludes my right honourable friend's Statement.
3.58 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I am sure that it would be the wish of your Lordships' House first of all to thank the noble Earl for making the Statement and, in particular, for being good enough to add the weight of his important Office to it by making the Statement himself. The Statement refers to the situation which is a stark revelation of the complete failure of Government policy over a wide area. What the noble Earl did not draw attention to was the fact that the lower rate which will now be in vogue is the highest rate ever known in this country for building society mortgages, and will undoubtedly represent a considerable hardship to many a borrower, particularly those who have borrowed recently—younger married couples. Our criticism rests on the fact that this Statement shows no serious attempt at all to deal with the real
428
problem of housing costs, both in terms of capital costs and, more particularly as we are concerned now, with the interest costs.
The Government say in the Statement that they accept that an investment rate of as high as 6·75 per cent.—that is net, it is tax compounded·may well be necessary at the present time. Is the noble Earl aware that the justification of that Statement is that the high rates of borrowing, triggered off by the Government's economic policy, make it essential and show that the Government's credit policy has failed completely in its purpose? Are the Government also aware that a palliative for three months is no solution to our problem at all: it represents in fact one-twentieth of the interest only of that part of the instalment which mortgagors will be called upon to repay over the next three months, and that that is all that is involved? Why the noble Earl refers to that, or why his right honourable friend refers to that, as a "bridging loan", as a "bridging grant", I fail to understand. Is it not simply a bridge between the current rate of 9½ per cent. and the rate that will follow in three months' time under Government policy of 10 per cent.? If the Government feel that 6½75 per cent. is right, why have they made no attempt to insulate the corresponding lending rate from that borrowing rate? Why do they pay no attention whatsoever to proposals, which have been made by right honourable friends of mine in the other place over a period of something like 18 months, for a stabilisation fund which would help in that process of separating the consequential leading to the increased lending rate from an increased borrowing rate?
Finally, may I ask the Government this: Is it not right to say that, whereas this temporary palliative will be no more than a drop in the bucket for most home owners, it at the same time represents a slap in the face for all those council tenants who, far from obtaining any alleviation in their burdens as a result of Government policy, are at this moment being required to pay increased charges?
4.3 p.m.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for his Statement, and while of course welcoming any measure to protect the home owner

429
against ever-increasing interest rates, might I ask whether the noble Earl would not accept that the home owner must be very naīve who does not realise that at the end of the three months his interest rate is going to go up to 10 per cent., when the local elections are safely out of the way? Might I ask him whether this development is not a consequence of the free and untrammelled competition in interest rates?—which is, in my opinion, wholly incompatible with the Government's control over other everyday items of household expenditure. Is it not without precedent for a Government to introduce a panic measure of this kind to subsidise home ownership, which is likely to be noted by millions of council tenants and private tenants who are having to face increases in their cost of living under the Housing Finance Bill? And might it not have been better if the Department had exercised some pressure over the building societies to bring their reserves down to a level which is much closed to the statutory limit, which would have released a great deal more than the £15 million provided under this measure? Could not the situation also have been eased if the Government, through their own resources, had made available more money to the local authorities so that they could have increased their lending to householders at reasonable levels? Moreover, may I ask the noble Earl two specific questions about the Statement? First of all, will he exclude the special advances of above £13,000 from qualification for the bridging grant? Secondly, will he tell the House what are the offsetting savings which the Department is going to make from other expenditures?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I note the remarks with which the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has prefaced his particular points on general Government credit and monetary policy. I do not wish particularly to duck this, but I do not think it would be right for me to embark on a long discourse on overall Government credit policy and monetary policy. This is a matter which we have debated fairly recently and which we can debate again, and I think that that would be a better vehicle for that discussion than an answer to the particular points put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond. What I must again emphasise is that what the Government have had as a priority in this
430
matter was the need, in the special circumstances which obtain in this field at the present time, to do what was necessary to maintain a steady flow of funds into house construction. That is absolutely necessary if we are going to keep up building at the kind of level which is required, and in our view it is entirely necessary that the level should be kept up. Again, I do not want to get into a housing debate here, but we inherited in this particular area a very low level of "starts". This has now been brought up to a level approximating to that which we bequeathed the last Administration in 1964. For a whole host of reasons, not least social, it is in our view absolutely essential that the flow of funds should be maintained in order to keep "starts" in this area of housing up to an acceptable level.
The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, stigmatised these measures as being a short-term palliative, a drop in the ocean, and so on. I would emphasise to the noble Lord in reply that this is a bridging operation. I recognise that wider considerations are involved here, and that is why my right honourable friends will be discussing urgently with the Building Societies Association whether, and in what form, a longer-term stabilisation scheme could best be implemented. I think the noble Lord also termed these measures as a slap in the face for the council house tenant. All I should like to do is to remind your Lordships' House that the council house tenant, unlike the owner-occupier, does of course benefit from rent rebates. I would remind your Lordships that the cost of rent rebates in the current year are estimated at something like £1C0 million; expenditure on the needs allowance is estimated at something like £30 million, compared with the £15 million which this bridging operation will be absorbing.
In reply to the specific questions of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, I am not in a position to inform him where the economies which the Secretary of State will be finding within his own Department will precisely fall at this stage; but I can again reaffirm his assurance that the cost of this scheme will be absorbed by economies found from within the Department of the Environment. I wonder whether the noble Lord would repeat his point about £13,000? I am not sure that

431
I know the answer to it and, if so, I apologise in advance, but could he re-phrase his question?
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, what I was asking was whether this assistance of £15 million would be limited to covering the difference in interest rates on loans made to persons borrowing below the special limit of £13,000; and, if the building societies chose to advance additional funds above the special limit, contrary to the advice which has been given to them by the Government, whether that would be excluded from the qualifying terms of this grant.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I give this reply off the cuff and, subject to that, it is my understanding that that is the case; but I do speak subject to correction. If I am wrong on that point I will gladly inform the noble Lord and, if necessary, inform your Lordships' House.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, I suppose I ought to declare an interest in so far as I am a director of a large building society. I should like to thank the noble Earl for his Statement, which I think is a very fair one in all the circumstances. In the course of that Statement he used the term that this was largely owing to "special factors", and he named some of them. But the noble Earl did not name what I regard as the most important of those factors, and that is what has resulted from the Budget.
The building society situation up to the Budget statement was that gross income and withdrawals were keeping on a level, roughly sneaking, of what had existed for quite a long time. Then the Chancellor of the Exchequer discovered that he needed another £4,000 million from somewhere and he did not go to taxation in order to obtain it. What he did was to lift the rate of interest on Government funds, and the result was that the building societies immediately found that there was a very large withdrawal of funds from them, going into Government funds. So the competition came largely from the Government, and the situation which exists now is a direct result of the Budget proposals. Therefore the Government had a very big responsibility on their shoulders during these last few days to do something
432
about it. I place the blame for the fact that building societies found themselves in the situation which they did largely on the Government's policy, or lack of policy. So the situation now is saved by a method which is certainly not the most desirable—and that is an understatement.
I join with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, in suggesting that there should be some examination of the 1962 Building Societies Act and that the Government should have a look at the present terms of the reserve ratio. It might be that if that were changed there would be more funds available for mortgages. I cannot imagine that it was coincidence that the banks reduced their base rate a few hours before this decision was taken, and it gave the Government an excuse that after all it might well be that interest rates were falling. We shall wait and see. While this situation helps the building societies at the present time I hope it will not be regarded as a permanent way of solving this problem as far as house purchase is concerned.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I will gladly look at the suggestions which have been made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and by the noble Lord, Lord Royle, about the 1962 Act and I will see that those suggestions are conveyed to my right honourable friends who are directly responsible in this particular area. I do not think that I should wish to enter into speculation on the timing of the reduction in the basic lending rate of the clearing banks. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Royle, is reading more into this than he should. Nor do I wish to bandy words with him as to what have been the essential immediate factors causing the withdrawal of funds and the slowing down in the increase in net funds available to the building societies in recent weeks. All I would say, from such figures as I have seen, is that they are certainly intimately and closely connected with the funds which have been going into the consumer market in anticipation of V.A.T., but I would not necessarily deny that there are other factors at work. This factor, culminating in a spending spree in the consumer area, and the draw-down in the net increase—if this is not too complicated phraseology—which has taken place in recent weeks, seem to me to be more than coincidental.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, whether the funds which have been released in the community stem as a result of the Government's policy in relation to interest rates, or whether they come about as a result of the direct action to get a consumer boom going at breakneck speed, the results in the long run will be the same; but in the meantime, does the noble Earl not agree that the grant to the building societies to keep them in their house-loaning business is in fact a subsidy? This afternoon more than once he has mentioned that this was a subsidy for special cases, but only a few days ago the noble Earl stood at that Box and time and time again refused to treat the hospital workers as a special case. He said there should be no subsidies, no treatment of special cases. What degree of humbug do the Government have to sink to before they start telling the truth, and telling the truth before events force them to?
This week the country has seen an example of political ineptitude which in my knowledge is without parallel. A Government split up the middle, diagonally, vertically and horizontally, leaking its policies in the Press, hoping that something was going to turn up. The truth is that the Government are in an almighty mess. The country will get into an almighty mess as a result of the Government's economic policy, which stems from one basic thing: their determination, regardless of the consequences, that our country as a whole, long or short term, should get into the Common Market. I suppose that this to-day should be regarded as the April instalment. It would have been appropriate if the Government had made the announcement on April 1.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, has said about the failure of the Government to give the hospital workers ally subsidy, could the noble Earl tell the House why in this case they are giving the building societies £15 million and not loaning it to them?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, the judgment here was that the action which was taken was essential if the flow of funds into construction in this area was to be kept going. In fact we are doing precisely what the Leader of the Oppo-
434
sition suggested last year might be done. I could perhaps remind the noble Baroness of what Mr. Wilson said, on October 31, during the debate on the Address:
"In view of the figures that I have quoted on mortgages, there must be a limit on building society mortgage rates, and this, if necessary, may mean subsidies. The Government should not reject this on the ground of the sanctity of the freedom the City."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, Commons, 31/10/72; col. 30.]
All I can say is that the right honourable gentleman does not seem to share the judgment of the noble Baroness on this particular matter.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, perhaps I know more about it than he does.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, we value the wisdom and experience of the noble Baroness that we have seen manifested in a wide variety of fields.
I noted the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Wigg; I noted that they went wide in orbit, extending over the Government's pay policy which we have discussed at length, and I was not altogether surprised that the noble Lord managed to drag in the Common Market. But I do not think he asked me a question to which he expected a reply.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, will the noble Earl arrange for an early debate so that we may discuss this policy? This is the instalment for April and it will go on, month after month, and at the end we shall see who is right. It is wholly owing—it must be owing—to the Government's policy, regardless of the consequences, to drag this country ultimately into a major deflation, the consequences of which would be quite catastrophic.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I shall be very glad for the usual channels to consider debating this and associated matters, but subject to what we heard from the Chief Whip about the timetable proposed for the Recess and other matters earlier this afternoon.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that we shall be returning to this Question of interest rates when we discuss the Pay and Prices Code on Monday week? May I ask the noble Earl to what extent the Government went into the question of the working margins of the

435
building societies before they agreed to this subsidy? Is it a fact, as I understand from the figuring, that they will be allowed a working margin of 3 per cent.? Is 3 per cent. not higher than was accepted two or three years ago? Moreover, is it not a percentage on a larger sum of money? Is it more expensive to administer loans of the order of £10,000 than it used to be for loans of the order of £2,000 or £3,000?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that there were lengthy discussions between my right honourable friends and the representatives of the Building Societies' Association, but it would be wrong for me, again speaking off the cuff, to divulge the nature of those discussions. What I should like to do is to remind the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, that it is now proposed that my right honourable friends should hold further discussions with the Building Societies' Association to see whether, and in what form, a longer-term stabilisation scheme could best be implemented. No doubt the type of consideration which he has advanced is just the type of matter which will be looked into during those further discussions.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, without going into the full nature of those discussions, can the noble Earl tell me at least whether the 3 per cent. working margin is more or less than was the case two or three years ago?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I was hoping that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, was going to provide the answer to that question which frankly I do not know. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, does know the answer; otherwise I doubt whether he would have asked the question of me. I apologise for not knowing that figure off-hand, as it were, but I will write if need be, to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, on that point.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that while there may not appear to be a link with the Statement, to which we have all listened with interest, something should now be done about this terrible, malevolent, avaricious practice of gazumping? Can the Government look into this matter, because it has a pathetic affect upon
436
young married couples? I know it is difficult, but I should like to think that the Government would try, irrespective of this Statement to-day, to prevent gazumping at this period during the scarcity of housing?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, that is rather a different matter, but again I shall be glad to convey to my right honourable friend what the noble Lord has said. It is very much with the young married couple in mind that the Government are providing this bridging operation at the present time.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, as the noble Earl has called in aid the statement by the Leader of the Opposition—and may I say that I entirely agree with what was said by my noble friend Lady Summerskill, and perhaps I know more about it than she does—may I take it that in due course, in a few weeks' time, when the Government introduce food subsidies, they will again pray in aid the Leader of the Opposition? Would it not be useful, when time after time they are forced by events to accept policies put forward by the Labour Party, for them to preface their Statements by saying just that?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, when the Opposition put forward constructive suggestions we are always glad to look at them. Unfortunately that is rather a rarity.EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, when the Opposition put forward constructive suggestions we are always glad to look at them. Unfortunately that is rather a rarity.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, that enables me to ask the noble Earl what may be, if it is the wish of the House, the final question on these matters: whether, having regard to the fact that that constructive statement has clearly been taken up by the Government, which we are delighted to hear, the noble Earl will be good enough to keep us informed of the progress made in the Government's deliberations with regard to a stabilisation fund, which is the first sign of the Government's attempt to deal with this problem on a long-term basis—which we very much welcome? Could I, on the grounds of humanity, ask the noble Earl to convey to the Secretary of State my wishes that the arm which is nearly dislocated will shortly be healed?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I will certainly undertake, in so far as the

437
confidentiality of the discussions allows—and that has to be agreed by both sides—to keep your Lordships informed of the progress of these discussions. I should like to emphasise again that both the Government and the Association are agreed that a stabilisation scheme of some sort is desirable to ensure a steadier flow of funds into housing.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, is it not obvious from the answers which the noble Earl has given and his general demeanour in reply to the questions that have been addressed to him, and the statements that have been made, that he is himself very much disturbed by the situation? In those circumstances, would the noble Earl agree with me that there is not much value in indulging in criticism of the Government? What is important is that what has happened ought not to happen again, and that in the next three months the Government must find a constructive method, in consultation with the building societies, to avoid a repetition of what has happened? Would the noble Earl not agree?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell is sometimes right—I correct myself; he is very often right, and I think on this occasion he is plumb right. I am disturbed about this situation. I think it is a serious situation. The action which the Government have taken was right in the circumstances, but I also agree that we have to find, one way and another, a system by which we can get an assured steady flow of funds into this vital sector of our economy, because a great deal depends on it, not least many matters which closely affect millions of individuals in these Islands.

GREY SQUIRRELS (WARFARIN) ORDER 1973
4.27 p.m.
EARL FERRERS EARL FERRERS rose to move, That the Draft Grey Squirrels (Warfarin) Order 1973, laid before the House on March 21, be approved. The noble Earl said: This Order has the effect of permitting the controlled use of the poison Warfarin against grey squirrels in England and Wales, and provision for the making of such an Order was included in the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1972. The Draft
438
Order is designed to allow the anticoagulant poison Warfarin to be used against grey squirrels in a specified concentration in a specified bait. It describes in detail the special hopper in which the bait must be laid unless it is to be laid in a building, attic or loft where other animals will not be at risk. The Order applies to the whole of England and Wales but there are sixteen counties with viable red squirrel populations in which the use of Warfarin against grey squirrels will not be permitted out of doors because that would endanger the red squirrels. In West Suffolk, the grey squirrel is responsible for much damage to forestry interests. There are viable populations of red squirrels in the Thetford Chase area, which all nature lovers would wish to protect. To overcome this difficulty, the Draft Order would permit the use of Warfarin out of doors in West Suffolk but I am authorised to give a firm assurance on behalf of the Forestry Commission that Warfarin will not be used in their woodlands at Thetford Chase.
Under the terms of Section 19 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, Ministers are required to consult interested organisations before making an Order. My right honourable friends have consulted a number of national organisations representing forestry, wild life conservation and animal protection interests, whose views on the proposals were invited. With the exception of the R.S.P.C.A., which is opposed in principle to any increase in the use of poison in the countryside, they indicated their general approval. Some organisations have made useful suggestions which have been adopted; the Advisory Committee on Pesticides and other Toxic Chemicals have also been consulted and have endorsed the proposals contained in the Draft Order. I know that many of your Lordships are concerned at the very serious depredations of the grey squirrel and I trust that you will consider it justifiable to bring in these Orders. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Grey Squirrels (Warfarin) Order 1973, laid before the House on March 21, be approved.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

FARM CAPITAL GRANT (VARIATION) SCHEME 1973
4.30 p.m.
EARL FERRERS EARL FERRERS rose to move, That the Farm Capital Grant (Variation) Scheme 1973, be approved. The noble Earl said: My Lords, there are two Motions down on the Order Paper, one in my name, and one in the name of my noble friend Lord Polwarth, which refers to Scotland, and the House may find it convenient if these are discussed together.
The purpose of the Variation Schemes is to reduce the standard rate of grants from 30 per cent. to 20 per cent. for works and facilities for which application for grant is made on or after March 22, 1973. This change was notified to the House on March 21, when I repeated the Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture on this year's Annual Review. The Government welcome the substantial increase in capital investment on farms in recent years, an increase which reflects the improvement in farm incomes and the confidence of farmers in the prospects for the agricultural industry in the European Community. These prospects for expansion provide an incentive to maintain the right level of investment, and the rise in farm incomes has increased farmers' ability to finance the cost. In these circumstances, the Government consider that it is no longer necessary for them to provide such a large amount of direct financial assistance for the generality of works and facilities covered by the Farm Capital Grant Schemes.
The amount spent by the Government on grants for capital improvement on farms has increased from £36·5 million in 1970–71 to £57·6 million in 1971–72, and is expected to be over £74 million in 1972–73. In the current year, 1973–74, we estimate that the amount will rise to nearly £93 million. The reduction in the grant will save some £15 million in a full year, but we have made no cut in the special rates of grant for drainage for improvements to hill land or for remodelling works which are needed because of an approved farm amalgamation.
In 1972 the agricultural industry invested £167 million in buildings and works. This was 19 per cent. more than the investment in 1971, which was itself
440
a record. Against this background, and given the thriving condition of British agriculture to-day, I am confident that the industry will be able to maintain an adequate level of investment with the rates of grant set out in these two Statutory Instruments. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Farm Capital Grant (Variation) Scheme, 1973, be approved.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

FARM CAPITAL GRANT (VARIATION) (SCOTLAND) SCHEME 1973
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Farm Capital Grant (Variation) (Scotland) Scheme 1973, be approved.—(Lord Polwarth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CALF SUBSIDIES (UNITED KINGDOM) (VARIATION) (No. 2) SCHEME 1973
EARL FERRERS EARL FERRERS rose to move, That the Draft Calf Subsidies (United Kingdom) (Variation) (No. 2) Scheme 1973, laid before the House on March 21, be approved. The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Draft Scheme gives effect to the changes in the rates of calf subsidies announced by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, also on March 21. The changes this Scheme will make are that the rate for steers would be reduced from £11·25 to £8·50, and the rate for heifers from £9 to £6·50. The new rates apply to calves born on or after April 16, 1973. Since the subsidy is generally paid on calves when they are eight months or more old, the reduced rates would not become effective until the autumn of this year.
There is a high rate of expansion in both the beef and the dairy herds, and farmers are clearly responding to higher market prices. The Government consider that a reduction in the calf subsidy is therefore a sensible move which will not prejudice farmers' returns and which will make a worthwhile saving in the cost of support. The reductions are about one quarter of the present rates for the

441
calf subsidies and in a full year would mean a saving of about £8 million. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Calf Subsidies (United Kingdom) (Variation) (No. 2) Scheme 1973, laid before the House on March 21, be approved.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MISUSE OF DRUGS ACT 1971 (MODIFICATION) ORDER 1973
4.34 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS rose to move, That the Draft Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Modification) Order 1973, laid before the House on March 21, be approved. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I wish this Order were as simple as those agricultural matters we have just been considering. But if one looks at it and tries to understand from its face what it is about, I think noble Lords might be forgiven for saying it is rather difficult. So perhaps, because this is really quite an important matter, I may be forgiven if I explain in just a little detail what we are trying to do.
The House will probably remember, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, who is so very familiar with this subject, certainly will, that before the passage of the Misuse of Drugs Act, 1971, the law relating to the control of dangerous drugs and the prevention of their misuse had grown up without any very coherent pattern, largely in response to the increasing misuse of drugs in the last decade. The 1971 Act has drawn together the existing statutory provisions into a comprehensive code; it provides for the first time a really flexible piece of legislation that enables the Government to react quickly and constructively to the problems caused by drug dependence, and at the same time provides firmer defences against illicit traffic and misuse. In view of the damage to society that can be caused by drug dependence and misuse, it is an Act of considerable social significance and the Government attach great importance to its effective operation.
Since it was passed on to the Statute Book, the Government, in close consultation with the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs set up under the Act—and I think that is the only bit of the Act that is in force at the moment—have
442
been preparing as a matter of priority the subordinate legislation which is necessary to bring the whole of the Act into force. This has been a substantial operation, and it has needed a thorough review of the existing arrangements as well as the development of new provisions, all of which has had to be done in careful consultation with many interests that are involved. But I can now tell the House that the subordinate legislation is complete and ready to come into operation and so bring the whole Act into force.
In the time since the Act was passed—and it got the Royal Assent in May 1971, so it is nearly two years old—changes have occurred in the international control of narcotics, and our own assessments of the potential of misuse of certain drugs have been revised; so adjustments need to be made to the drugs controlled by the 1971 Act, and that is in fact the purpose of this rather obscure Order. In view of the difficulty and the importance, may I just explain what these changes are? If I fail in my pronunciation of some of the substances dealt with, I beg for pardon in advance. The substances controlled by the Misuse of Drugs Act are listed in the Second Schedule, in a sort of mind-boggling collection of technical and chemical phrases, which are in fact categorised into three classes, A, B and C, according to the assessment of their danger if misused. Offences involving the substances in the different classes attract different penalties, which are set out in tabular form in the Fourth Schedule. By Order in Council it is possible for substances to be added to or removed from Schedule 2, or moved from one bit of it to another. That is done under Section 2, under which this Draft Order is made. It is, in fact, the first Order of this kind that has been introduced.
The Act requires that its provisions should be considered by the Advisory Council and the changes it makes are upon the Advisory Council's recommendations—and I am glad to see the noble Baroness in her place, and nodding to agree with me that this has been done. In brief, the changes it will make to Schedule 2 fall into three groups. First, there is a group of adjustments occasioned by recent changes in the international control of narcotics. Second, there is an adjustment to remedy a defect in the

443
Act by which some drugs are placed in two different classes at the same time. Third, four drugs are removed from control because they are no longer thought liable to be misused. I will explain those in turn.
The first group—that is, the international changes—are dealt with in Articles 2(a) and 2(c) of the Order and they arise from this country's adherence to the 1961 United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. As a party to the Convention, the United Kingdom must amend its domestic legislation to give effect to decisions of the United Nations with respect to drugs under international control. Since the 1971 Act was passed, the United Nations has brought under control two drugs, drotebanol—which is defined in a technical sense in Article 2(a)—and propiram. These are, in fact, synthetic pain-killing drugs. The United Nations has also adjusted the controls on a third drug, nicodicodine, by moving it away from the most potent and dangerous drugs and putting it into the same category as codeine. The appropriate amendments to Schedule 2 of our Act give effect to these changes: they add drotebanol to the list of Class A drugs and remove nicodicodine from that list; and they add nicodicodine and propiram to the list of Class B drugs.
Next is the change made by Article 2(b) of the Order, which remedies an anomaly created by an oversight when the 1971 Act was drafted. Paragraph 3 of Part I of Schedule 2 controls as Class A drugs the esters and ethers of any of the substances specified in paragraph 1 of Part I. Thus morphine has certain ethers and by this paragraph they are controlled as Class A drugs, and offences in respect of them could attract appropriately heavy penalties. When this provision was drafted, it was overlooked that some substances which are esters or ethers of substances in Part I are, in fact, specified by name as Class B drugs in paragraph 1 of Part II. For example, codeine and ethylmorphine are ethers of morphine, and, because they are specifically named in Class B, the offence of being in illegal possession of them would attract a lesser penalty than for drugs in Class A. This overlap is obviously unsatisfactory and Article 2(b) remedies it,
444
and makes sure that they go into only one class at a time. Finally, Article 2(d) of the Order removes from control entirely four substances that appear as Class C drugs in Part III of Schedule 2. These are fencamfamin, pemoline, phentermine and prolintane, all of which are minor central nervous system stimulants.
I should just explain how it was that they got into the Schedule in the first place. In 1964, it was necessary for the Government of the day to deal with the problem of the increasing misuse by young people of pep pills or, as they are precisely termed, certain central nervous system stimulants; in particular the amphetamines. The Drugs (Prevention of Misuse) Act 1964 brought these substances under control and, originally, most of the substances under control were not mentioned by name in the Schedule to the 1964 Act, but were controlled because their chemical structure fell within a generic formula which was set out in the Schedule to that Act. Unfortunately, not only did that formula catch the amphetamines which then, as indeed now, were the main drugs of misuse in this class, but it also caught substances which were not and never have been misused. Thus the generic formula turned out to have a much wider effect than had been expected or intended. Fencamfamin, phentermine and prolintane are three drugs which became controlled in this way. Pemoline was named specifically in the Schedule to the 1964 Act because, though its chemical structure was not caught by the generic formula, it had a similar structure and a similar clinical effect to amphetamine. It was therefore considered to have a potential for misuse, although there was no evidence of misuse at that time, nor has there been since.
When the Misuse of Drugs Bill, now the 1971 Act, was before Parliament, representations were made to the Home Office by the manufacturers of products based on pemoline, phentermine and prolintane, that the continued control of these drugs could not be justified on the grounds that they were being misused, or were likely to be misused, or that if misuse occurred it would be harmful. The Government had decided in 1970 to abandon the generic formula (this was, in fact, done by an Order amending the 1964 Act) but they thought it best to retain in the 1971 Act the list of drugs

445
that were controlled under the existing law, and to use the machinery provided by the Advisory Council set up under the Act to consider any changes in the list of drugs that ought to be subject to control. So one of the first tasks undertaken by the Council when it was established in January last year, was to consider the status of these drugs. The Department of Health and Social Security suggested that fencamfamin should also be considered at the same time. I understand that the Council came to the conclusion that none of them was being misused or appeared likely to be misused, nor, indeed, would have harmful effects sufficient to constitute a social problem if they were. So they took the view that, in accordance with the criteria for control laid down in Section 1(2) of the Act, there were no grounds for these drugs remaining under control and that is what they recommended. So that is why we are now lifting the control of them. That, I think, goes through the various parts of this Order. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, agrees that what I said the Advisory Council have done, is indeed what they have done. I hope that the appalling technicalities of this matter are a little clearer after my speech. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Modification) Order 1973, laid before the House on March 21, be approved.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
LORD NUNBURNHPLME:. My Lords, can the noble Viscount tell the House what is the nature of this drug, nicodicodine, which is being removed from the danger list?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: No, my Lords. I do not know at all.
4.48 p.m.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, the House is extremely grateful to the noble Viscount for explaining with astonishing clarity a matter of fantastic complexity. I must admit that, when I first saw the Order of which I had to approve or disapprove, my heart failed me, but the noble Viscount has explained it with great clarity. It was particularly important to your Lordships' House, since this is the first Order of this kind to come before us, that we should understand all the
446
implications, particularly as there was the slight difficulty that at one point it looked as if we were amending a Bill which had not actually been passed. But I gather that the Statutory Instrument authorities are now satisfied about this matter.
I think your Lordships' House understands completely that, as we are members of the United Nations, we have to amend our domestic legislation to take into account drugs which come under international control, and that part of the Order is relatively easy. The difficult part, which I really congratulate the noble Viscount on explaining, is changing from one category to another. If I may say so, I also congratulate him on his superb pronunciation of those appalling drugs. I noticed that he left out the formidable multi-syllable words, but we shall excuse him that. We now see that two drugs have been moved into the more dangerous category; that one—nicodicodine—has been moved into a less dangerous category; and that it has been recommended that four drugs ought not to be in the dangerous category.
Psychologically, I think the House will very much approve of this change, particularly in relation to young people. These four drugs come into the amphetamine class, generically, and it is of particular importance that the young should not think that we are calling dangerous drugs which are not dangerous. This calls into question the whole matter of drug control. Psychologically, this change is absolutely sound and we very much welcome the recognition of the fact that these drugs never have been liable to abuse, and are not so liable now.
We particularly note that the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs has approved this Order. We have tremendous confidence in that body. I have also myself taken expert advice and consulted medical opinion, and I think there can be no doubt that the Order is a rationalisation (if I may call it that) of an extremely complex situation. As such, we on this side of the House welcome it.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, I should like to add to the congratulations which have been offered to the noble Viscount. I suppose that as a member of the Advisory Council I have some responsibility for these recommendations, but I never understood them, in

447
the proceedings of the Advisory Council, with anything like the clarity that I understand them after the noble Viscount's explanation.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I have not succeeded in finding the entire properties—potency, composition and chemical structure—of nicodicodine in time to be able to explain to the noble Lord, Lord Nunburnholme, exactly what it is. All I can say is—and this might be some reassurance to him—that it does not appear to be as nasty as at first thought because it is being moved from one class to another. My Lords, I have now got the information. It is a pain-killing drug derived from codeine, as one might imagine from its name, and of comparable potency to codeine itself, with which I think we are all fairly familiar. This, I have no doubt, justifies its removal from the most potent category, Class A, to where it will now he under this Order when the Act comes into force, in Class B.
I am immensely grateful to both noble Baronesses who have spoken on this Order for their kindness, and indeed for the kindness of the House, in listening to what I have had to say. I am sorry it has to be done in this form. We are stuck with very remarkable technical difficulties in trying to describe these things accurately, and it does produce some very obscure Statutory Instruments. Nevertheless, if the House will put up with speeches such as the one I made, and if such speeches are helpful, then it seems that a simple explanation can be given, and I am very grateful indeed that the House has accepted this one.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LAND COMPENSATION BILL
4.53 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD JESSEL in the Chair.]
Clause 34 [Disturbance payments for persons without compensatable interests]:
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 33, line 7, leave out ("(as defined in section 27(7) above)").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 49, perhaps I may also speak to Amendment No. 55. These two, taken together, put the gist of what is at present contained in subsection (1)(b) into subsection (10) of this same clause, and there is nothing more to it than that. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL THE EARL OF KINNOULL moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 33, line 37, at end insert—
("(d) in a case where he holds a tenancy of a premises for temporary use pending demolition and redevelopment provided he is made aware of the future of the premises before he enters into a lease.")
The noble Earl said: This is a simple Amendment, perhaps unlike the Bill. This clause deals with disturbance payments for persons without compensatable interests. The purpose of the Amendment is to add to subsection (2), which lists those persons who would not be entitled to a disturbance payment under this clause, what is contained in the Amendment, which reads:
"in a case where he holds a tenancy of a premises for temporary use pending demolition and redevelopment provided he is made aware of the future of the premises before he enters into a lease".
The purpose of the Amendment is that it is felt that there may be occasions when acquiring authorities may acquire properties perhaps five years or ten years in advance of a redevelopment and may wish to let those premises on a temporary basis. It is felt that, if they are subject to this clause, they may feel that it would not be appropriate for them to let the premises because of the disturbance payment than they would ultimately have to pay. If this were so, one might find that premises became redundant, or were not used to their best purposes, quite unnecessarily. I therefore commend this small Amendment to my noble friend in

449
the hope that he will give it a sympathetic hearing. I beg to move.
LORD SANDFORD: I am grateful to my noble friend. He is right in saying that this subsection of this clause requires further amendment to deal with situations of this kind, and there is an Amendment down in my name, No. 51, designed to deal with that. So, if my noble friend will agree, I will give him the arguments that I have ready to deploy in the case of my own Amendment, and I hope that by the time I have done that he will feel satisfied that it is not necessary to press his own. The Government Amendment deals with the situation in a slightly different way, and I think my noble friend will agree that it is satisfactory.
As drafted, the subsection provides only for the situation where displacement occurs shortly after acquisition, and although this may be the usual case we have to provide, really, for the situation whenever displacement occurs after acquisition; and, as my noble friend says, it may be some considerable time after. As he says, the redevelopment may occur some considerable time afterwards, and, in order to avoid any argument as to what it is that has actually caused the displacement, both circumstances of displacement are provided for in Clause 34, so that either one of them will apply. In providing for the exclusion from entitlement to a disturbance payment under the clause where displacement is in consequence of redevelopment, which this Amendment is designed to do, the same condition has been adopted as to the date of taking up occupation as is applied when displacement is in consequence of acquisition; that is to say, that the person must have been in occupation at the time the authority published notice of their intention to acquire compulsorily, or when an agreement to buy was made.
It is necessary to draw a line in this way to prevent an acquiring authority which lets property to a new tenant at any time after it has acquired it in the exercise of its property management functions from becoming liable to pay compulsory purchase disturbance payments terms whenever it decides for property management reasons to re-gain possession. I think my noble friend will recognise that, in those circumstances, the situation
450
is quite different from when the authority takes over the property from the original owner. The only reasonable point at which to draw the line is the one adopted as a result of this Amendment. If authorities were required to pay compulsory purchase disturbance payments to people displaced otherwise than in circumstances corresponding to compulsory purchase, it would result in an imbalance of treatment between tenants of a private landlord and those of a public authority, and it would fail to recognise the two separate roles which an authority can have: one in which it is an authority exercising compulsory purchase powers, and one where it is an authority acting as a property manager.
I hope that my noble friend will see that this provides an explanation of why it is that I cannot accept his Amendment, because it would create this imbalance and unfairness between the two sectors. We must draw a distinction between what an authority does by way of compensation and disturbance allowance when exercising compulsory purchase powers and what it does when it is dealing with property as a manager of housing. I hope that that explanation is clear to the Committee, and that it will help my noble friend to see both the undesirable effect that his Amendment will have and how my Amendment will cover the point that is disturbing him.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I am grateful for that explanation. I accept my noble friend's assurance and I think I understand the imbalance and unfairness that would be caused by my Amendment. I am happy to beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.02 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: I hope that the explanation that I gave in response to my noble friend will make it unnecessary for me to say any more. I beg to move Amendment No. 51.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 3, leave out ("as is mentioned in paragraph (a)") and insert ("or redevelopment as is mentioned in paragraph (a) or (c)"). —(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 34, line 5, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—

("(a) in the case of land acquired under a compulsory purchase order, at the time when notice was first published of the making of the compulsory purchase order prior to its submission for confirmation or, where the order did not require confirmation, of the preparation of the order in draft;

(b) in the case of land acquired under an Act specifying the land as subject to compulsory acquisition, at the time when the provisions of the Bill for that Act specifying the land were first published;

(c) in the case of land acquired by agreement, at the time when the agreement was made;").

The noble Lord said: I think we have had Amendments like this before; we shall have quite a few more. They are only technical and are required to allow for the case where certain authorities acquire property under powers they have tinder Private Acts and when they are not, technically, using a compulsory purchase order. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 34, line 17, leave out subsections (4) to (6) and insert—
("( ) Where a person is displaced from land in circumstances such that, apart from this subsection, he would be entitled to a disturbance payment from any authority and also to compensation from that authority under section 37 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (compensation from landlord where order for new tenancy of business premises precluded on certain grounds) he shall be entitled, at his option. to one or the other but not to both.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 53 and with it No. 54. Together they pave the way for Amendment No. 56 which I should now like to speak to as the substantive one of the three.
Amendment No. 56 is a new clause which is an amalgam of subsections (4) to (6) of Clause 34, which it faithfully reproduces except for the omission of paragraph (4)(c), which has been revised and now forms subsection (3) of the new clause. The Amendment is thus partly technical and partly substantive. One advantage it secures is that a separate clause is now provided to deal with the amount of disturbance payment and so parallels Clauses 28 and 32, which deal
452
respectively with the amounts of home loss and farm loss payments. Subsection (3) is the new substantive part on which I shall have to spend a moment. It deals with the assessment of the amount of a disturbance payment in the case of a dwelling modified or adapted to meet the needs of a disabled person. This is the first of two provisions in the Bill designed specifically to meet the special problems of disabled people who are displaced from dwellings which catered for their disabilities. The second is Clause 40, which deals with the compulsory acquisition of a dwelling which has been constructed or substantially modified to meet the special needs of a disabled person, and it thus provides for the disabled person who has a compensatable interest. Subsection (3), on the other hand, provides for the disabled person who has not got a compensatable interest and who is entitled to a disturbance payment under Clause 34.
The Amendment amounts to this. A displaced person in lawful possession of a dwelling, who is not otherwise entitled to a disturbance payment, will be entitled, like anyone else who qualifies, to a payment for disturbance under Clause 34. Under subsection (3) the amount of this will include, in a case where structural modifications had been carried out to meet the needs of a disabled person, the reasonable expenses incurred in making comparable modifications in a dwelling to which the disabled person removed. Modifications may have been carried out in the old dwelling which, though desirable, were not essential to the needs of a disabled person and it is therefore necessary to apply a yardstick by which to judge what modifications in the replacement dwelling should be paid for by the acquiring authority. The yardstick adopted is that the payment will be assigned to the cost of reproducing as necessary the modifications carried out in the old dwelling but only where those modifications were of a kind for which a local social services authority with functions under Section 29 of the National Assistance Act, 1948 provided assistance. The authority has a duty to provide assistance for modifications necessary for the special requirements of a disabled person. If modifications other than modifications comparable with ones made to the acquired dwelling are necessary, it would fall to

453
the local social services authority to provide assistance for them in the normal way.
If any modifications made to the acquired dwelling are not of a kind for which asistance would have been given, the occupier must bear the loss of the cost of these in the same way as must any other occupier with no compensatable interest in property on which he has spent his own money.
I am afraid that we are dealing with a complex situation and all I can do is assure the Committee that this is a fair solution, in all the complicated circumstances, of the problem of a disabled person entitled to disturbance payment. I beg to move.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: May I thank the noble Lord for having made available the notes that on Tuesday we suggested would be very useful. I could have wished that they had been available before I reached the House at about noon. Nevertheless, I have no doubt they will be useful in later stages of the Bill. With regard to this particular clause, perhaps it is not taking too great a liberty to raise the matter here. As I understand it, subsection (2)(a) provides that a person is not entitled to disturbance payment unless he is in lawful possession of the land from which he is displaced. I gather that this excludes licensees. The noble Lord may say that a discretionary power is preserved in subsection (7). I shall be interested to hear what he will be able to say on that to enable the authorities to make payments to deserving cases.
There are many cases where small businesses occupy premises on a mere licence but have considerable security of tenure. I understand that it is the intention of the Government to compensate them according to the realities of their situation. It may be that subsection (7) is intended to cover that. I had not thought of tabling an Amendment on this matter, but I would suggest that the Government might consider making the position clear by a statement here this afternoon, which would put the matter on Record, or by themselves introducing an Amendment to meet it. Otherwise I can see that there will be much misunderstanding about this situation.
May I make a few comments on the new clause proposed by the noble Lord?
454
In general, I think it is to be welcomed. Subsection (3) provides for comparable modifications in the new dwellings which are "reasonably required" for meeting the disabled person's special needs. Would the noble Lord consider amending that and instead of the words "reasonably required "substitute," no less good"? It seems to me that those three words would make the situation more clear. The word "reasonably" raises a query in one's mind as to what is regarded as reasonable. Having regard to the extremely sympathetic way in which the noble Lord put the new clause to the Committee, he may see virtue in my suggestion.
LORD SANDFORD: If the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, will forgive me: as I had moved Amendment No. 53, I think he was a little out of order in asking a question about another part of the clause to which that Amendment does not refer. I will certainly write to him on briefly on the Question, Whether the clause shall stand part of the Bill? I will try to deal with it then. At the moment I think it would be more in order if I dealt only with those parts of his remarks referring to my Amendment. All I want to say now is that I take the point he has made. I think the form of words is the one which follows the usual practice, which the Lands Tribunal are used to and familiar with, and which will cause least trouble. But I will bear his suggestion in mind and consider it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SANDFORD: This Amendment is, as I have explained, paving for Amendment No. 56. I beg to move Amendment No. 54.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 41, leave out ("subsections (4) and (5) above") and insert ("section (Amount of disturbance payment) (1) to (3) below.").—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SANDFORD: I beg to move Amendment No. 55. We discussed this Amendment when I moved Amendment No. 49. It is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 6, at end insert—
("( ) In this section "a housing order, resolution or undertaking" and "redevelopment"

455
have the same meaning as in section 27 above.")—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 34, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD SANDFORD: I have nothing further to say. I will get in touch with the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, on the question that he raised.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I am sorry if I went a little wide. I said I realised that I might have been taking a liberty, but I thought that I might save the time of the Committee. What is it that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, is proposing to write about? Is it about the licensee or the displaced person? I gather that it is the licensee. Does the noble Lord want me to come back on the point about the disabled person?
LORD SANDFORD: I need not write to the noble Lord; I am now in a position to say that Clause 34 does not entitle licensees to a disturbance payment as of right. They may receive a payment at the discretion of the responsible authority under subsection (7). On the other matter, which I answered when we were dealing with the disabled person's right, I will consider the point that the noble Lord raised.
LORD STOW HILL: May I probe the Minister a little further about subsection (7)? With respect, is it not in a rather unusual form? The earlier parts of Clause 34 set out the circumstances in which a person who has been disabled is entitled to receive a disturbance payment. That is clearly set out, and one knows where one stands. When one gets to subsection (7), is not its effect that, although the displaced person does not qualify—the conditions specified earlier in the clause are not present—pnevertheless the authority can disregard all that and say to itself, "Never mind; the conditions are not present, but we think fit to make a payment to that disabled person"? That question arises in the context of the question asked by my noble friend Lord Garnsworthy. He asked, for example, whether a licensee would be within the scope of subsection (7), and the Minister said, "Yes, he would be." It seems to me an odd way to go about things; to say first in subsection (2) that the claimant must be in
456
lawful possession, for example, as a qualifying condition, and then, when you get to subsection (7), to say that the authority can disregard all that, take not the slightest notice of it, and, if it thinks fit, make a payment based on the principles set out earlier in the clause to a person who does not qualify under the terms of Clause 34.
Generally, when I make this sort of point I am told that, years ago, when I was Solicitor General, I defended a clause in precisely the same form. That may well be so, but it does not mean to say that the clause is a good one. It simply means that the argument I probably used was a bad one. I should be grateful if the Minister would say whether there are precedents for giving an authority the right completely to disregard the provisions of a clause and say that it will act according to its own discretion as it thinks fit.
LORD SANDFORD: I am sure that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, has never wittingly used an unsatisfactory argument, and when he hears the argument that I am about to produce I am sure that he will recognise it as one that he has used himself. It is desirable to have this discretion. In this particular case it would cater for the situation where an authority encouraged tenants to move out in advance of taking one of the listed actions which would bring the other parts of the clause into operation; but which, if it was complied with, would make a disturbance payment not possible strictly under the rest of the clause. It would also enable authorities to make disturbance payments where the authority considered they were justified, to licensees, as I have just said, and to others who, although displaced in consequence of one of the listed actions, did not possess an interest amounting to legal possession, but merely a permission to occupy. I think the strongest argument is the opportunity it provides for an authority to encourage tenants to move out in advance of their taking one of the statutory actions which brings the rest of the clause into operation. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will recognise that this is a useful discretionary power.
LORD STOW HILL: I am grateful to the Minister. The only thing that occurs to me is that the clause might have been

457
considerably shortened if one could simply give a discretion to the authority to make payments and cut out all the rest of the clause which deals in elaborate detail with the qualifications which the claimant ought to be able to fulfil.
LORD SANDFORD: I think that would lead to simple legislation but would present considerable difficulties in operation.
Clause 34, as amended, agreed to.
LORD SANDFORD: I beg to move Amendment No. 56. We have already discussed this Amendment in connection with Amendments Nos. 53 and 54.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 34, insert the following new clause:
Amount of disturbance payment
".—(1) The amount of a disturbance payment shall be equal to—

(a) the reasonable expenses of the person entitled to the payment in removing from the land from which he is displaced; and

(b) if he was carrying on a trade or business on that land, the loss he will sustain by reason of the disturbance of that trade or business consequent upon his having to quit the land.

(2) In estimating the loss of any person for the purposes of subsection (1)(b) above, regard shall be had to the period for which the land occupied by him may reasonably have been expected to be available for the purposes of his trade or business and to the availability of other land suitable for that purpose.
This subsection has effect subject to section 41(7) below.
(3) Where the displacement is from a dwelling in respect of which structural modifications have been made for meeting the special needs of a disabled person (whether or not the person entitled to the disturbance payment) then, if—

(a) a local authority having functions under section 29 of the National Assistance Act 1948 provided assistance, or

(b) such an authority would, if an application had been made, have provided assistance,

for making those modifications, the amount of the disturbance payment shall include an amount equal to any reasonable expenses incurred by the person entitled to the payment in making, in respect of a dwelling to which the disabled person removes, comparable modifications which are reasonably required for meeting the disabled person's special needs.
(4) Any dispute as to the amount of a disturbance payment shall be referred to and
458
determined by the Lands Tribunal or, in Scotland, the Lands Tribunal for Scotland."—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 35 [Duty to rehouse residential occupiers]:
LORD SANDFORD,LORD SANDFORD, moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 35, line 10, leave out ("a dwelling") and insert ("residential accommodation").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 57, and at the same time to speak to Amendments No. 59, 61 and 63 which are linked together. They are technical Amendments and have the effect of consolidating a number of separate points. Clause 35 imposes an obligation, subject to certain conditions, on local housing authorities or, in certain circumstances, the Greater London Council, a development corporation or the commissioners of New Towns, to ensure that suitable accommodation is available for any person displaced from a dwelling by public action. This general rehousing obligation replaces varying rehousing obligations in a number of existing Statutes. This is where the consolidating function comes in. "Dwelling" is defined in Clause 77 of the Bill as:
"a building or part of a building occupied…or intended to be occupied as a private dwelling"
or in Scotland as a private house. Some of the existing obligations refer to persons displaced from residential accommodation. This is a less restrictive term than "private dwelling" and would cover, for example, lodgers who, because they live with a family, do not occupy a private dwelling. It is not wished to make the provision in this clause more restrictive in this sense than the existing rehousing obligations, and Amendment No. 57 is intended to achieve this. Amendments Nos. 61 and 63 are consequential upon Amendment No. 57. Amendment No. 59 is needed to make it clear that this obligation to secure the provision of alternative accommodation refers only to residential accommodation. I beg to move Amendment No. 57.
LORD AVEBURY: I did not quite follow the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, when he was talking about the wider meaning of the term "residential accommodation". I have looked quickly at the Interpretation clause, but I do not

459
find it there. Could the noble Lord clarify this and explain to the Committee where the words "residential accommodation" are defined in the Bill?
LORD SANDFORD: "Residential accommodation" is not defined in the Bill. I think it is a quite recognisable term.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SANDFORD: Amendment No. 58 is a paving Amendment for Amendment No. 64, which is no more than a drafting Amendment. I beg to move Amendment No. 58.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 15, leave out ("as defined in section 27(7) above)").—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 59.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 23, after ("alternative") insert ("residential").—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to,
5.23 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 36, line 14, leave out ("as is mentioned in paragraph (a)") and insert ("or redevelopment as is mentioned in paragraph (a) or (c)").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 60. This is a rather technical Amendment. Subsection 6 of Clause 35 provides, briefly, that where a person is displaced following the acquisition of a dwelling he is not entitled to benefit from the rehousing provision under Clause 35 unless he was residing in the dwelling at the time the authority published notice of their intention to acquire it compulsorily or, in the case of an acquisition by agreement, when the agreement to buy was made.
As drafted, the subsection provides only for the situation where displacement occurs after acquisition in paragraph (a) of subsection (1). But situations could arise in consequence of paragraph (c) where property was temporarily occupied pending the redevelopment. One is that an authority could put the property to good use in the interim by installing occupants for that period. But if this were done, it could result in "queue
460
jumping" by people who wanted to get local authority housing accommodation, because when the time for redevelopment arrived the authority would be obliged to rehouse them. Accordingly, the Amendment is designed to secure that, in a paragraph (c) situation, the obligation to rehouse applies only to the occupiers who were in residence at the time of acquisition. This is another Amendment to keep a position of equity between these two different classes.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 61:
Pages 36, line 15, leave out ("dwelling") and insert ("accommodation ")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 61, which has already been discussed.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 62:
LORD SANDFORD: I beg to move Amendment No. 62. This is another of the Amendments that I describe as the Private Act Amendments.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 16, leave out paragraph (a) and (b) and insert—

("(a) in the case of land acquired under a compulsory purchase order, at the time when notice was first published of the making of the order prior to its submission for confirmation or, where the order did not require confirmation, of the preparation of the order in draft;

(b) in the case of land acquired under an Act specifying the land as subject to compulsory acquisition, at the time when the provisions of the Bill for the Act specifying the land were first published;

(c) in the case of land acquired by agreement, at the time when the agreement was made;")—(Lord Sandford.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SANDFORD: I beg to move Amendment No. 63. This is another of the four linked Amendments.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 26, leave out ("dwelling") and insert ("accommodation")—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SANDFORD: I beg to move Amendment No. 64. It is a drafting Amendment to which I have already referred.
Amendment moved—
Page 37, line 10, at end insert—
("( ) In this section" a housing order, resolution or undertaking "and" redevelopment "have the same meaning as in section 27 above.")—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.27 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 65:
After Clause 35 insert the following new clause:
Duty to rehouse certain caravan dwellers
".—(1) Section 35 above shall, so far as applicable, have effect in relation to a person residing in a caravan on a caravan site who is displaced from that site as it has effect in relation to a person displaced from residential accommodation on any land but shall so have effect subject to the following modifications.
(2) Subsection (1) of the said section 35 shall have effect as if for the words following paragraph (c) there were substituted the words "and neither suitable residential accommodation nor a suitable alternative site for stationing a caravan is available to that person on reasonable terms, then, subject to the provisions of this section, it shall be the duty of the relevant authority to secure that he will be provided with suitable residential accommodation".
(3) Subsection (6) of the said section 35 shall have effect as if in the words preceding paragraph (a) for the words "unless he was residing in the accommodation in question" there were substituted the words "unless he was residing in a caravan on the caravan site in question".
(4) The said section 35 shall have effect as if in any provision not modified as aforesaid for any reference to residential accommodation or land there were substituted a reference to a caravan site.
(5) In this section "caravan site" has the same meaning as in section (Home loss payments for certain caravan dwellers) above."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 65, which I hope will be welcomed by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, as well as by other members of the Committee. Put briefly, this clause brings caravan dwellers within the scope of the rehousing obligation in Clause 35 and achieves this by modifying that clause. If I may take this opportunity of doing so, I will bear in mind what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said when I was introducing another new clause on Tuesday in connection with caravan sites. Apart from that, I do not think there is anything more to be said on this new clause.
LORD AVEBURY: I am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining this posi-
462
tion. There are only one or two remarks I want to make on this Amendment. First of all, the question of the definition of a caravan site does not apply here as it did on the compensation clause that we were discussing earlier, because there it was important that the compensation was tied to the rateable value applicable to the hereditament occupied by the caravan resident; that was the caravan together with the pitch on which it was based. Here we are talking about a person who is displaced from a site. He may have been anywhere on that site, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, knows, if you are a licensee, as caravan residents are, then the owner of the land is entitled to move you around from one place to another at his convenience. So I do not think we have the same problem here that I outlined on the earlier Amendment.
The only remark I want to make on the definition in subsection (5) is that I think it will be helpful if here, and if he retains the definition in the earlier clause, reference was made to Section 4(1) of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960, so that it would be easy for anyone reading this Bill, when it becomes an Act, to know that we are using the terms in the same sense. The only other thing I would say is to point out to the noble Lord that when somebody is displaced from a caravan site and under this clause he is offered alternative residential accommodation by the local authority, he is in a worse position than somebody who has the same right who is living in a traditional house. The caravan is his dwelling at the moment. If he moves into permanent, traditional accommodation he has to dispose of his caravan, which may represent a substantial proportion of his total assets. Inevitably he will dispose of it at a loss because a caravan is not worth very much unless somebody has a site on which to put it. I make this point in connection with this clause and I hope the noble Lord will bear it in mind when he reviews the point I made earlier on compensation: that somebody in this situation will lose a substantial sum of money because he is selling the caravan to somebody who will have to find somewhere to put it and pay heavily for the privilege.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I should like to add a word of welcome to this

463
new clause and say how much I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has said. Gipsies and caravan dwellers have great reason to be grateful to him for the championship of their cause. One of the difficulties—and he referred to it in an earlier debate—is that a caravan dweller on an authorised site has had to pay a considerable sum of money to get on that site. He has had no opportunity to bargain; he has had to pay the price that the caravan operator asks. The caravan operator is able to demand exactly what he wants. We all know that the rate of depreciation on caravans is heavy. The caravan dweller would not be called upon to face this depreciation if his caravan were not being moved. It is because his caravan is being moved that he is forced to face the situation that heavy depreciation has occurred. Again I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that if he has then got to sell his caravan off site he will have to take, in all probability, a sum below the depreciated figure.
I would join with the noble Lord in asking that every possible consideration be given, because so often it is young people with small families who have been paying high rents, struggling hard to make ends meet, who find themselves placed in this situation. One of the difficulties of living in a caravan is that very often people have no furniture with which to move into a house if one is offered to them. Their situation is indeed a parlous one. On occasions, when cases come before the court in which I sit, I do not know how some such people make ends meet. I find it difficult, when considering a monetary penalty which would fit the charge of which they have been found guilty, to decide what that should be. I would therefore support the plea that there should be considerable generosity in dealing with this matter.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 36 [Power of relevant authority to make advances repayable on maturity to displaced residential owner-occupiers]:
5.34 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL THE EARL OF KINNOULL moved Amendment No. 65A:
Page 37, line 33, at end insert ("and so that the authority may fix the rate of interest at nil or any other rate notwithstanding that it may be less than an economic rate or may defer or suspend the payment of interest and add the instalments so deferred or suspended to the principal of the advance.")
The noble Earl said: Clause 36 deals with the power of relevant authorities to make advances repayable on maturity to displaced residential owner-occupiers. Subsection (3) deals with the conditions of the advances. Subsection (3)(b) reads:
"on such other terms as the authority may think fit having regard to all the circumstances."
The Amendment I am moving would read On:
"and so that the authority may fix the rate of interest at nil or any other rate notwithstanding that it may be less than an economic rate or may defer or suspend the payment of interest and add the instalments so deferred or suspended to the principal of the advance."
The purpose of the Amendment is to spell out that local authorities may not be obliged to charge an economic rent, that they may waive part or whole, or defer, the interest. That would be obvious in special cases where hardship could have arisen, where the property acquired differed substantially in value from the property to be purchased in its place. I hope that explains the purpose of the Amendment.
LORD SANDFORD: I understand the purpose of my noble friend's Amendment, but I have to say this to him: local authorities, under their existing general powers to grant mortgages, have a certain degree of discretion over the fixing of the rate of interest on mortgage loans, subject to such conditions as may be approved by my noble friend the Secretary of State, A similar degree of discretion is provided in Clause 36 as it is already drafted. However, I think my noble friend and the Committee will agree that a local authority must exercise its discretion in a reasonable and businesslike way, and therefore is obliged to fix an economic rate of interest. In terms of local authority financial operations this could, for example, establish a rate derived from its pool rate of interest, or current rate of

465
interest for its external borrowing. But it would not be right to charge a nil rate of interest, or a rate of interest deliberately pitched well below the economic rate. In answer to my noble friend, I can say that there is a measure of discretion for the local authorities which it would certainly be right for them to exercise; but it would be wrong to go beyond the constraints already provided in the clause and in other enactments, and the conditions which are approved generally by the Secretary of State.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I am partly grateful to my noble friend for that reply. One does not have much luck with one's Amendments. I understand his reasoning, but I am sorry he feels unable to give the power of discretion to local authorities beyond the economic rent. As I understood what he said, local authorities would be obliged to charge an economic rent whether they thought the case was a good one or not.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: Before the noble Lord takes any action on this Amendment, may I say that I hope the Government will look at this again in the light of what has been said? As all of us do not want the Committee to go on too long, we are keeping our remarks limited. There is a great deal that could be said to support the principle advanced by the noble Earl. It would be encouraging for the Committee if the Minister could say that between now and Report he will look at the matter again. There is no doubt that the noble Earl has a good deal of support outside this House for the point of view he is advancing, and the Amendment he has tabled is one which commands support from a number of people who have given a great deal of thought to the situation.
LORD SANDFORD: I will look at it again, although the kind of discretion I have just described is about as far as it is right to go in all the circumstances of the case. But certainly I will look at it again and bear my friend's point in mind.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I am most grateful for that assurance and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 36 agreed to.
Clauses 37 and 38 agreed to.
Clause 39 [Compensation for injurious affection]:
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendments 67, 68, 69, 70, 71:
Page 41, line 4, after (acquired") insert (or taken")
Page 41,line 9, after ("acquired") insert ("or taken")
Page 41,line 11, after ("63") insert ("or 121")
Page 41,line 12, after ("7") insert ("or 20")
Page 41,line 22, after ("61") insert ("or 114")
The noble Lord said: Clause 39 makes an Amendment in the law relating to the measure of compensation for injurious affection of land held with other land which is compulsorily acquired. The courts have held that in assessing compensation for injurious affection regard can be had only to the effect on land retained by the claimant of the works carried out on the land taken from the claimant himself, and not to the effect of the whole of the works. The best known of these cases is Edwards v. Minister of Transport in 1964. Clause 39 amends the law exemplified in that case by providing that compensation for injurious affection shall be assessed by reference to the whole of the works and not only the part situated on the land acquired from the claimant. At present the clause is technically defective because is covers only injurious affection compensation arising under Section 7 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 and the corresponding section of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act 1845. These sections cover only the compensation for the acquisition of interests in land other than short tenancies. In the case of short tenancies, that is tenancies for no more than a year, or from year to year, the appropriate sections under which compensation for injurious affection may be payable are Section 20 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 and Section 121 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act 1845. This Amendment, together with Amendments Nos. 68 to 71, inclusive, is necessary to extend the benefits of the clause to such cases. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 67 to 71 inclusive en bloc.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 39, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD STOW HILL: May I direct the attention of the Committee to subsection (2)? I say in all sincerity that I think both Houses of Parliament and the public owe a big debt of gratitude to Parliamentary counsel for the remarkable work that they do. I cannot help thinking, however, that subsection (2) is not a felicitous example. It seems a model of a jigsaw puzzle. I do not think I shall be taking the time of the Committee unnecessarily if I read it. It deals with a simple concept; namely, injurious affection—an expression which speaks for itself. It is longstanding in our legislation and dates back to the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act 1845, and possibly even earlier. This subsection defines what is meant by injurious affection in this context. It reads as follows:
"In this section ' compensation for injurious affection ' means compensation for injurious affection under section 63 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act 1845 or section 7 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965, and subsection (1) above shall apply with the necessary modifications to such compensation under the said section 7 as substituted by paragraph 7 of Schedule 6 to the Highways Act 1971, paragraph 13 of Schedule 2 to the Gas Act 1972 (compulsory acquisition of rights over land) or any corresponding enactment, including (except where otherwise provided) an enactment passed after this Act."
Surely it is not beyond the wit of the extremely experienced and skilful draftsmen who sit in the Parliamentary counsels' office to provide something simpler and more intelligible than that? What does the phrase, "as substituted by paragraph 7 of Schedule 6" mean? What is substituted for what, and by what process? Who has done it? In past years, I have always thought it not a good precedent for an Act of Parliament to start saying what Acts of Parliament which have not yet been passed are to mean. That is precisely what this does. The last two lines say,
"including (except where otherwise provided) an enactment passed after this Act".
An enactment passed after this Act can itself say what it means. It carries its own language and it can direct the mind of the reader to its effect. I would ask the Minister to ask Parliamentary counsel to have another look at this matter. It is desirable that the subject, the liege, should, when he reads an Act of Parliament, know more or less what it means. If he ploughs through these lines he will be in an absolute maze of obscurity.
468
I accept that this subsection is probably meant to be construed by experts; they will be foxed and they will have volumes and volumes on the table to see what it means. I think it is right that the Committee should express a view regarding that, and that the Minister should say that he will ask Parliamentary Counsel to look again to see whether they can make the subsection more intelligible and simple.
LORD SANDFORD: I share the noble and learned Lord's feelings. This is an extremely foxing Bill. I had to have my own notes on this clause completely redrafted because in their original form I could not make head or tail of them. We will see what can be done; but we are dealing with a complex matter and I do not think much can be done.
Clause 39, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 40 [Compensation for acquisition of dwelling specially adapted for disabled person]:
LORD SANDFORD: I beg to move Amendment No. 72. It is a drafting Amendment putting the interpretation of a disabled person in Clause 77.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 42, leave out subsection (3).—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 40, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD STOW HILL: Would the Minister be so kind as to say what in terms of valuation expertise is likely to be the effect of subsection (2)? The claimant is given an option to ask that the dwelling be assessed upon the basis that there is no general demand or market for land for that purpose. What is the result in terms of valuation? It is important that we should know.
LORD SANDFORD: This is a Rule 5 case. Rule 5 reads:
"Where land is, and but for the compulsory acquisition would continue to be, devoted to a purpose of such nature that there is no general demand or market for that land fox that purpose, compensation may if the Lands Tribunal is satisfied that reinstatement in some other place is bona fide intended, be assessed on the basis of the reasonable cost of equivalent reinstatement."
Clause 40, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 41 [Compensation for disturbance where business carried on by person over sixty]:
5.48 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL THE EARL OF KINNOULL moved Amendment No. 72A:
Page 42, line 7, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
("(b) the average annual turnover of the trade or business during its last three complete accounting periods ended before that date did not exceed £50,000.")
The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 72A. Clause 41 introduces a new, a special and a rather humane compensation for disturbance where businesses are carried on by persons over the age of 60. I am sure everyone welcomes this new clause. Any person of 60 or over will be entitled to compensation where his property is acquired and where he has been trading on that property. The compensation assessment is made on the assumption that it would not be reasonably practicable to carry on trade elsewhere, and it is made so long as the recipient agrees to certain undertakings. The purpose of my Amendment is to change the basis on which the property would qualify. It is simply to change the qualification from a limited rateable value to a limit based on turnover—in this case I suggest £50,000. It has been put to me that this would make a more practicable qualification, and I hope that my noble friend will be able to agree.
LORD SANDFORD: I am sorry not to be able to be more receptive to my noble friend's Amendments but I think he will agree that he is raising here a matter which was raised before and has been fully considered in another place. Nevertheless, I am glad of an opportunity to explain the reasoning behind the clause as we have already drafted it and to justify our conclusion. The definition adopted for this purpose in the Bill is the same as that used for limiting eligibility in the blight context. Eligibility for small business "under the blight provisions is now limited to those which are carried on in premises with a rateable value of not more than £2,250, and pitched at this level it covers the interests of people who are most likely to suffer personal hardship. Before revaluation the limit was set at £750. I think the Committee would agree that it is
470
clearly desirable that there should be a consistency of definition for small businesses in provisions designed to relieve hardship. There is no evidence that the alternative method of defining a "small business by reference to its annual turnover, as proposed by my noble friend's Amendment, would have any advantage over the method of applying rateable value as the yardstick. Indeed, many businesses included within the scope of this and other provisions by virtue of a reference to rateable value would be excluded if a reference to annual turnover were used instead, since the annual turnover of firms of similar size varies enormously depending on the value of the commodity with which they are dealing.
I would ask the Committee to agree that rateable value as a criterion provides a readily ascertainable figure. Using it as a yardstick in the blight context has been well tried and tested and has proved to be a fair and workable method of defining what constitutes a "small business". Without firm evidence—and my noble friend has not brought any to bear—that some other yardstick would be fairer overall, or more easily applied, there seems no reason to depart from the present method of definitions. I hope that that explanation satisfies my noble friend that this matter has been looked into, and possibilities have been considered. But on the whole, for those reasons, we feel that the criterion we have chosen is going to be the fairest and the most practical. Therefore, having had this explanation, I hope that he will not feel it necessary to press his Amendment.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I am afraid I was not aware that this very matter had been raised in another place. I can only assume that one's advisers were not satisfied with the Government's answer. However, I am perfectly happy to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SANDFORD: I beg to deal with Amendments Nos. 73 and 74 together. They are no more than drafting Amendments. I beg to move No. 73.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 23, leave out ("subsection (4)(b) of section 34") and insert ("subsection

471
(1)(b) of section (Amount of disturbance payment)").—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SANDFORD: I beg to move Amendment No. 74.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 29, leave out ("the said section 34") and insert ("section 34 above").—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 41, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 42 agreed to.
Clause 43 [Compensation in respect of agricultural holdings]:
5.54 p.m.
LORD HENLEY LORD HENLEY moved Amendment No. 75:
Leave out Clause 43 and insert:
Compensation in respect of Agricultural holdings
("43.—(1) This section has effect where in pursuance of any enactment providing for the acquisition or taking of possession of land compulsorily an acquiring authority acquire the interest of the tenant in, or take possession of, an agricultural holding or any part of it.
(2) In assessing the compensation payable by the acquiring authority to the tenant in connection with any such acquisition of an interest or taking possession of land as is mentioned in subsection (1) above (hereafter referred to as "the tenant's compensation") there shall be disregarded any right of the landlord to serve a notice to quit, and any notice to quit already served by the landlord, if the notice would be or was effective by reason only of treating the use for the purposes of which the interest is acquired or possession is taken of the land as falling within section 24(2)(b) or 25(1)(e) of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948 (land required for non-agricultural use).
Provided that any compensation payable by the acquiring authority to the landlord for the acquisition of the interest of the landlord in an agricultural holding or any part of it, shall not be reduced or otherwise prejudiced by the assessment of compensation to the tenant under this subsection.
(3) Section 42 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968 (tenant's compensation to be assessed without regard to his prospects of remaining in possession after contractual date) and section 15(1) of that Act (effect on tenant's compensation of provision enabling landlord to resume possession for non-agricultural use) shall cease to have effect.")
The noble Lord said: This Amendment in the name of myself and the noble Viscount, Lord Davidson, seeks to substitute a new clause in place of the
472
existing Clause 43. Clause 43 seeks to improve the compensation to the tenant of agricultural land. It does this by recognising that the tenant's year-to-year interest is in fact tantamount to a life interest provided that he does not commit one of the seven agricultural deadly sins. To that extent, both the noble Viscount, whose name appears on the Amendment with mine, and I welcome the attempt of the Government to improve the tenant's compensation, which has long been recognised as being inadequate.
This is a very complex provision in a very complex Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has already said how foxing a Bill it is and how difficult he found it to understand his own notes. This particular clause has already been debated in another place for nearly two hours, after it had come out of Committee stage. So your Lordships will see that it is indeed a very difficult one. The answers which I think were given in another place have not been at all satisfactory. Indeed, I think everybody welcomed the clause as being something desirable, but it was a case of gift horses being looked at very closely in the mouth, and when one looks closely at this gift which the Government are proposing to hand out to the tenants of agricultural land it immediately becomes apparent that the gift is not a gift of the Government or of the acquiring authority; the gift is being made by the landlord to his tenant and the improvements in the tenant's compensation are being met out of the landlord's share of compensation and not by the acquiring authority. Perhaps I may quote what the Government spokesman in Standing Committee in another place said:
"I advise the Committee that it will be necessary to adjust the compensation payable to landlords in many cases in a downward direction."
I think that that speaks for itself.
My new clause leaves in that provision which is designed for improving the tenant's compensation; that is to say, subsection (3), and it adds a proviso to safeguard the tenant's position. But it strikes out subsection (2), which provides that a part of the landlord's right under Section 24(2)(b) of the 1948 Agriculture Act should be disregarded. My Amendment also strikes out subsections (5) and (6), which settle the compensation paid

473
to the tenant under this clause against compensation paid for a different aspect of his loss under Section 12 of the 1968 Act. When the Minister answered at the end of his fairly long debate on the clause in another place he said the landlord and tenant were not in competition for compensation. At Second Reading I said that I would raise this matter again because I felt it was one thing for the Minister to say so and another thing for it to be demonstrably proved to be so.
What I am asking the Government to do to-day (and I believe it is the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, who is going to answer me) is to give us a very clear demonstration as to why it is thought that the landlord and tenant are not in competition for the same compensation. I should also like him to tell me why he feels that it was necessary for the decision in your Lordships' House of the Rugby Joint Water Board v. Shaw, Fox and Foottit to be reversed by this Bill By all means let us see that the tenant's provision vis-a-vis Section 24(2)(b) of the 1948 Act is made good; but why should it be done at the expense of his landlord instead of at the expense of the acquiring authority? I feel there is a manifest injustice here, and I hope that the noble Viscount can show me why, in his view or at any rate in the view of his right honourable friend, this is not so. If he cannot do that, I feel we should have an unequivocal admission from the Government that this is what the Government intends; namely, that some part of this improved compensation to the tenant should come out of the landlord's pocket.
It is difficult enough nowadays to persuade landlords, when land comes in with vacant possession, to let it again. There are so many inhibiting factors; so many factors which encourage landlords to hold on to the land themselves and not to let it, that this is just one more (admittedly very small) nail in the coffin of the landlord and tenant system which has in fact served the agricultural industry very well and is far from finished yet. So I hope the noble Viscount can give me a more satisfactory answer than his right honourable friend gave in another place. I beg to move.
6.0 p.m.
LORD MIDDLETON: What most of the debate in this Committee has been about is the balance which the Government are trying to achieve in the Bill between generosity to the dispossessed on the one hand and responsibility to the taxpayer on the other. But so often we see a new or extended idea for compensation proposed and then the Government seem to shiver at the thought of the quantity of development that lies ahead and they pull back their hand. We have, for example, Clause 27, dealing with the qualifying period of home loss, and Clause 32, dealing with the measure of compensation for farm loss, and so on. I fully recognise that my noble friends have agreed to look again at both these points and of course a balance has to be kept, but I hope I am not being unfair in saying that one gets a general impression of caution whittling away at the excellent broad intentions of the Bill, and in some cases there emerge proposals as to the measure of compensation that do less than justice to the dispossessed.
As the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said, we have a very good example in Clause 43. I do not wish to repeat the noble Lord's arguments, but I have a feeling that my noble friend may resist this Amendment. If so, it may be on the grounds of inconsistency in that, if one accepts that it is right to assume that the tenant's interest was a continuing one and could not be extinguished under Section 43(2)(b) of the 1948 Agriculture Act, then one must make the same assumption when compensating the landlord. But we are not valuing the same interest. For the tenant, the Bill recognises that in 1973 and onwards it is very unlikely that a dispossessed farm tenant will be able to get the tenancy of another farm. We must do better for him, as this Bill recognises, than compensate him on the basis that he merely loses a year's right to farm.
The landlord's interest is entirely different and will be valued differently. It will be valued on the market value of the land, and of course the compensation will be liable to capital gains tax—subject to the "roll-over" provisions. The landlord would have had the land

475
subject to an agricultural tenancy, and under the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1948 it was open to him at any time to give a notice to quit; but such a notice could successfully be contested by the tenant unless it fell under Section 24 or Section 25 of that Act. Section 24(2)(b) made valid a notice to quit where planning permission had been granted for development. The landlord could then hand over his land unencumbered by a tenancy and thus ready and vacant for whatever development was required. An acquiring authority would pay him compensation on that basis; and this principle was upheld, as the noble Lord, Lord Henley, has said, by their Lordships in the case of the Rugby Joint Waterboard v. Shaw Fox and Foottit.
Clause 43 of the Bill, as it stands, asks us in effect to reverse this House of Lords decision, to ignore this right of the landlord and to compensate him on the basis that he could only hand over his land for development with an immovable tenant. Yet, had he obtained planning permission for some purpose independent of the purpose for which the acquiring authority dispossessed him, he could claim compensation on the basis that a notice to quit to a tenant under Section 24(2)(b) was incontestable. This is quite unreal, and manifestly Clause 43 fails to put him back for compensation purposes into the position he was in before notice of compulsory purchase by the acquiring authority. It fails to achieve one of the main purposes of the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Henley, has said, in rightly trying to help the tenant farmer it does less than justice to the landlord. The acquiring authority undoubtedly receives the land with vacant possession. Why should it not compensate the owner accordingly? After all, this Bill is trying to improve compensation.
Hammering landlords is a popular sport, but I am sure the Government did not intend to create this anomaly when they framed this clause. In thinking that, I am encouraged by the Minister's words in another place, already quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, that
"the landlord and tenant will not be in competition for compensation".
I hope my noble friend will take another look at Clause 43 and will consider care-
476
fully the case that this amended clause will improve the Bill by removing the injustice while retaining the improved basis of compensation for the tenant.
6.7 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: As we are having a general debate on Clause 43 I should like to speak on that and then on the Amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Henley. Undoubtedly there has been general concern, both in and out of Parliament, in regard to the present drafting of this clause. The words that caught my eye in the OFFICIAL REPORT of another place were from the speech made by Sir Frederick Corfield, the honourable member for Gloucestershire. South. Sir Frederick Corfield, as the Committee will know, is an eminent Q.C. and also has considerable experience of planning and compensation matters. In fact he has written a book,Corfield on Cornpensation. The view he took of this clause was this: First, he asked the House how were they to judge whether the clause dealt adequately with compensation. The reason he asked that was because he thought it unclear as to how a valuer would assess the compensation. He then went on to describe the problems that a valuer would encounter. Perhaps I might briefly remind the Committee of them. As the clause is drafted, the valuer would have to assess the compensation without regard to the present security of tenure under the 1948 Act. On the one hand, he has to disregard the right of a landlord to get vacant possession of the farm on grounds of alternative user; on the other hand, he has to take into account the fact that the tenant may well lose the farm, due to either non-payment of rent or a State management scheme, or a case of hardship under the 1968 Act. In other words, he has to balance both something that he disregards and other matters which he has to take into account. Also the valuer has to assess the working life ahead of the farmer because of the expectation of the lease.
Sir Frederick Corfield went on to say that he regarded the task of the valuer as impossible. He then asked a question which I should like to ask of my noble friend: what is the valuation principle of this clause? The reply given by the

477
Minister in another place at that time was, first,
"It is not for the Government to tell the valuer how to write this"
—which of course one would accept; and then he went on to say,
"I believe that members of that profession in most cases will be able to cope".
I think it rather disturbing that he felt that only a few could cope.
I have tried to check with members of the profession—and perhaps I should declare my interest here as I am a member of the profession—and I have come across the answer that it is such a complex valuation that it will have to be settled by the Lands Tribunal. I feel that that is a very unsatisfactory situation. The effect of the clause on compensation to which the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, has referred, as I understand it is that in the first place the landlord will lose possibly between 25 to 20 per cent. of what his previous compensation would have amounted to. The reason for that is, as the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, has said, that he will get investment value compensation for his farm and not vacant possession value deferred one year.
The tenant's claim is very obscure, as I have tried to point out, and one does not know to what extent he will benefit. The acquiring authority would seem to gain from all this, because it seems doubtful that the tenant's claim will equal what the landlord will lose. The essence of this clause, as I understand it, was to improve the legal responsibility of the landlord to pay compensation to the tenant. That came about, as the Committee will recall, during the Committee stages of another place, when they were talking specifically on the farm loss pay. ments—the business loss payments, not the land loss payments. I emphasise that, because this would, in other words, not create a breach of market value, which I know my noble friend who shouted out "Heresy!" two days ago feels very strongly about. I would ask my noble friend whether he would consider taking back this clause and redrafting it to allow the farm tenant to come within the farm loss payment clause and to adjust the present compensation he receives under the 1968 Act.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I am always prepared to look at these things again, but the debate on this Amendment and the slightly more general remarks made by my noble friend Lord Kinnoull show what happens when one starts tinkering about with the perfectly ordinary rules of compensation. In the case of agricultural tenancies there has been a great deal of tinkering and I am afraid that we are continuing the process today. I am not altogether certain why it was that my honourable friend in another place said that landlords and tenants were not in competition for compensation, because the ordinary rule which applies to compensation on compulsory acquisition where there are two interests, a freehold and a leasehold, is that the leasehold is valued in accordance with the length of the lease and the value is capitalised and turned into a capital sum. There are various elements in that and it is usually the profit rental or something of that sort which is valued. The freehold is valued subject to the lease which actually exists. Of course, the longer the lease the longer time it will be before the freeholder will be able to deal freely with the land in the market and therefore the longer his capital payment will notionally have to be deferred. That means that the valuation of his interest is lessened. The moment one starts putting any artificial additions into this, one gets into trouble. My noble friend Lord Middleton talked about the question of consistency and he is quite right. One has to be consistent about this matter.
Against the general background that I have just tried to describe, we have in law, both for agricultural tenants and for business tenants in general, artificial securities of tenure. I do not wish to say anything about those. They are there and everybody approves of them. They have been there for a very long time. What one has to look at is what the effect of those artificial securities of tenure may be on the valuation process In 1968 there was a case called The Minister of Transport v. Pettitt where it was apparent that in the case of an agricultural holding the question of the security of tenure and what account should be taken of it was going to be crucial to the whole of the valuation. Section 42 of the 1968 Act was passed to make it perfectly plain that where an

479
agricultural tenant was dispossessed by compulsory acquisition and he would otherwise have had security of tenure if it had not been for the fact that the highway authority, in that case, was going to buy his farm to make a road on it, his compensation was to be assessed as if he had lost his security of tenure because of the coming upon the scene of the road.
That is one way of looking at it. One can say that, as in any other case, a landlord can get rid of an agricultural tenant if he gets planning permission to use the land for something else, under the ordinary machinery of the Agricultural Holdings Act. So when a highway authority comes along and gets its deemed planning permission to build a road, in exactly the same way the agricultural tenant has lost his security of tenure and he does not get anything like so much compensation. The other side of the coin at that stage was—and this was what the Rugby Water Board case said—that where you have a situation of this kind the landlord is entitled to the valuation of his interest on the basis that he has got rid of the tenant, because by the same reasoning that you have a method of getting an agricultural tenant out by the notional granting of planning permission for the road—or the reservoir, as it was in the Rugby case—the landlord can cash in on this and has an unencumbered freehold to sell, and his interest will be valued accordingly. That is a perfectly consistent approach and it is the approach that is at the moment the law.
What the Bill is doing in Clause 43 is to reverse it and to reverse it in relation to both parties. Clause 43 says that the tenant shall no longer be considered to have lost his security of tenure by virtue of the deemed planning permission which constitutes the scheme for which his land is being acquired. He may of course—and this is the more difficult valuation point about which my noble friend Lord Kinnoull was talking—be liable to lose his security of tenure because of some other planning permission, totally divorced from the scheme, but that is another matter.
So far as the scheme itself is concerned, we are now saying that he does not lose his security of tenure and he must have his interest valued as if he was not going to be "hove" out because
480
of the road or reservoir. I cannot see how in those circumstances in logic you can do anything but turn the coin over and say that the landlord accordingly must have his interest valued as if the tenant still had that security of tenure. If that means, as it does, that in some cases the landlord is going to get less compensation, that is the only logical way one can do it. What the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, does is to give the best of both worlds to both of them. It assumes that the landlord has vacant possession and it also assumes that the tenant has security of tenure. That goes against all known principles of valuation where you have two interests that you have to share out, because you cannot have two different and contradictory assumptions as to the hypothesis on which you value those two interests. I am talking simply about values of the interest in land—I am not talking about disturbance, and that sort of thing. That is what this Amendment does. No doubt it is simply glorious for the purposes of the tenant and the landlord, because they both enjoy the most favourable possible hypothesis in order to get money out of the acquiring authority. But I do think my noble friend Lord Middleton (I think it was he) was right when he said that even if we are trying to improve the law on compensation, we have to balance what is given to the dispossessed member of the public with what the public in the larger sense pays out of the taxpayer's or ratepayer's pocket. I am afraid I can see no difference between agricultural tenancies and tenancies of any other sort, houses or businesses or anything else, where you have got to look at the respective interests of the landlord and the tenant; you have got to look at them against the same hypothetical background, and not set up the one against the other, so that they both get a favourable hypothesis at the expense of the public. That is the reason why I would suggest to the Committee that this Amendment is wrong.
By all means, if the noble Lord, Lord Henley, wishes to go back to Section 42 of the 1968 Act, whereby the landlord gets the benefit of vacant possession and the tenant is done out of any security of tenure, which is the existing law, let him say so. Alternatively, one can say what one does in Clause 43: that the landlord has got to accept the

481
tenant's security of tenure and get less money. This benefits the tenant since he, of course, is entitled to his security of tenure. But you cannot have a mixture of the two. I would suggest to the Committee that it is totally illogical and wrong to try to mix them. That is what the Amendment does.
As for the more general point raised by my noble friend Lord Kinnoull, I am not surprised to hear that the valuers are having problems, but I think that his experience—and indeed mine—of the Lands Tribunal is such that one sensibly relies on them. After all, Governments have relied on the Lands Tribunal in very difficult cases, such as leasehold enfranchisement, where they did not like the first result; they do rely on the Lands Tribunal to sort out complex and difficult matters of valuation. I have done lots of these cases in front of the Lands Tribunal, and I have the greatest respect for the sophistication and powers of analysis of the members who sit in Hanover Square to deal with the sort of points that my noble friend has mentioned. I should have thought—though I stand to be corrected—that if you leave out the particular impact of a road scheme or anything else that happens to be a cause of compulsory acquisition; if you have to value land subject to the possibility that the landlord will get planning permission for something else, or that the tenant will turn out in a few years' time to be a terribly bad farmer, or the possibility of any of the other agricultural seven deadly sins; then you have a situation that has to be dealt with now in valuation practice. I cannot see, and I have no reason to suppose, that valuers are incapable of dealing with this or that the Lands Tribunal would be incapable of dealing with it.
Finally, he mentioned that we should really re-think the whole question of whether tenants from year to year, shorter term tenancies, should come into the farm loss payment scheme and should not be dealt with as we are dealing with them, under Clause 43. I have thought about this again. We did have a debate about this on Tuesday. But I think that when one analyses it very carefully the system in this Bill is right. What is more—and, of course, this is an important point on the Amendment itself which the noble Lord, Lord Henley, specifically
482
mentioned, though I am not sure that he did full justice to the horrors of it from the tenant's point of view—the effect of Clause 43, subsections (5) and (6), is that whatever changes Clause 43 may make at least the tenant will never get less than he does under the existing law on compensation, plus the four times rent payment. If you do away with subsections (5) and (6), a very valuable part of the compensation for a dispossessed yearly tenant is being abandoned; extremely important protection is being abandoned. I am prepared to explain this to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, though I think he probably understands fully how the thing works. It is an extremely complex piece of drafting because of the background taxation situation. The effect of it is that no tenant will ever get less than he does now, and the probability, or possibility, is that he will get more. But part of it will continue to consist of the four times payment under Section 12 of the 1968 Act, with the particularly attractive consequence that that form of payment possesses at the moment, and which I do not think people would wish to abandon, certainly not tenant farmers.
There are details like that which I think are quite important. There is the whole matter of principle that I have attempted to explain. I would have suggested to the Committee—and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and others who have spoken will agree—that what we have produced is consistent and fair. It may be different from what the law is now, but it is good valuation practice and something that we really ought to have in the Bill. If there are drafting or other complications which noble Lords wish me to look at again, of course I will do so, but as to the principle, I am convinced it is right.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: Before the noble Lord, Lord Henley, winds up his Amendment, may I say that I entirely agree with regard to the Lands Tribunal? Of course, they are a very fair-minded body and I am sure they will come to a satisfactory conclusion. This is the very point that I was asking my noble friend about. On Tuesday he suggested that Clause 43 was really quite an additional "sweetener" to the tenant. The point I want to put to my noble friend is: do we know what "sweetener"? And will it

483
be equal to what the landlord will now lose?
LORD BURTON: I wonder if it has been considered that in Scotland we have a different tenancy regulation between landlord and tenant. There has been constant reference throughout this debate to the 1948 Act, which is an English Act. It seems to me that if this provision is passed as it stands at the moment there will have to be a different form of valuation in Scotland. That again seems to me unsatisfactory.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: There are indeed Scottish adaptations of some of the provisions put in at the later stages in the Commons which have still to be dealt with, and which will be the subject of Government Amendments at the next stage of the Bill. I should think that Clause 43 is almost certain to be one of them. Perhaps we could deal with the point raised by my noble friend Lord Burton when we come to Report Stage with the Scottish adaptations.
Regarding the last two questions of my noble friend Lord Kinnoull, he knows that he is asking questions which are not susceptible to a straight answer. He knows as well as I do that it is quite impossible for me to stand at this Despatch Box, or for him to stand up on the Back Benches, and say what is going to happen upon the valuation of any particular case. I cannot tell him how many pounds, shillings and pence any hypthetical or any generalised tenant is going to get under Clause 43. I should have thought it perfectly obvious that if you added to the tenant's assets, as it were, a security of tenure which he does not at the moment possess, he is likely to be better off than he is now. By how much, I do not know.
The other question my noble friend asked was whether it would be equal to what the landlord would lose. I am not a valuer, and so I hesitate to answer specifically. But my idea of how valuation works, as I explained earlier, is that if you have two interests which you value together, one being a tenancy and the other a freehold, they inter-relate with each other. The longer the tenancy, the more the tenant gets and the less the landlord gets. I should have thought there would have been a very close inter-
484
relationship in this case between any gains that the tenant would achieve under Clause 43, and consequent smaller compensation payments which the landlord would get as a result. But, after all, the landlord has to remember that, had it not been for the fact that the acquiring authority came along with a public works scheme, he would not have gained possession of the land at all, because the tenant would have stayed; unless there was some other action because of which he would be able to give to the tenant a valid notice to quit. Under Clause 43(3), that sort of reason divorced from the scheme of public works is still available to the landlord. He does not lose any rights that he has at the moment, or that he will have in the future under this Bill, in relation to anything other than the actual scheme for which the land is being acquired. So I do not think he is being treated very unfairly. With that, I hope my noble friend Lord Kinnoull will be satisfied, because he knows how difficult are the questions which he has asked me to answer in specific terms of pounds and pence.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I am sorry if my noble friend thinks I have been unfair. May I ask this much simpler question? Does he agree that a tenant would much prefer a simpler form of compensation, such as something to do with the rental value which is the basis of most disturbance claims, rather than having to understand a clause of this nature which is a valuer's bonanza?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: The answer is perfectly simple. He would prefer whatever was most beneficial to him, taking account of the tax situation.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: Would my noble friend agree that at the moment he cannot judge what is better?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Yes, he can, because the four times payment is in no way derogated from by Clause 43. All that will happen is that if there is any more to come he will still get that extra. But he will still get his four times payment with the tax advantages that it at present carries.
LORD HENLEY: I asked for an alternative and I have had a very straight answer. The Government have "come clean" and they have said in terms that

485
they intend that part of this compensation should be met not by the acquiring authority, but by the landlord. My Amendment was designed to get the best of both possible worlds—and why not? I think that both landlord and tenant are very inadequately compensated in many cases. What I was asking for was that the status quo as regards the landlord should remain; that is to say, we should not seek to reverse the decision in Rugby Joint Water Board v. Shaw Fox and Foottit, but that the tenant should be safeguarded so that he is not at risk under Section 24(2)(b) of the 1948 Act.
The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, said that it would be quite illogical to have the best of these two worlds. I am not at all sure that I agree. It seems to me that this illogicality is in no way at the expense of the public. It would prevent what I still see as a certain unfairness, in spite of what the noble Viscount said. In effect, as the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, pointed out, compensation falls under two heads, and what I see happening is that compensation will be paid for fixed equipment and buildings on the land, and some part of the compensation for things in those buildings on the land will be paid for out of the compensation for the land and buildings. That is what I felt was an injustice, and it seems to me that the illogicality—if that is what it is—of trying to get the best of both worlds was a reasonable way out of it. So much for the first part of my Amendment. With regard to subsections (5) and (6), I agree that it is possible that I have not fully understood the taxation implications. I shall read the report of what the noble Viscount has said, and I may find that it was an adequate explanation and that I was wrong to want to delete both subsections (5) and (6). Nevertheless, it is a sad state of affairs when, in a Bill which is supposed to be improving compensation, the best the noble Viscount can say is that a tenant will never get less and he might even get more. I do not think much of subsections (5) and (6) if that is the best the Government can do.
Last of all, there was one point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. He asked whether the tenant would prefer an altogether more flexible system of compensation than what is proposed. I entirely agree, and that is what I have
486
battled for on several occasions. For example, there was the Trent River Authority Bill, which took over provisions in a Welsh reservoir Bill, whereby the acquiring authority was enabled to enter into a perfectly ordinary, straightforward bargain with the person whose land was to be acquired. That suited everybody very much better. It was quicker, it saved public money in the long run, because delays were avoided, and we ended up with someone who felt he had been reasonably adequately compensated, instead of with a disgruntled and dispossessed tenant. I think I can say no more with regard to my Amendment. I am glad that the Government have come into the open and have admitted that this means a diminution of the landlord's compensation, because I think it is right that that should be said in terms. But I am disappointed that the Government do not see a way of getting the best of both worlds, because it is far from illogical and not unreasonable that we should have the best of both worlds in this respect. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 43 shall stand part of the Bill?
6.38 p.m.
TIM EARL OF KINNOULL: I wonder whether I may ask my noble friend a question? During the Third Reading of this Bill in another place, the Minister said that he would look again at whether this whole clause could be drafted more simply and said that the matter would be carefully considered. May we have an assurance from my noble friend that this clause will be looked at again, or is he really satisfied that as at present drafted the clause will do?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My difficulty is, I suppose, that I am used to reading this sort of clause. I have been battling with this sort of point in compensation legislation for rather a long time and I think I understand it. I also think that valuers and other practitioners in the field of compensation will understand it. As I have said, compensation is perfectly all right until you start tinkering with it. When you superimpose one set of legislation upon another, and then another set on top of that, you get complications which cannot be avoided

487
and they come out in the drafting. I cannot say, plainly, that there is no other way of expressing what you want; there is always more than one way of expressing anything. But I am satisfied that Clause 43, as it stands, does what it is intended to do and I have already tried to explain the merits of what it intends to do. If my noble friend will draw attention to particular things that he does not like about it, or obscurities or anything else, I shall of course look at them again. But I am satisfied that the clause is effective and accurately drafted, and does the job that it is intended to do.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I thank my noble friend for that assurance.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: May I ask my noble friend a question with regard to Scotland? When do the Government intend to introduce into the Bill provisions regarding agricultural tenancies in Scotland, because, presumably, we shall finish the Committee stage this evening and there will then be only the Report stage and Third Reading? It is rather surprising that provision for Scottish agricultural tenancies was not made in the original Bill because they are quite different from England, as my noble friend knows. Scottish agricultural tenancies are hereditary and they are quite different from those in England.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I touched upon this matter a few moments ago, and it may be that my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard was not here. May I invite my noble friend to look at, for instance, Clauses 47(5), 47(6), 48(8), 49(5), 50(4) and so on? What has happened is that we have got all the Scottish adaptations of what was originally in the Bill on agriculture as on everything else. What is missing is the Scottish adaptation provisions for things which were put in on Report stage in another place: and that is what I promised would be put right on Report stage here. Most of it is here: it is just the new provisions which at the moment have not been altogether adapted for Scotland.
Clause 43 agreed to.
Clause 44 agreed to.
Clause 45 [Compensation where land is in area designated as site of new town for purpose of public development]:
6.42 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD moved Amendment No. 75A:
Page 45, line 36, at the beginning insert ("or where the Secretary of State proposes to approve the inclusion in a development plan of an area defined as an area of town development").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 75A, perhaps I may speak to the subsequent Amendments in my name. As my noble friend Lord Sandford will know, Clause 45 did not receive a great deal of debate in another place, unlike Clause 43, which has just been debated here at some length, as indeed it was at even greater length in the Commons. Clause 45 was introduced at the end of the Committee stage and was really very little debated. For that reason, I have put down this Amendment, which has some interest to some public authorities outside, rather as a probing Amendment, to find out how far my noble friend might be inclined to go, and whether he would be disposed to go further than Clause 45 as now drafted. In particular, my Amendment is concerned to suggest that the limitation on compensation incorporated in Clause 45(1)(a) and (b) should be applied to schemes of general town development under the Act of 1952. I should mention that an extension of this kind would have a particular value to the G.L.C. when promoting their overspill schemes, which they do from time to time in different parts of the country in connection with their rehousing projects. If my noble friend considered that my Amendment went further than he could accept, perhaps he would indicate in his reply whether he can see any halfway house rather than perhaps going the whole hog, as my Amendment would indicate.
The justification for such an extension is that, where it is proposed to acquire relatively undeveloped land on the outskirts of a town in order to make a major redevelopment, it is contended that it is unreasonable that the compensation to be paid should be related to the value of the land inflated by the public services already provided; for instance, roads, sewage and so on. The effect of this

489
Amendment would be to take such development under the 1952 Act out of such an inflated situation and provide that it should be treated on the same basis as land for a new town; that is to say, that the compensation to be paid for land should disregard the enhanced value relating to the development itself. I beg to move.
LORD SANDFORD: I am glad to respond to the request of my noble friend for a rather fuller exposition of the thinking behind this clause. It is designed to secure that, when New Town Corporations come to acquire land within New Town boundaries and any enhancement of the value of that land is attributable to the influence of some other specified public works, then the Secretary of State shall have power to direct that that enhancement shall be disregarded. The reason for this is that, under a fundamental and long-established principle, compensation is based on the loss to the claimant and not on the value to the acquiring authority; otherwise, authorities would have to pay extortionate prices or compensation greatly enhanced as a result of expenditure of public funds on the scheme for which the land is wanted. It follows, and is equally well established, that compensation must not include any increase in value which is entirely due to the scheme underlying the acquisition. Circumstances may arise, however, where a New Town or a New Town extension is itself a direct consequence of, or is connected with, some major public development which is outside the actual site of the new town. Such major public development and the New Town would then, in effect, together be tantamount to the same scheme.
Clause 45 is designed to deal with that kind of situation should it arise, and to ensure that the major public development, although outside the site of the New Town or its extension, shall be treated as part of the same scheme for compensation purposes. I hope that, with that explanation, my noble friend will see that the purpose of a town development scheme, in contrast to the purpose of some New Towns, which have had different purposes, must, under the terms of Section 1(1) of the 1952 Act, be primarily for the purpose of providing accommodation, et cetera, for the relief of congestion or over-population else-
490
where. That is its main purpose, whereas some other new towns have had other purposes. It is difficult, therefore, to visualise circumstances in which a town development scheme could meet this requirement and at the same time be associated with some other public development in such a way that a direction under the clause would be appropriate. This is the sum total of the whole matter, and I hope my noble friend will see that, that being so, it would not be appropriate, even if it were possible, either to accept his Amendment or to seek to find any halfway house, because the circumstances as between a New Town and a town development scheme are different in this respect.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I thank my noble friend for his reply. It followed lines which I had anticipated and, as he will recognise, it does not go any distance to meet a general problem of which both he and I are well aware. I hope and believe that perhaps some means will be found to solve the situation, in that the local authorities concerned are having to pay higher and higher prices to acquire the land they require on the outskirts of existing towns. This probing here was to inquire from my noble friend whether he could see any possibility in this concept of the extension in connection with New Towns being more generally applied. His answer, I am afraid, was a rather discouraging one, but I hope that it will leave him with a clear sense of obligation that he has got to find some other way. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 45 agreed to.
Clause 46 agreed to.
Clause 47 [Notice to treat in respect of part of agricultural land]:
6.50 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 50, leave out line 31 and insert—
("(3)Subject to subsection (4) below, "other relevant land" in subsection (1) above means—").
The noble Viscount said: This is a paving Amendment for Amendment No. 77 and the same two points turn up again under Clause 49 in Amendments Nos. 81 and 82. The point of this is that we

491
are dealing with counter-notices where you have to decide whether other relevant land left to the farmer (either the owner-occupier under this clause, or the short tenant under Clause 49), is reasonably capable of being farmed without the piece of land that is being compulsorily acquired. The short point of these Amendments is that it will be unfair to say, "Yes, you can go on farming the rest of the land", when in fact some totally different authority has put another separate compulsory purchase on some part of the remaining land which you do not take into account in order to see whether the farmer can reasonably carry on with what land has been left to him. We are making provision whereby in these circumstances you look at the situation with the super-added other compulsory purchase order made by some other authority for some other purpose. If that is in existence, it adds greatly to the argument that the remaining land cannot be farmed and would strengthen the case for a counter-notice. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I beg to move Amendment No. 77.
Amendment moved—
Page 50, line 41, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
("( ) Where an acquiring authority have served a notice to treat in respect of any of the other agricultural land mentioned in subsection (1) above or in respect of other relevant land as defined in subsection (3) above, then, unless and until that notice to treat is withdrawn, this section and section 48 below shall have effect as if that land did not form part of that other agricultural land or did not constitute other relevant land, as the case may be.")—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 47, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 48 [effect of counter-notice under under Section 47]:
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved Amendment No. 78:
Page 52, line 13, leave out paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) and insert—

("(a) the authority shall offer to surrender the lease to the lessor on such terms as the authority consider reasonable;

(b) the question of what terms are reasonable may be referred to the Lands Tribunal by the authority or the lessor and, if at
492
the expiration of three months after the date of the offer mentioned in paragraph (a) above, the authority and the lessor have not agreed on that question and that question has not been referred to the Tribunal by the lessor, it shall be so referred by the authority;

(c) if that question is referred to the Tribunal the lessor shall be deemed to have accepted the surrender of the lease at the expiration of one month after the date of the determination of the Tribunal or on such other date as the Tribunal may direct and to have agreed with the authority on the terms of surrender which the Tribunal has held to be reasonable.")

The noble Viscount said: We are tidying up here. Under Clause 47, to which this clause is an appendage, an acquiring authority that serves notice to treat in respect of part of an agricultural unit can, in the circumstances set out in subsection (1), be required by the landlord or owner-occupier with an interest in the land to acquire his interest in the remainder of the land. This is the counter-notice procedure. If the person who serves the counter-notice is only a lessee, the authority are required to surrender the lease to the landlord if they have not already acquired his interest as well; and Clause 48 and particularly subsection (6) deals with the terms under which the lease is surrendered. We are improving the machinery; this Amendment requires an authority to offer to surrender the lease on such terms as they think reasonable. If the lessor does not agree, then it goes to the Lands Tribunal. We provide in the new paragraph (c) that the lease is to be deemed surrendered to the landlord at the expiration of a month after the Lands Tribunal has determined what the amount is, unless the tribunal suggests an alternative date in certain particular cases. This is an improvement on what is already in the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 52, line 28, at end insert:
("(6A) Where the lessor refuses to accept any sum payable to him by virtue of subsection (6) above, or refuses or fails to make out his title to the satisfaction of the acquiring authority, they may pay into court any sum payable to the lessor by virtue of that subsection; and subsections (2) and (5) of section 9 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 (deposit of compensation in cases of refusal to convey etc.) shall apply to that sum with the necessary modifications.")
The noble Viscount said: On the same point in the circumstances I have been talking about, there may be liabilities which the lessee who has been compulsorily acquired had under his lease for restoring the land or buildings. When the lease is surrendered by the acquiring authority to the lessor, the landlord, somebody must pay for it. We therefore must provide that where a landlord re-refuses to accept the payment, or where he refuses or fails to make out a title to the land, there is some method of resolving this. We deal with it in accordance with a long-standing provision under the compulsory purchase code by payment into court. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 52, line 44, leave out from ("and") to end of line 4 on page 53 and insert ("in paragraph (c) for the word "surrender" there shall be substituted the word "renunciation"").
The noble Viscount said: Those of my Scottish noble friends who have been asking Scottish adaptation will be interested to know that we can now greatly shorten the Scottish adaptation. Only one word is left to be turned into Scots as a result of the Amendments which have just been accepted. This Amendment provides for this one. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to. Clause 48, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 49 [Notice of entry in respect of part of agricultural holding]:
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 53, leave out line 25 and insert:
("(3) Subject to subsection (4) below, "other relevant land" in subsection (1) above means—").
The noble Viscount said: This Amendment and Amendment No. 82 I have already spoken to when dealing with Amendments Nos. 76 and 77. They cover the same points but in this case for the short-term tenant. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I beg to move Amendment No. 82.
Amendment moved—
Page 53, line 33, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
494
("(4) Where an acquiring authority have served a notice to treat in respect of land in the agricultural holding other than that to which the notice of entry relates or in respect of other relevant land as defined in subsection (3) above, then, unless and until that notice to treat is withdrawn, this section and section 50 below shall have effect as if that land did not form part of the holding or did not constitute other relevant land, as the case may be.")—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 49, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 50 [Effect of counter-notice under section 49]:
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Amendments Nos. 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, and 88 are all drafting Amendments. With permission I will move them en bloc.
Amendments moved—
Page 54, line 22, leave out ("acquired") and insert ("been authorised to acquire").
Page 54,Line 24, leave out ("acquired") and insert ("subject to compulsory purchase").
Page 54,Line 27, leave out ("acquired") and insert ("subject to compulsory purchase").
Page 54,Line 30, leave out ("acquired") and insert ("subject to compulsory purchase").
Page 54,Line 41, leave out ("accrue on") and insert ("arise on or out of").
Page 55, line 3, leave out ("acquired") and insert ("subject to compulsory purchase").—(Viscount Colville of Cuirass.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 50, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 51 agreed to.
Clause 52 [Determination of material detriment where part of house etc. proposed for compulsory acquisition]:
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved Amendments Nos. 89, 90, 91, 92 and 93.
Page 56, line 20, after ("8(1)") insert ("or 34(2)").
Page 56,line 25, after ("detriment") insert ("or damage").
page 56,line 37, leave out from ("determination") to end of line 42 and insert—

("(a) under the said section 8(1) as substituted by paragraph 8 of Schedule 6 to the Highways Act 1971 or paragraph 14 of Schedule 2 to the Gas Act 1972 (compulsory acquisition of rights over land): or

(b) under any provision corresponding to or substituted for the said section 80) which is contained in, or in an instrument made under, any other enactment including (except where otherwise provided) an enactment passed after this Act.")

Page 57, line 6, after ("(2)") insert ("(a)").
Page 57,line 9, leave out from ("1972") to end of line 11.
The noble Viscount said: These are nil drafting Amendments. There is a particular provision in Section 34(2) of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 which deals with some Housing Act provisions and one has to adapt the phraseology which would otherwise apply in general terms so as to make it applicable to the Housing Act context. These Amendments have this effect. With the permission of the Committee, I beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 52, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 53 [Notice to quit agricultural holding: right to opt for notice of entry compensation]:
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved Amendment No. 94:
Page 57, leave out lines 22 and 23 and insert (",being an authority possessing compulsory purchase powers, have agreed to acquire his interest in the holding; and").
The noble Viscount said: In subsection 1(a) of this clause we have a provision that the clause shall have effect where a yearly agricultural tenant is served with a notice to quit after a specified date in the proceedings by the authority who acquires the landlord's interest whether by agreement or by use of compulsory purchase powers. But the Bill as drafted in this subsection provides for cases of acquisition by agreement only where the authority has been authorised to acquire compulsorily. This is unnecessarily restrictive, because sometimes they do not have to be authorised; they can do it by agreement despite the fact that they possess compulsory powers in the background. We therefore broaden the protection of the tenant in this way by this Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move Amendment No. 95.
Amendment moved—
Page 57, line 30, leave out ("in pursuance of section 24(2) (a) of that Act").—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: This is very much a drafting Amendment. I beg to move Amendment No. 96.
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 26, at end insert ("and the termination of the tenancy").—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: moved Amendment No. 97:
Page 58, line 27, at end insert—
("( ) A person served with a notice to quit part of an agricultural holding shall not be entitled, in relation to that notice, both to make an election under this section and to give a counter-notice under section 32 of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948 (tenant's right to cause notice to quit part of holding to operate as notice to quit entire holding)").
The noble Viscount said: This again deals with the rather complicated interrelationship between the Bill and the Agricultural Holdings Act. In Clause 53 we have a provision for a yearly agricultural tenant on whom notice to quit has been served to choose, if he wishes, to have the notice of entry compensation, that is the compulsory purchase brand, in certain circumstances where the superior interest, the landlord's interest, is being acquired by an authority under compulsory purchase power. Where the tenant has opted in this way, and only part of his holding has been acquired, he also has the right to treat the notice to quit as the notice of entry for the purpose of widening the notice to relate to the entire holding—the sort of counter-notice procedure we were talking about a little earlier. Provision already exists in Section 32 of the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1948 which enables the tenant to widen the notice to quit part of his holding to operate as the notice to quit the entire holding. But in that section there are no conditions attached to his rights, except for a time limit.
If we did not deal with this matter the tenant could use that provision under the 1948 Act to turn the notice to quit part of his holding into a notice to quit the whole, and then elect, under Clause 53 of the Bill, to treat the notice as a notice of entry and get the compulsory purchase sort of compensation. This would allow the provision relating to the whole point of viability of the remaining land to be by-passed and one would not have the

497
protection that the Bill otherwise provides for this sort of value judgment in agricultural terms. In order to avoid this clash of two particular pieces of machinery we move this Amendment to make sure that he can choose only one or the other.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 53, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 54 [Notice to quit part of agricultural holding: right to serve counter-notice under section 49]:
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved Amendment No. 98:
Page 58, line 32, leave out from ("notice") to end of line 42 and insert ("or, if later, the decision of the Agricultural Land Tribunal, he may also within that period serve a notice on the acquiring authority claiming that the remainder of the holding is not reasonably capable of being farmed, either by itself or in conjunction with other relevant land, as a separate agricultural unit.
(2) If the acquiring authority do not within the period of two months beginning with the date of service of a notice under subsection (1) above agree in writing to accept the notice as valid, the claimant or the authority may, within two months after the end of that period, refer it to the Lands Tribunal, and on any such reference the Tribunal shall determine whether the claim in the notice is justified and declare the notice valid or invalid in accordance with its determination of that question.
(3) Where a notice under subsection (1) above is accepted as, or declared to be, valid under subsection (2) above then, if before the end of twelve months after it has been so accepted or declared the claimant has given up to the acquiring authority possession of the part of the holding to which the notice relates, section 20 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 and section 12 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968 shall have effect as if the acquiring authority had taken possession of that part in pursuance of a notice of entry under section 11(1) of the said Act of 1965 on the day before the expiration of the year of the tenancy which is current when the notice is so accepted or declared.
(4) Subsections (2) to (4) of section 49 and subsection (3) of section 50 above shall apply in relation to subsections (1) to (3) above and to a notice under subsection (1) above as they apply in relation to those sections and a counter-notice under subsection (1) of section 49, and shall also apply with the necessary modifications and as if any reference to the notice of entry were a reference to the notice to quit.")
The noble Viscount said: The purpose of Clause 54 is to enable the yearly tenant farmer who is entitled to opt for the notice of entry compensation under Clause 53 to benefit also from Clause 49,
498
as I have explained, by the counter-notice procedure so as to get rid of the whole of his holding if it is not reasonably possible to farm the rest. The clause as it is drafted at the moment entirely achieves the purpose in rather a complicated field, and we are amending it. It looks rather copious, but what we are doing is to set out rather more fully what is meant to be in the Bill. There is no change of substance here. It is spelt out rather more accurately and fully.
On question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move Amendment No. 99.
Amendment moved—
Page 59, line 1, leave out ("counter-notice") and insert ("notice").—(Viscount Colville of Culross)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 54, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 55 to 58 agreed to.
7.5 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD moved Amendment No. 99A:
After Clause 58 insert the following new clause:
Repeal of site value compensation provisions.
".—(1) Where land is purchased compulsorily, the compensation payable by the acquiring authority shall in all cases be assessed in accordance with the Land Compensation Act 1961 (as amended by this section) without regard to any statutory provision restricting compensation to the value of the land as a site cleared of buildings and, accordingly, the following provisions, namely sections 12(4), 29(2) and 59(2) of and Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1957, section 10 of and Schedule 2 to the Land Compensation Act 1961, section 20 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1966 and section 10 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1969, shall cease to have effect.
(2) The Secretary of State may by order make such transitional, incidental, supplementary or consequential provision as he considers necessary or expedient for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of the foregoing subsection including provision modifying this Act or modifying or repealing any other enactment or instrument.
(3) This section shall apply to every compulsory acquisition of an interest in land in pursuance of a notice to treat served after the 1st April 1974."
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this new clause and Amendments Nos. 108A to 108F in the Schedule is to remove a source of continuous friction between acquiring local authorities and

499
private property owners and tenants in areas which have been declared as clearance areas. The effect of this new clause and the Amendments would be to make the basis of compensation in these clearance areas the market value simply. The normal basis of compensation when property is compulsorily acquired is of course market value; but where a clearance area has been declared Parliament has established certain exceptions to the rule which requires the houses in such an area to be treated as of no value and compensation to be solely on site value. The three principal mitigations are, "well-maintained payments" either to the landlord, or to the tenant, or to both, and these mitigations arise where a house in a clearance area which, by virtue of its being in a clearance area, has been declared statutorily unfit, has in fact been well maintained, either by the landlord or the tenant or both of them. The regulations have laid down precise conditions as to how these payments are to be made, and, inevitably, these create as many anomalies as the benefits they confer.
If I may give one example, it will serve to illustrate the sort of difficulty which arises. When, in a clearance area, a site value is very high because the land is going to be redeveloped not for residential purposes but for commercial purposes, say, for an office block, the site value may very well exceed the market value of the house and the site together. In such a case there is no payment in respect of the good maintenance of the house, however well it has been maintained. The result is that where a good tenant in such a clearance area has maintained his house exceptionally well he can reasonably expect the payment because, he would be notified by the local authority that one may be due; and inevitably there is great disappointment and resentment against the acquiring authority when it is revealed that no payment can be made for good maintenance.
That is one example; there are other variations on this theme. Inevitably they lead to friction and disappointment, and naturally, local authorities dislike this kind of situation very much. I should be the first to recognise that all this arises out of various sincere attempts by Parliament to rectify the injustices
500
which have arisen in acquisitions where clearance areas have been designated. Certainly in the view of the Greater London Council, which has a great deal of experience with this sort of situation, the solution would be to change the law in this respect. It thinks that much friction and disappointment might thereby be saved and very little extra public money would be expended. Their advice to me, therefore, is that this whole complex structure of compensation should be abolished and be replaced by the simple basis of valuation on the market value. This is the effect of this new proposed clause and the subsequent Amendments. I beg to move.
LORD SANDFORD: I can assure my noble friend that the proposition he is putting forward has been thoroughly and carefully considered. As he says, with one exception the situation is that all land and buildings compulsorily acquired are paid for at full market value; and the one exception is the unfit house. Here the compensation code recognises no value in a structure which has been found unfit for human habitation. Where local authorities are acquiring unfit houses in order to demolish them, compensation is limited, as my noble friend says, to the value of the site. Where the local authority do not acquire, and where it is the owner's responsibility to close or demolish the house, no question of compensation even at site value arises.
Over the years it is perfectly true that successive Governments have introduced some qualifications to this site value rule, with the effect that virtually all owner occupiers now receive market value. It is only landlords of unfit houses who are restricted to site value on the acquisition of their property. However, when a tenanted house which is being compulsorily acquired has been kept in good repair, a well-maintained payment equal to eight times the rateable value is paid if the whole of the property has been well maintained, or one half of this amount if only either the exterior or the interior is well maintained; and the payment, as my noble friend has said, may be apportioned between the landlord and the tenant according to who has undertaken the maintenance work. This payment is double the amount which was

501
payable up to last November. The Government increased this payment then to recognise the efforts made by people to keep even unfit houses in decent repair and to encourage such good maintenance until such time as the local authority were able to take action. Well-maintained payments at this level would in many cases close the gap between site level and market value. Therefore, here again the equivalent of market value is, in practice, already being paid. The only cases that clearly receive no more than site value on acquisition are those tenanted unfit houses that have not been well maintained.
When, therefore, my noble friend puts it to me that we should do away with the long-established principle of site value as the basis of compensation for unfit houses, I must ask him this question. Taking into account the exceptions that have been made over the years and the level of supplementary payments that have now been made available, should we now be justified in asking the community to pay more for a house that is not only unfit for human habitation but on which little or no effort has been made to keep it in reasonable repair? Bearing in mind particularly the raising in last November of this payment for well-maintained houses, I hope the Committee will be satisfied that we are maintaining a position of equity in an area which I agree has been difficult and still remains difficult. Nevertheless, I would claim that this system is a reasonable one, and I hope my noble friend will agree.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I must thank my noble friend for his reply. Let me say immediately that I recognise that both he and his right honourable friends in this Government, and indeed in previous Governments, have tried by the system of litigation to meet the various injustices which arise in these cases. But the fact is that some still do arise of the kind which I illustrated in my example, and they are extremely tiresome to everybody. It is true that there would be a marginally bigger payment if my Amendment were accepted, but, as my noble friend has explained, by the possible doubling of the payment last November the gap between market value and this basis of valuation has now been closed. So there really is
502
not very much in it. There is no doubt that for major urban authorities there is now much tiresome friction and unhappiness with tenants who are disappointed.
I had rather hoped that I should get a more sympathetic reception from my noble friend, because I noted that his right honourable friend, Mr. Graham Page, in another place supported a Private Member's Bill for just this purpose some nine years ago. Therefore I thought there might have been greater sympathy for it in Government circles. So perhaps my noble friend will think about this problem again and see whether it has more merit than I, with this explanation, have been able to give to it. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 59 to 62 agreed to.
Clause 63 [Land affected by orders relating to new towns]:
7.17 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 100:
Page 65, line 22, leave out subsection (6).
The noble Lord said: I should like to dispose of this Amendment quickly, but I do not think I shall be able to do so because it deals with a matter of some importance and one that is causing a great deal of concern. Subsection (6), the subsection that I seek to leave out, would clearly deprive some people of a right which they enjoy under Section 11 of the 1965 Act. Under that section, any owner of property in a New Town is enabled to require the development corporation to acquire it at any time from seven years after its designation—that is to say, the designation of the New Town. After that period that entitlement is automatic. There is no obligation to prove blight, and the development corporation cannot serve a counter-notice. That applies, I understand, to a property of any value, and it is regarded as a valuable right. The repeal of Section 11 puts property owners in a similar position to property owners elsewhere. That may be a welcome change for people living in recently established New Towns, but not so welcome for people living in the New Towns established more than seven years ago.
This Bill is based on a White Paper, Putting People First, yet this subsection,

503
if it remains in the Bill, means that people who live in New Towns established more than seven years ago are losing well-established rights. As was said in another place, no one in the New Town gains except the development corporation, and the development corporation is the Department of the Environment wearing another hat. The Minister will know that the matter was raised in another place by my honourable friend Mr. Terry Davis, the Member for Bromsgrove. There was a debate, and it is because a number of questions were asked and not answered on that occasion that I think the matter needs to be pursued here. He raised it as a result of the public health inspector at Redditch seeing something that apparently no one else had seen, and the questions that were then raised are matters of quite serious concern. My honourable friend Mr. Davis instanced a situation at Redditch, a town that I know very well. I have visited it a number of times and have stayed there. Indeed I was there only last week. As I understand the position under Section 11, the owner of property in a New Town does not have to prove blight; that is to say, that his property has been adversely affected or will be adversely affected. The designation of a New Town such as Redditch is itself enough. Hitherto, as I have said, after seven years owners have known that they could require the development corporation to acquire their property. That for them ensures a guaranteed market if the owner wishes to sell. Under the Bill as drafted, that exising right is taken away. Under the Bill the owner will be required to prove blight. Therefore, whereas the designation of a New Town has meant automatic proof of blight, it would seem that now the onus is placed on the property owner. Having regard to the possibilities of fluidity in the rates and the planning of development, this may well be a very difficult and uncertain calculation.
I think I am right in saying that Redditch was designated as a New Town some ten years ago. Yet I understand that it is only as recently as six months ago that some new proposals were tabled by the development corporation for that town. There is concern in many quarters.
504
The Urban District Councils Association have sought consultation with the Department on this matter. They have not been able to persuade the Department to have those consultations, but I understand that the Development Corporations Association has had the advantage of discussions with the Department.
I should like the Minister to say whether, under the Bill, designation of a New Town automatically is regarded as blight. I should also be grateful to him if he could state the position with regard to counter-notices which may be served by the development corporation. I shall be further grateful if he can indicate the full implications of the subsection as it now stands, and ask whether in point of fact the application is intended to be universal. As I am advised, the subsection restricts the right to compel the purchase of properties by the corporations to owner-occupiers, owners of small businesses and agricultural interests. Can the noble Lord inform the Committee what is a "small business"? Just how large can it be? What about social organisations with premises—clubs, religious bodies, and that sort of organisation? May I invite the Minister to state what the position of the churches is in a town like Redditch? I appreciate that they are not rated buildings, but how is their position secured under this present Bill? They can easily lose congregations following development. They can face huge rebuilding costs.
What about social clubs, and even political clubs? I have taken the trouble to get one or two figures with regard to rateable values. Let me give, for instance, the rateable value of the Conservative club. The old rateable value was £472 a year: it is going up to £1,805. The Bridley Moor and Batchley club had a rateable value of £867 which is going up to £3,772. How will those clubs be affected? Because, let us face it, it may be said that if the club is a successful one and people like it they will continue to use it: but the club could quite easily be blighted by a new road and could lose its membership almost overnight. It would be extremely useful if the Minister were able to indicate what was likely to happen to that kind of social building.
The situation seems to me to have been made more difficult by the fact that plans have been revised many times. The

505
Ridge area at Redditch has been the subject of various proposals from time to time. One wonders what will happen with regard to such things as petrol stations which depend largely for their success and their continuance and their prospects on road proposals. They can again lose their business pretty well overnight.
May I ask for guidance on 'two specific points which I would put to the Minister? I shall try to put the first clearly and I have probably touched on it already. Under the Bill, will a draft designation order constitute blight? Will any responsibility rest on development corporations to prove no blight? May I quote what the Minister stated in the other place on 22nd February at columns 917 and 918. He said:
"We are depriving certain owners who have had a right previously—a right which is exceptional to thern—but we are giving the ordinary dwellinghouse owner, small business owner and agricultural owner the right to serve blight notices at any time during those seven years after the designation of an area. This is a package deal and I think that it will bring satisfaction all round, although in any compromise of this sort there may be some who feel hard done by because they may have just been going to take advantage of some benefit which they have under Section 11."
It is a strange package deal for property owners in those New Towns—such as Redditch, Hemel Hempstead and Northampton—which have already been in existence for more than seven years. A number of authorities are feeling strongly, and I should like to quote from what the county borough of Northampton has had to say about the application of this suggestion:
"The council feels very strongly that a legislative measure which they have pressed for to improve the position of residents affected by public works is in this instance being used as a vehicle to detract from property owners' existing rights and privileges."
These people are undoubtedly losing an established right, and one asks what justification there is for the loss, what justice there is in their being deprived of this right which has accrued over the years—a right that has given them a certain expectation. I would ask that the matter be looked at again and, in the meantime. I shall listen very carefully to, and read very carefully, what the Minister has to say in reply. I hope he will be able to deal with the point I have
506
raised, because I think that largely these are matters which were raised in the other place and, as far as the public record goes, stand unanswered.
LORD SANDFORD: I am glad to respond to the noble Lord's request and expand on the intentions behind this clause and this subsection in particular. The proposal to do what is done here was mentioned in the White Paper, and there were no representations about it by any of the local authority associations. But the matter was raised in another place and my right honourable friend undertook to look into it. He has done so and he does not consider that there is any reason to alter the original decision.
I cannot answer off the cuff all the noble Lord's questions about what will happen and what is the situation about petrol stations and church halls in Red-ditch, but if there are particular cases there which I can write to him about, I will. I shall be glad to deal with the general points that he has raised.
Section 11 of the New Towns Act, which this subsection deals with, has been criticised from two points of view. First, it does not give owners of blighted property in New Towns any statutory rights until after seven years have elapsed from the date of designation. The second criticism is because it imposes an open-ended obligation on development corporations to bring in any property within their area regardless of whether it is genuinely blighted. Now that we are looking for 50 per cent. private enterprise in New Towns the need for corporations to buy almost all the land in designated areas no longer exists, and the provision as it has stood is wide open to abuse. For example, there have been cases where house owners moving from New Town areas use Section 11 to offload their property on to the development corporation so as to avoid legal costs. That must be stopped.
It seems sensible to take the opportunity to repeal Section 11 as part of the package to extend the national blight provisions, which are substantially improved by this Bill, to New Towns for the first time. The first benefit is that those people who are most likely to suffer real hardships as a result of blight—owner-occupiers of houses, owners of small businesses,

507
owners of agricultural units—will enjoy the benefits of the national blight provisions from a much earlier stage than before: that is, from the publication of the draft designation order rather than waiting for seven years. This is a considerable gain for them. Development corporations will be expected to deal sympathetically with any reasonable cases of blight which fall outside the new statutory framework. They can do that; they have already had a circular from my Department making this clear to them. Instructions have also been issued to corporations that any assurances that have been given at New Town designation order inquiries about the purchase of property within the seven-year period specified by Section 11 should continue to be honoured. So that point is met.
I can assure the Committee that it is not the Government's intention that anyone whose property is genuinely affected by blight in New Towns should suffer hardship as a result of this clause and subsection. On the contrary, we believe that the overall effect of these changes will be that more equitable and more expeditious arrangements will be available to people whose property is genuinely blighted for relieving the effects of the blight on them which arise in New Towns. I hope that having heard that explanation the noble Lord will see that many of his fears are unfounded and that in several respects many people will be considerably better off under this arrangement than before.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I am grateful to the noble Lord: I hope he will not feel that I have deliberately unduly kept him from an appointment which I know he has. I ought to have been at another function myself. I am appreciative of the information he has given and welcome any information that he is able to give me. I need to read carefully what he has had to say and to consult with those with whom I have already been in contact on this matter to see what they have to say. Regarding the 50 per cent. private enterprise development, I am not at all sure that this is as good as it sounds. I am not altogether sure that the point is as strong as it may appear. I understand
508
that in Redditch the land to be developed by private enterprise is going to be dealt with by way of leasehold, and the development corporation will therefore without any doubt at all keep a tight hold on the manner of development. I would have thought it was desirable that development corporations should check and approve and, if necessary, control the development by private enterprise. I may have to come back to this matter at the Report stage, but for now I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 63 agreed to.
Clause 64 [Land affected by slum clearance resolution]:
7.35 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendments Nos. 101, 102 and 103:
Page 65, line 28, after ("which") insert ("(a)"),
Page 65,line 30, at end insert (";or
(b) is land surrounded by or adjoining an area declared as aforesaid to be a clearance area, being land which a local authority have determined to purchase under section 43 of that Act.")
Page 65,line 39, leave out ("this section") and insert ("subsection (1)(a) above").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 101 to 103 en bloc. Clause 64 extends the blight purchase provisions to cover land within a clearance area declared by resolution under Section 42 of the Housing Act 1957. At the same time as they declare a clearance area many local authorities resolve to purchase the land within it; and they may also resolve to purchase "added lands"—that is, land surrounded by the clearance area which is reasonably necessary to secure a cleared area of convenient shape and dimensions, and land adjoining the area which is reasonably necessary for the satisfactory development or use of the cleared area.
As the Bill stands, owner-occupiers of houses which the authority have determined to purchase as "added lands" which are not unfit are unable to serve blight notices until the authority submit a compulsory purchase order for confirmation (when Clause 61 applies), whereas owner-occupiers in the clearance area itself will be able to require the authority to buy their houses as soon as the area has been declared. The combined effect of the Amendments is to

509
remove this anomaly by enabling owner-occupiers of "added lands" to serve blight notices without having to wait for a compulsory purchase order to be made. I beg to move all three Amendments en bloc.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 64, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 65 and 66 agreed to.
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 104:
After Clause 66, insert the following new clause:
Land affected by new street orders
".—(1) Section 192(1) of the Act of 1971 shall have effect as if the land specified therein included land which—

(a) is within the outer lines prescribed by an order under section 159 of the Highways Act 1959 or section 30 of the Public Health Act 1925 (orders prescribing minimum width of new streets); and

(b) is, or is part of—

(i) a dwelling erected before, or under construction on, the date on which the order is made; or

(ii) the curtilage of any such dwelling.

(2) The grounds on which objection may be made in a counter-notice to a blight notice served by virtue of subsection (1) above shall not include those specified in section 194(2)(b) or (c) of the Act of 1971.
(3) In relation to land within subsection (1) above "the appropriate authority" and "the appropriate enactment" for the purposes of sections 192 to 207 of the Act of 1971 shall be the authority who made the order mentioned in that subsection and section 214(8) of the said Act of 1959 respectively.
(4) This section shall not enable a blight notice to be served in respect of any land in which the appropriate authority have previously acquired an interest either in pursuance of a blight notice served by virtue of this section or by agreement in circumstances such that they could have been required to acquire it in pursuance of such a notice."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 104. Amendments Nos. 105 and 106 are consequential upon it. The new clause introduced by this Amendment gives effect to undertakings given by my right honourable friend during the Report stage of the Bill in another place. The new clause brings within the blight provisions all those dwellings on new streets which were under construction or were already in existence at the time when the respective New Street Orders were made. Owners
510
of such properties who wish to sell but find that they cannot do so, or can do so only at a price substantially lower than that for which they might reasonably have been expected to sell, will be able to require the appropriate authority to buy them out. There is more that could be said, but that sufficiently sets out the general purpose of this clause, and the two consequential Amendments.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 67 agreed to.
Clause 68 [Power of personal representative to serve notice]:
LORD SANDFORD: I beg to move Amendment No. 105.
Amendment moved—
Page 68, line 42, after ("64(2)") insert ("and (Land affected by new street orders) (2)").—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 68, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 69 to 71 agreed to.
Clause 72 [Supplementary provisions for Part V]:
LORD SANDFORD: I beg to move Amendment No. 106.
Amendment moved—
Page 73, line 3, leave out ("and 65(2)") and insert (",65(2) and (Land affected by new street orders)").—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 72, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 73 to 76 agreed to.
Clause 77 [General interpretation]:
LORD SANDFORD: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 107 and 108, which are both drafting Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 74, line 17, at end insert:
(""disabled person" means a person who is substantially and permanently handicapped by illness, injury or congenital infirmity;");
Page 74,line 21, leave out ("sections 27 and 35") and insert ("section 27").—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 77, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses and Schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported, with the Amendments.

SUPPLY OF GOODS (IMPLIED TERMS) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
EDUCATION BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with Amendments; the Privilege Amendment considered and agreed to, and the remaining Amendments to be printed.
  E.E.C. AND FREE MOVEMENT OF LABOUR
  E.E.C. AND FREE MOVEMENT OF LABOUR
  RETAIL PRICES: PERCENTAGE INCREASES
  RETAIL PRICES: PERCENTAGE INCREASES
  TANZANIA: PROSECUTION OF U.K. PASSPORT HOLDERS
  TANZANIA: PROSECUTION OF U.K. PASSPORT HOLDERS