Sitting of 10 December 1973

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

  ZETLAND COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
  [Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified].
  Read the Third time and passed.

TRADE
Ordered,
That there be laid before this House statistics relating to Overseas Trade of the United Kingdom for each month during the year 1974.—[Mr., Peter Walker.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    Fuel Stocks
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what are his present plans relating to the introduction of the rationing of oil and petrol.
    Mr. Martenasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the present position of fuel stocks and on fuel rationing.
    Mr. Leadbitterasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a further statement on oil reserves and the need for rationing.
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Walker): As I told the House on 5th December, our reserve position does not suggest that the Government should now take action to ration petrol. That remains the position and we shall continue to watch the situation closely.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Sunday Press was almost unanimous in its criticism that the Government are being dishonest about the facts? Is not the position very much altered by the statement from Kuwait yesterday? Does not this statement mean that there will be an effective reduction of 30 per cent. in our supplies? Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate whether the Prime Minister has yet had a reply to his letter to the Arabs seeking an assurance that supplies to this country will be kept up in January, and subsequently?
    Mr. Walker: As far as the comments of the Sunday Press are concerned, I note from the hon. Gentleman that whenever the Sunday Press is unanimous on a topic in future he will be in agreement

    3
    with it. Regarding Kuwait, we have received important assurances from certain oil producers. There is no reason to suppose that the latest announcement affects this assurance in any way.
    Mr. Marten: In order to clear up misunderstandings, will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether we are exporting from these shores any coal or refined oil products to any country whatsoever? If we are, to which countries are these exports being made?
    Mr. Walker: Importing and exporting refined products is taking place involving a whole range of nations. For example, we provide most of the refining capacity for Southern Ireland. We import a whole range of products from European countries and export a whole range of products to those countries. These exports involve tiny quantities of coal. If these exports, which involve only a minor figure, did not take place it would mean that contracts entered into by the National Coal Board would be broken. I have control over exports of oil, and the oil companies make weekly declarations of their intentions.
    Mr. Leadbitter: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the deep anxiety among hon. Members on both sides of the House and the deep frustration in the country regarding the haphazard way in which distribution of fuel is being dealt with? Is he further aware that in some areas this type of distribution of fuel is causing frustration of a critical kind? Will he not at least say that the facts should be brought to the House by way of a statement this week, and will he consult the Leader of the House about the order of this week's business and express a personal view that a debate this evening on the landscaping of New Palace Yard—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We shall come to the debate on New Palace Yard later.
    Mr. Walker: The question of business is for the Leader of the House.
    Mr. Skeet: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether there is sufficient fuel oil to deal with the CEGB and the chemical industry? Will he give an indication of the naphtha position? Can
    4
    he estimate what will be the world price of crude oil and what price the United Kingdom will have to pay?
    Mr. Walker: The situation in terms of fuel oil provides ground for most anxiety, partly due to the CEGB's decision to make oil reductions. The total position on fuel oil is worse than on almost every other product. The stock situation is such that, provided we can continue the present cuts in the CEGB, these will enable us to continue at the present level. The naphtha situation can be changed dramatically by one major import. Recently a substantial import came from the Gulf which eased the situation, but there is one aspect of naphtha which is causing me some concern, and that is its use in the gas industry.
    Mr. Benn: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that it is not merely the Press and Members of Parliament who are critical of him? There is also evidence that the CBI and trade unions feel that he is not being candid and is not telling people the facts. All we are seeking is more information from him. Can he say, for example, what degree of control he exercises over the oil companies? Can he say something about the responsibility for controlling the price of petrol, especially as the Price Commission now appears to contradict itself daily, and as in any case the Fuel and Electricity (Control) Act has given back the power of control to the Minister? Will the right hon. Gentleman also share with the House, industry and the public his assessment of the short-term and mid-term economic prospects?
    Mr. Walker: No one will expect me to reply to all those questions. The last one alone is a subject for a major speech. The right hon. Gentleman is correct, however, in saying that I nave taken powers which enable me to control the price at both retail and distribution levels. The matter of price control and the manner in which it will be exercised is being examined urgently by the Government in talks with the oil companies. The Price Commission has issued a statement today making its position clear. One of its members made a broadcast in the course of which he made a mistake in saying what the powers were. As for the public feeling of uncertainty about

    5
    the position and the suggestion of a lack of candour, this is a situation which is complicated and which varies virtually from day to day. In such a situation it is understandable that people regret that there is not some easy graph or set of statistics telling the whole story.
    Mr. Evelyn King: Although I understand my right hon. Friend's difficulties, will he bear in mind the special position of the tourist industry, upon which places such as Dorset largely depend, as my own constituents do? Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind also that bookings for the future are being made now, and that the economy of the country may depend on them? It is clear that the Opposition do not understand the seriousness of the situation for holiday areas. Will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of making a special holiday allocation or any other alleviation of the position which may be thought possible?
    Mr. Walker: In his speech on Friday, my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry made it clear that in certain conditions the whole of industry is substantially threatened by the energy situation. This is a situation in which all industries, including the tourist industry, will suffer.
    Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Is the Secretary of State aware that the position in many areas is far more serious than he appears to appreciate? Is he aware that many farmers are suffering considerable difficulties at present? Is he aware also that working to a formula based on last year's supplies does not cover new entrants to the agriculture industry, those farmers who have moved from one area to another in the past year, or those who have expanded their activities in response to Government exhortations? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, finally, that smaller distributors who normally receive supplies from American-owned companies are running out of supplies, with serious consequences to their customers? Will the right hon. Gentleman look at these problems as a matter of urgency?
    Mr. Walker: These are problems which are bound to occur when an across-the-board cut is suddenly imposed. I want to pay tribute to the civil servants in my Department who, together with certain divisions of the oil companies, have dealt with hundreds of such problems
    6
    effectively in the past few weeks. If the right hon. Gentleman knows of specific cases and will let me have details, I shall see that they are tackled straight away.
    Mr. Adam Butlerasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the current level of usable oil stocks in the United Kingdom; and how this compares with one week earlier.
    Mr. Biffenasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the latest situation regarding the price, supply, consumption and stocks of oil.
    Mr. Sydney Chapmanasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the latest situation with regard to oil supplies within and on the way to the United Kingdom, with particular reference to the distribution of petrol supplies throughout the country.
    Mr. Peter Walker: Deliveries of crude oil to the United Kingdom last month were much as expected before the crisis. This month the oil companies expect a shortfall of about 15 per cent. and a reduction in imports of oil products. To meet the expected situation, deliveries to users have, in general, been reduced by 10 per cent. compared with last year, and other economy measures have been introduced. Stocks overall remain reasonably satisfactory so far. Prices of petroleum products must inevitably rise in the near future, following the big increases in crude oil prices imposed by the oil producers in October.
    Mr. Butler: Will my right hon. Friend be a little more precise about the level of stocks? Is he aware that my Question referred to the extent of usable stocks as well? Will he give an answer on that point? Will he give a more precise indication of the current level of stocks?
    Mr. Walker: It is difficult to give an answer about usable stocks, because the only figures that I have are of stocks held by the oil companies. The extent to which some of those stocks have declined in certain areas may mean that there are now stocks in industry as opposed to the oil companies. I can obtain no accurate figures, day by day or week by week, of stocks held by firms

    7
    and industry throughout the country. Overall, the current stock trend has been in line with the seasonal fluctuation that would be normal at this time of the year with comparable shifts in stocks from the oil companies to people's petrol tanks and to individual firms.
    Mr. Palmer: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how many power stations previously burning coal are now being converted to oil? Will he supply the House with the list of such stations?
    Mr. Walker: shall do so, but I cannot at the present time.
    Mr. Biffen: Does it presently remain the view of my right hon. Friend that supplies and consumption of stocks of fuel oil and naphtha are sufficient both immediately and in prospect to sustain the Government's growth target of 3½ per cent., or has he joined the growing army of economic realists, among whom I include myself, who believe otherwise?
    Mr. Walker: I know that my hon. Friend has always included himself in that category. Growth depends on future events that even my hon. Friend, with the realism that he brings to the subject, cannot accurately predict.
    Mr. Atkinson: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the situation must inevitably get worse? If so, is it not criminally incompetent of the Government not to use the powers that the Minister admits he now has to control the prices of all petroleum products? Has not the time now arrived for him to introduce some rationing to avoid what is becoming a racket throughout the distributive trade?
    Mr. Walker: As I said last week, the introduction of rationing does not prevent rackets. Previous rationing schemes illustrate that there are plenty of rackets.
    Regarding the control of prices, I obtained these powers only last Friday and Saturday. At the moment we do not know the full effect of current price increases and the current price-effectiveness of crude oil. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall use my powers to ensure that no profiteering is made out of the present situation.
    Mr. Chapman: If it is true that, generally speaking, there are adequate supplies of petrol in the country and that the problem is aggravated by panic-stricken motorists topping up at every opportunity, would not the answer be that, instead of most garages refusing to give more than £1 worth of petrol, my right hon. Friend should insist that they give not less than £2 worth, or five gallons, with the obvious exception of small tank capacity vehicles?
    Mr. Walker: I do not think that we could make that kind of approach by Government regulation and impose it on everybody in the country. Some garages have endeavoured to use that method to frighten off people who were just topping up. The position throughout the country, checked at lunchtime today, is very different and much improved compared with a week ago.
    Mr. Sheldon: Is it not clear, in view of the price of oil to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, that the price of coal is extraordinarily competitive and that the Government are, for the first time within the last 20 years, able to pay the miners a considerable increase because the production of coal is so profitable at the present time? Why do not the Government stop this nonsense which arises from phase 3, get down to realities and pay the miners what they ought to be paid?
    Mr. Walker: It is partly because of that situation that the Government decided, 12 months ago, to introduce the Coal Industry Act and are now offering the miners a substantial increase.
    Mr. Warren: Will my right hon. Friend say how much usable oil is being exported from this country? Will he conduct an investigation into the distribution practices of oil companies, which seem to be supplying less oil than they have received?
    Mr. Walker: If my hon. Friend has any evidence of that, I shall be grateful if he will let me have it. In the earlier stages there was a period of uncertainty as to future allocation, when a number of distributors decided to keep their stocks for themselves. With regard to comments on the M6 and the non-availability of diesel oil, there is plenty of

    9
    diesel oil on the M6, but it was not being sold, perhaps for that sort of reason. But the position has now substantially improved. As for exports, as a Department we are keeping a daily check with the oil companies on the various forms of oil exports, and there are considerable oil imports too.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: If the right hon. Gentleman is refusing to introduce rationing, will he indicate that certain groups in the community should be given priority? I refer, for example, to users of diesel oil for taking children to school and workmen to work, as well as members of the medical profession who find it wasteful of their time to queue. Will he give an assurance that the price which has been bandied about, of possibly 50p for a gallon of oil, will not be charged unless it is justified?
    Mr. Walker: I can tell the hon. Lady that there will be price increases due to a world-wide increase in the cost of crude oil. These will be regulated so that profiteering will not take place.
    Last week we received many complaints about the difficulties of doctors. Through the oil companies and our regional offices we are endeavouring to tackle these cases. Where complaints have been made they have been dealt with.

    Energy Supplies (Alternative Sources)
    Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what extra impetus the fuel oil shortage has given to his Department's search for alternative sources of energy; and if he will step up research on the use of Great Britain's tidal estuaries for the generation of electricity, particularly the Severn Estuary.
    Mr. Peter Walker: It has confirmed the correctness of the important decisions taken this year and last to make better use of our indigenous fuel resources. Great Britain's tidal estuaries offer only limited scope as power sources. Two schemes for a Severn barrage have been considered recently, but did not appear economically attractive.
    Mr. Adley: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the circumstances surrounding the rapid rise in the price of oil may make previously unattractive schemes a lot more
    10
    attractive? Is he aware that one of the schemes for the barrage is estimated to be able to produce 50 per cent. of the nation's electricity requirements? Would not this be a good time to spend a few hundred thousand pounds on setting up a hydrological survey of one of the schemes, so that we can establish facts which are not well known?
    Mr. Walker: Price comparisons with oil and other sources of energy have changed dramatically. However, the alternative for this country in the longer term is nuclear energy. The cost per unit generated on the best barrage scheme available would be two and a half times that of an advanced nuclear reactor.
    Mr. Dalyell: Whereas it is true that when last looked at, in the middle 1960s, the Solway barrage was economically unattractive, is the Secretary of State aware that some people now seriously think that it might be economically attractive?
    Mr. Walker: I shall look specifically at that scheme to see whether that is so, but my advice is that the barrage schemes available to us could not compete with the nuclear potentiality. Obviously I shall check on this specific scheme.
    Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that more resources are devoted not only to finding alternative sources of energy but to making better use of the resources that we have already? For example, will he encourage fluidised combustion in coal-burning stations, since it not only gives a better conversion rate but is advantageous from the point of view of the environment?
    Mr. Walker: I shall consider that.

    Electricity Generation
    Mr. Rostasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of Central Electricity Generating Board oil-and coal-fired generating plant is at present converting less than 35 per cent. of the thermal value of fuel input into consumable energy.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Peter Emery): The latest Annual Report of the Central Electricity Generating Board shows that in 1972–73 96 per cent. of output capacity was operating at a thermal efficiency of less than 35 per cent.
    Mr. Rost: Does not my hon. Friend agree that it is time we replanned our electricity generating programme with a view to encouraging the construction of more, smaller on-site power stations where waste heat could be converted into useful energy, rather than continuing with a programme of large and remote power stations where 60 per cent. of the fuel input is wasted in the cooling systems and the grid system?
    Mr. Emery: Although I appreciate my hon. Friend's argument, I do not think that it would necessarily be acceptable to the House to embark at Question Time upon a fundamental debate on the laws of thermodynamics. However, there are two aspects to my hon. Friend's question. The first is that district heating schemes are under serious consideration. The second is that, none the less, the steam pressure of 2,000 psi at temperatures of over 500 degrees C., which is the standard operation on most CEGB plants, is really quite good.

    Consumer Advice Centres
    Mrs. Sally Oppenheimasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the outcome of the meeting held on Friday 23rd November between the Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs and representatives of the local authorities to consider the discussion document on consumer advice centres.
    The Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): Those present generally welcomed my proposals for co-ordinating the network of advice centres and for developing and promoting its corporate identity.
    Mrs. Oppenheim: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that consumers throughout the country will widely welcome the initiative that he is taking with regard to a national network of consumer advice centres and, equally, the considerable sums of money which the Government are setting apart for this purpose? Was my right hon. and learned Friend really satisfied that the local authority representatives meant to implement the scheme? Was that the case, for example, with regard to the Gloucestershire local authority?
    Sir G. Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her remarks about the
    12
    general value of this initiative. My impression, which was clearly formed as a result of that meeting, was that the overwhelming majority of local authorities present attached considerable importance to the expansion of this service and were themselves keen to participate in it, consistent with the resources that they have available.
    Mr. Kaufman: What advice would a consumer advice centre give to a constituent of mine who bought a washing machine from Crown Point Electrics of Hyde, found that it did not work, sent it back for repair, had it returned, and found that it still did not work and did not even have a lid, bearing in mind that she has not had a single word from Crown Point Electrics about the washing machine?
    Sir G. Howe: I confess that it is hardly part of my function, in relation to a Question about advice centres, to answer every query of the hon. Gentleman's about every washing machine in his constituency. The servicing of electrical appliances is one matter to which the Director General of Fair Trading will be directing his attention.

    Coal Industry
    Mr. Croninasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a further statement on the situation in the coal industry.
    Mr. Peter Walker: I have nothing to add to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry in the debate which took place on 7th December.
    Mr. Cronin: Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate how long the Government propose to continue this obstinate and foolish confrontation with the miners and so grossly reduce coal production at a time when other sources of fuel are critically reduced? Is it not obvious that, in view of the rundown in manpower as well as the present dispute, sooner or later the Government must pay the miners much more than the present offer if they are to get them to do work which is dangerous, inconvenient and grossly ill-paid?
    Mr. Walker: The present offer guarantees the miners a substantial improvement in their living standards. It is an offer

    13
    which also gives them an incentive for further productivity. With all the problems in both energy and counter-inflation, I deeply regret that the miners do not accept the offer and get back to work. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Jeffrey Archer: Has my right hon. Friend noticed—[Interruption.] Has my right hon. Friend noticed—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must be allowed to put his supplementary question without these sedentary noises.
    Mr. Archer: Has the Secretary of State noticed the CEGB's total energy scheme in which it suggests that for the total good of the country the coal, electricity and gas boards should work together rather than always be rivals?
    Mr. Walker rose—
    Hon. Members: Withdraw.
    Mr. Walker: I withdraw what I said about the miners getting back to work. It is purely the overtime ban with which we are concerned, not full-time working.
    We have had a series of meetings with all the nationalised industries combined to look at the energy resources problem. Considerable liaison is going on between the various industries concerned with energy supply.
    Mr. Varley: May we take it from the right hon. Gentleman that before Thursday his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment will take the initiative to try to break this deadlock? If not, why not?
    Mr. Walker: That question should be addressed to my right hon. Friend, who will have to decide what he considers the best way of obtaining a settlement of this matter.
    Mr. Crouch: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most important requirements for a negotiator in an industrial dispute is flexibility? Are not the terms of stage 3 unnecessarily restricting his right hon. Friend's hand in achieving a settlement of this dispute?
    Mr. Walker: No. One of the considerable advantages of stage 3 is that it provides considerable flexibility. Indeed, stage 3 provides the flexibility
    14
    that enables the miners to have available to them an offer far greater and more generous than most sections of the community can enjoy.

    Rolls-Royce Limited
    Mr. Whiteheadasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the latest information he has from the receiver-liquidator concerning the prospective payment to shareholders in Rolls-Royce Limited; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister for Aerospace and Shipping (Mr. Michael Heseltine): The joint liquidators of Rolls-Royce Limited have recently informed creditors and stockholders that there is an estimated potential surplus available for stockholders of just over 40p per £1 stock unit but that this is still subject to a number of uncertainties. The holders of workers' (1955) shares have been repaid at the full par value of their shares.
    Mr. Whitehead: Quite apart from the reflection that those figures cast on the circumstances of the original bankruptcy, is the hon. Gentleman aware that many workers in the old Rolls-Royce company, and widows and dependants, exchanged workers' shares for ordinary shares at par? Is he also aware that there is something indecent about these people being compensated at no better value than American speculators who bought shares after the crash and now stand to make 4,000 per cent. or more profit on the deal? How much money is going to America under the terms of this payout?
    Mr. Heseltine: I do not have the answer to that question. The allocation of funds is a matter for the liquidator. He has looked into this matter very carefully. The whole question of distribution is for him and not for the Government. I am sure that the whole House welcomes the fact that he has been able to reach agreement with the clearing banks and accepting houses to enable the workers' shares to be repaid. I understand that no formula has been found, and it would not be appropriate for the Government to seek to intervene to find a formula to discriminate between people holding the same shares, although they happen to be employed by the company, as opposed to outside shareholders.
    Mr. Whitehead: Surely the hon. Gentleman agrees that this is precisely what was said about the worker shareholders—that no formula could be worked out to help them. These are workers holding ordinary shares.
    Mr. Heseltine: It was very difficult to find such a formula. It depended on the generosity of others who had legitimate claims on the company forgoing some of their claims. Therefore, it did not affect ordinary creditors or the stockholders at large. It was a decision taken by the banks and clearing houses which made it possible.

    TriStar
    Mr. Carter-Jonesasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give priority to assisting the Lockheed 1011 TriStar with Rolls-Royce engines in view of its high reliability rate and low noise factor, and its importance to British technology.
    Mr. Michael Heseltine: The Government have already backed the Rolls-Royce RB211 engine used in this aircraft with massive development support. The British Airways Board has placed a substantial order for the aircraft. The Government will continue to give all appropriate help to the manufacturers in their sales efforts throughout the world.
    Mr. Carter-Jones: I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that if he could give further encouragement to this type of aircraft it would reduce the environmental disadvantage of living in areas where there are airports? Will he also take into account the fact that many people are employed in the engineering industry throughout the country and that nearly every constituency is affected, and that if he does not take action to introduce a stretched version of the aircraft, with a corresponding engine, our technology may be in danger?
    Mr. Heseltine: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that in one of the permissions granted by the Secretary of State for the Environment special help was given for the use of the TriStar at Luton because of its quiet engine properties. I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman said about the need to encourage quiet engines. As to the development of the engine, the company has
    16
    now bench-tested the engine to a thrust of 48,000 lbs.
    Mr. Adley: Will my hon. Friend say what discussions are taking place about the fitting of the RB211 in the European airbus?
    Mr. Heseltine: It is obviously the responsibility of the Rolls-Royce management to pursue openings wherever it can find them. I know that such discussions have taken place between Rolls-Royce and Air Bus Industry, but no specific proposals have been put to me, although I know that those two companies have had discussions with the British Airways Board.

    Oil Production Platforms
    Mr. Douglasasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the facilities which are now available to him to evaluate the designs for oil production platforms.
    The Minister for Industrial Development (Mr. Christopher Chataway): It is for the operating companies to carry out their own commercial and technical evaluation of alternative designs in the light of the particular conditions at the site where oil is found.
    On safety aspects, my right hon. Friend has the advice of a technical advisory committee on which a number of expert bodies are represented. The National Engineering Laboratory can advise on various aspects of new design concepts. Specific studies are put in hand with consultants as necessary.
    Mr. Douglas: Does the Minister not concede that that is a most unsatisfactory reply? Is he not aware that there is a growing feeling that a large number of concrete production platforms could be developed in areas of high unemployment if the Government took the initiative to bring the oil companies, the designers and the producers together? Will he not do that small thing and bring these three organisations together to see whether we can have these production platforms built in suitable areas in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Chataway: There have been intensive discussions with all those people about concrete platforms. The hon. Gentleman should remember that

    17
    of nine steel platforms so far ordered, six have come to this country. There are very few places where there is sufficiently deep water to enable concrete platforms to be constructed. We have commissioned consultants to scour the entire United Kingdom with a view to locating those areas where this would be possible.
    Mr. Marten: Are any steps being taken to acquire or build enormous concrete tanks for oil storage in the North Sea such as those which have been built in Stavanger in Norway, so that we can overcome some of the pipe-laying difficulties?
    Mr. Chataway: I do not have a figure to give to my hon. Friend, but I shall certainly notify him if there is a case of that kind. I do not believe that it falls within the present plans of the oil companies.
    Mr. Strang: Does not the Minister accept that these decisions are far too important to be left to oil companies and construction firms? Does he not agree that there is an overwhelming case for commissioning an expert study of platform design to complement the one that has been commissioned on sites, so that we can come to a decision which will be in the national interest?
    Mr. Chataway: The study by consultants which we have already announced has also concerned itself with alternative designs, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, ideas about designs for platforms, and particularly for these concrete platforms, are changing very rapidly.
    Mr. Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

    Shipping (Oil Supplies)
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how Her Majesty's Government's cutback of 10 per cent. on oil supplies will affect the bunkering of British shipping and its invisible earnings.
    Mr. Michael Heseltine: I refer my hon. Friend to the statement which I made on Friday. Our shipping industry is already taking steps, through reductions in
    18
    ship speeds and other measures, to cut substantially its consumption of oil fuel. It will not be possible to isolate the effects of the reductions in oil supplies on the industry's invisible earnings because of the other factors involved.
    Mr. Wingfield Digby: In view of the importance of invisible earnings and the fact that ships serving the United Kingdom need to bunker world-wide, will my hon. Friend say what steps he is taking to encourage other countries to follow the example of this country and give priority to bunkers?
    Mr. Heseltine: I have not thought it necessary to take such positive steps, because no representations have been made to me by the shipping industry that it is necessary. If any evidence of difficulties were brought to my attention I should see what could be done in the circumstances.
    Mr. Booth: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the range of activities of merchant and naval ships is so wide that in a period of oil tanker shortage there is a place for determining priorities? Will the Minister give an undertaking that this matter is being examined and that priority will be given to tankers moving oil to this country and ships moving food and other essential supplies?
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that in the statement which I made on Friday I have given priority status to ships involved in trade to and from the United Kingdom.

    Lonrho
    Mr. Meacherasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects his Department's investigation into the affairs of Lonrho to be completed.
    Sir G. Howe: The inspectors have already done a considerable amount of work. It is not yet possible to say when they will complete their investigation.
    Mr. Meacher: Will they investigate the reason why the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) was appointed as consultant in September 1971 at a grossly inflated salary, since he could offer only part-time service, and will they investigate also whether there was any connection between his appointment and the

    19
    fact that in the very same month Mr. Newman, managing director of Lonrho (South Africa), and three other Lonrho directors were arrested in Johannesburg on fraud charges, with hectic efforts being made by the company to secure their release ever since?
    Sir G. Howe: I do not know what connection there may or may not be between those matters, or how far the inspectors will think it right to follow up the points made by the hon. Gentleman. They will be conducting a widespread investigation in accordance with their terms of reference under statute.

    Small Firms Division (Staff)
    Mr. Redmondasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many persons are employed in the small firms division of his Department.
    Mr. Chataway: Twenty-six. The staff of the small firms information centres—30 in all—are on the strength of the Department's regional offices.
    Mr. Redmond: Will some of these people go to Bolton to advise and help some of the small firms which have been writing to me over the past eight or nine months about the total absence of supplies of wood, steel, phenol, Polythene and, now, textiles fibres and yarns? Also, while they are there will they examine another problem which I have raised on other occasions in the House, namely, the anxiety of these firms and some of their suppliers, who say that they must not in any circumstances disclose their names for fear of victimisation by other suppliers or by one of the nationalised corporations?
    Mr. Chataway: On the last point, if I understand my hon. Friend aright, I am satisfied that there is no discrimination against small firms on the part of the British Steel Corporation. As regards supplies of steel and other materials, the small firms information centres can put small firms in touch with those who can give them expert advice.
    Mr. Alan Williams: Will the Minister bear in mind that many small firms feel that they are swamped by the administrative expenses of VAT? Does he recognise that with the present and probable future rate of inflation many small firms which are not now covered by VAT will
    20
    be drawn within the net, and for this reason will the Government alter the threshold figure? Second, how will the Department protect small firms from the EEC proposal, already adopted by the Commission, which, far from raising the threshold figure, would actually lower it?
    Mr. Chataway: I shall certainly bear in mind the effect on small firms of any proposal on the scope of VAT, but I must say that I do not find among small firms any hankering after SET.

    Balance of Trade
    Mr. Carterasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on Great Britain's current balance of trade situation.
    Mr. Peter Walker: The changing terms of trade and the increase in imports of machinery, industrial materials and fuels have resulted in a substantial deficit in our balance of trade.
    Mr. Carter: Is not the prime reason for the expected £2,000 million balance of payments deficit next year the Government's appalling economic policies? Will the Secretary of State now tell us what course he will be urging upon his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in order to reverse this situation?
    Mr. Walker: The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is "No, Sir", and the answer to the second part also is "No, Sir".
    Mr. Skeet: Will my right hon. Friend give his estimate of the trend in commodity prices?
    Mr. Walker: think that my hon. Friend will realise that in present circumstances it is impossible to do that. For one thing, if oil prices substantially increase and oil supplies diminish there could be a large reduction in world trade, which could result in a substantial fall in commodity prices. It is, therefore, quite impossible to predict.
    Mr. Benn: But is it not clear that in this matter, as in the oil situation, what the country wants is that the Minister shall tell us the facts—that is all, just the facts—and the best prospects which can be made available to the country

    21
    as a whole? Although very gloomy estimates are undesirable, does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the foolish optimism which he has shown has done, if anything, much more damage than the gloomy forecasts? Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that what the Government are ready to tell the special NEDC meeting on 21st December will be made available also to Parliament before it rises for the Christmas Recess?
    Mr. Walker: Having read over the weekend the right hon. Gentleman's confessions of how, taking note of the experts, his Government ran down the coal industry, the railways and other industries, I can understand his concern. If he wants facts I can readily give him one. Imports of industrial materials, fuel and machinery over the first 10 months of this year are running at a total increase of £2,500 million over the same period last year.

    Steelworks
    Mr. Goldingasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will now issue a general direction to the British Steel Corporation not to close any steel works which are capable of becoming modern mini-steel plants.
    Mr. Emery: To give such a direction would be quite unrealistic, and in any case the timing and location of closures are matters which fall within the responsibilities of the British Steel Corporation.
    Mr. Golding: Is it not ridiculous to close steel plants at a time of grave steel shortage? May it not be that the Government's estimates of future steel demand as are as far out as past forecasts of coal demand?
    Mr. Emery: No, Sir. The hon. Gentleman should know that there is no closure taking place now where there is a shortage of supply of any of the products produced by the plant concerned.
    Mr. James Hamilton: Will the Minister take seriously the question put to him with reference to the steel shortage, since what is now proposed could mean serious redundancies in some of the steel producing areas? Will he recognise also that many of the steel pipes for oil are
    22
    coming from Japan, and if the so-called antiquated mills were brought up to modern requirements the necessary pipes could be produced in this country?
    Mr. Emery: I think that I answered the first point in reply to the question put by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding). On the second point, the standard of quality of pipe required for use under the North Sea is such that the British Steel Corporation has had great difficulty in matching the specification. However, where the pipeline has come on land in Scotland, the corporation has been immensely successful.

    West London Air Terminal
    Mr. Millanasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions he has had with British Airways regarding its proposal to close down the West London Air Terminal check-in facilities.
    Mr. Bishopasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if, in view of the current fuel situation, he will cause a review to be made of the decision to close down the West London Air Terminal check-in facilities.
    Mr. Michael Heseltine: I discussed with the group managing director of British Airways on 26th November the action the board proposes to take to ensure that the withdrawal of these facilities does not cause serious inconvenience to passengers. I am satisfied that the board's plans should not result in any significant increase in fuel consumption.
    Mr. Millan: Will the Minister take it that many users of West London Air Terminal, including myself, are quite unimpressed by British Airways' arguments for closing the check-in facilities, and that this view is now shared by the airline users' committee, the recently established consumer body? Will the hon. Gentleman do all he can to persuade British Airways to reverse its decision, which may cause considerable discomfort to passengers and congestion at Heathrow?
    Mr. Heseltine: I have had discussions with the chief executive of British Airways, very much for the reasons to which the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention

    23
    and particularly in the light of the consumer committee's report. British Airways has announced a number of things which it intends to do to meet the report of the consumer committee. I think that the House will wish to bear in mind also that from the beginning of October the facilities in question were withdrawn from 40 per cent. of passengers using the West London Air Terminal and, so far as my Department is aware, no hardship has arisen.
    Mr. Kenneth Lewis: But is my hon. Friend aware that, when this service is completely withdrawn, many people will have to go by bus and there will be no facilities for their luggage to be taken? In fact, the buses do not have that facility at present. Second, will my hon. Friend bear in mind that we are to have a new Underground railway out to London Airport, and there are no facilities on the Underground for the carrying of luggage? Will he, therefore, ask those responsible to see that these facilities are made available when the terminal is closed?
    Mr. Heseltine: I think that my hon. Friend may have misunderstood the nature of the service provided by the buses. There are luggage facilities now. The only issue is whether one checks in one's luggage at the terminal or at Heathrow. The argument is that, as one has to keep specific buses for specific aircraft at present, the buses often run to Heathrow half empty, and it would be easier to provide a regular service at, say, four-minute or 10-minute intervals, without allocating specific buses to specific flights. The other question which my hon. Friend raises is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries, and I shall draw it to his attention.
    Mr. Bishop: The hon. Gentleman's reply completely ignores widespread representations. Does he realise that two of the arguments put forward by British Airways for the withdrawal of check-in facilities were that there were far more people using their cars to go to Heathrow and that traffic congestion often held up a bus and delayed aircraft? In view of the changed fuel situation, will the hon. Gentleman have further discussions with a view to changing his mind?
    Mr. Heseltine: I hope that the House will not feel that my reply ignored any representations. I was dealing with points made in some of those representations. As the House knows, 80 per cent. of people using Heathrow now go there by car, and, although there may well be some reduction as a result of the fuel situation, it is not likely that the gap will be closed between those who go by car and those who go by bus. The question is whether the 80 per cent. of passengers who have gone by car should in certain circumstances be delayed by the possibility of some of the 20 per cent. who have gone from the terminal being delayed because a particular bus is held up for a certain time. In view of the difficulties with inter-lining and so on, on balance the argument seems to be that the present proposal of British Airways, with the amendments which it has made, will not in fact cause major inconvenience.
    Mr. Ridley: In view of the very powerful case just put by my hon. Friend, will he cause an investigation to be held on the reason why BEA decided to commit public expenditure on this white elephant and how it was that the officials in the Ministry of Civil Aviation decided to approve such a wastage of public capital? Surely it is clear that the thing had no commercial value at all.
    Mr. Heseltine: This all happened a considerable time ago, and circumstances have no doubt changed dramatically since then, with the ever-increasing proportion of people using their cars to go to Heathrow. However, my hon. Friend's point is most interesting and I shall look into it.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: May I suggest on behalf of the consumer that the Minister is going in completely the wrong direction? Surely he is encouraging people to drive to London Airport, where the parking facilities are already overloaded. Will he consider the difficulties facing elderly people, those going on school trips and those who are travelling for the first time?
    Mr. Heseltine: On reflection, the hon. Lady may not want to use the word "encouraging", because the proportions

    25
    are now so different that it is inconceivable that any policy we adopted would be likely to change the numbers of cars going to Heathrow. A number of changes have been introduced recently to help the sort of people she referred to. It was already intended that there should be sufficient porters to deal with the luggage problem but, in addition, a full-time supervisor will be on duty, to help people who might suffer in the way that the hon. Member fears. For anyone who suffers the ultimate inconvenience of not catching a plane the airlines have said they will see that such people are either booked on a later plane or that accommodation is provided for them in hotels at Heathrow.
    Mr. Warren: On British Airways' own admission, only 0·4 per cent. of its flights were delayed last year because of passengers being held up between the check-in point at West London and the airport. This year 1 million people have already used the terminal. As it will save only £500,000 to cut out the facility, cannot passengers be surcharged 40p to cover the facility, so that it may continue.
    Mr. Heseltine: Surely my hon. Friend will ask why no other capital city in the world has this facility provided. In addition, 40 per cent. of the 1·3 million people referred to by my hon. Friend as using the service, finding that the facility has been withdrawn since October, have suffered no inconvenience. Admittedly, on the airline's figures only 0·4 per cent. of the flights are delayed, but where that delay takes place—perhaps because of a breakdown and, therefore, congestion on the M4—the other passengers already on the aircraft suffer the great inconvenience of having to wait, and we must remember the inter-lining communications which follow.

    Bicycles
    Mr. McCrindleasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if, in view of likely future demand for bicycles during the fuel crisis, he is satisfied that the supply will be adequate.
    Mr. Chataway: The industry is at present satisfying demand in this country. Its prospects of continuing to do so depend on the ways in which the supply of its raw materials and the demand for its
    26
    products are affected by the availability of oil. I shall continue to keep in close touch with the industry.
    Mr. McCrindle: This is not intended to be a frivolous matter. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the demand for bicycles has increased substantially over the last three years and export orders continue to increase? Would not this be an appropriate time to encourage the cycle industry to expand? If we did that—perhaps this part of the question might be considered frivolous—and used cycles a little more, would it not be very much to our physical advantage?
    Mr. Chataway: The industry has very good prospects but I do not think in the circumstances that it needs any encouragement from me to expand.
    Mr. Ewing: Does the Minister see the situation arising in which Ministers will be supplied with bicycles instead of cars? If that situation is expected to arise, will he ensure that they have a fixed gear so that they may continue to back-pedal?
    Mr. Chataway: I am sure that whatever the form of locomation we shall make equally impressive progress.

    Coal Mines (Weekly Earnings)
    21. Mr. Gryllsasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what would be the expected average weekly earnings for surface workers and underground workers under the National Coal Board's current offer; and how this compares with the equivalent weekly earnings in 1970.
    Mr. Emery: On a comparable basis to the figures used in the Wilberforce Report the expected average earnings under the NCB's current offer, including a productivity agreement, will be £46·50 for surface workers and £49·65 for underground workers. The comparable figures for 1970 were £24·10 on surface and £29·05 underground.
    Mr. Grylls: The miners may be asking for more, but is it not clear that they have been treated more generously by this Government—taking account of the Wilberforce settlement and the current offer—than they have ever been treated before? Have they not been treated certainly more generously than most

    27
    industrial workers? Is it not also true that with allowances and overtime face workers will be earning very nearly £3,000 a year.
    Mr. Emery: What my hon. Friend says is correct because his figures show that, whereas immediately after the Wilberforce settlement in April 1972 the miners' ratio was 1·07 compared with manufacturing industry, if the NCB offer were accepted the ratio would once again be higher than that for manufacturing industries.
    Mr. Eadie: Will the Minister try to explain the significance of his remarks? Surely there is something wrong with the financial statistics, because 700 miners are leaving the industry every week. Is it not time the Minister cut out the propaganda and tried, on Thursday, to make a settlement with the miners to get the nation the coal it needs?
    Mr. Emery: The hon. Member should take into account the fact that recruitment is still progressing at a steady rate of between 300 and 350 a week, of which only half are miners returning to the pits. Under all Governments there has been a problem of recruitment at times of prosperity. Things are no different now than at any time in the past.

    Bottle Manufacturers
    Mrs. Doris Fisherasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions he has held with bottle manufacturers.
    Mr. Chataway: We are in constant touch with the glass manufacturers' federation, which represents glass container manufacturers, about the bottle supply situation, and are urgently considering its representations about fuel oil supplies.
    Mrs. Fisher: is it not absurd for the situation concerning non-returnable bottles to be allowed to continue when, over Christmas, we might find the essential distribution of milk severely restricted? What does the Minister intend to do about the production of non-returnable bottles?
    Mr. Chataway: I bear in mind the point made by the hon. Member. However, she will appreciate that at short notice it is not possible to alter production lines. She must remember that the
    28
    industry is heavily dependent upon fuel oil.
    Mr. Fortescue: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the use of glass bottles in the food industry goes far beyond whisky and milk? Will he give an assurance that fuel supplies for the manufacture of glass bottles will be given the utmost priority?
    Mr. Chataway: We shall certainly consider carefully the industry's claims for fuel.
    Mr. Alan Williams: What representations are the Government making to the supermarkets to reverse those policies which have deliberately killed the market for returnable bottles? Does the Minister not realise that bottles are not the only form of container and package now becoming scarce? Did he see the report, in The Times Business News today, of panic buying and of suppliers rationing goods to the retailers? What action are the Government taking now to ensure a continuity of supplies of tinned and bottled foodstuffs to the shops?
    Mr. Chataway: The hon. Gentleman goes a good deal wider than the Question asked by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mrs. Doris Fisher). With regard to glass manufacturers, we are considering the specific point which the hon. Gentleman raises.

IRELAND (TRIPARTITE CONFERENCE)
The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): Mr. Speaker, I will with permission, make a statement about the tripartite conference at Sunningdale between the British and Irish Governments and the parties involved in the Northern Ireland Executive. The House will know that the conference was brought to a successful conclusion and that an agreed communiqué was issued last night. Copies of it have been made available in the Vote Office and it will be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
The House will not wish me to repeat the details which are recorded in the communiqué. The outcome of the conference has shown that the existence of apparently incompatible political aspirations has not prevented Her Majesty's Government, the Irish Government and

29
the Northern Ireland Executive-designate from working together for the benefit of both parts of Ireland.
The communiqué sets out for the first time parallel declarations by the British and Irish Governments that the status of Northern Ireland cannot be changed until a majority of the people of Northern Ireland so desire. These declarations will be incorporated in a formal agreement which will be registered at the United Nations.
The conference agreed on the establishment of a Council of Ireland which will have both executive and harmonising functions and a consultative rôle. The Council will have equal representation from both North and South with safeguards for the British Government's interests and will act on the basis of unanimity. There will also be a consultative assembly, with equal representation from the Dail and the Northern Ireland Assembly. The communiqué also sets out fresh proposals for dealing with politically motivated violence throughout Ireland.
The way is now open for the appointment of the Northern Ireland Executive, and, subject to the approval of Parliament, for the devolution of powers to the Northern Ireland Executive and the Northern Ireland Assembly. The necessary legislation and legislative instruments will be brought before Parliament later this week.
It was agreed that a formal conference should be held early in the New Year, in which the British and Irish Governments and the Northern Ireland Executive can meet together to consider reports on the studies which are being commissioned and to sign the agreement reached.
The agreement has immense significance for the future of Ireland. The fact that such an agreement has been reached is due to the constructive and realistic attitude taken in the talks both by the Irish Government and by those parties in Northern Ireland who will MOW come together in a Northern Ireland Executive. It now remains for us all to implement the agreement for the benefit of the people of Ireland as a whole.
Mr. Harold Wilson: I join the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister in commending the agreement to the House.
30
For my part, as Northern Irish affairs have been conducted in the House on a bipartisan basis for some years past, I pay tribute to the achievement and to all who played their part in it. I refer, in particular, to the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for what he did in making the agreement possible.
The Council of Ireland proposition was one which was first revived in modern times by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends have pressed such a proposition.
As the agreement will be under attack by shellbacks and by subversives of various persuasions, none of us should today say anything which would make a vulnerable situation still more difficult. It is the duty of all of us in the House to make the Sunningdale agreement stick.
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition for what he has said. We join with him in our hopes that the agreement and, in particular, the declaration will be accepted fully in Northern Ireland and by the other parties in the Dail in exactly the same way as the all-party approach in this country.
Captain Orr: While I in no way impugn the motives of my right hon. Friend and others in the agreement, its effect is to deceive someone. If the purpose of the agreement is better law enforcement and fruitful economic co-operation in Northern Ireland, the erection of this vast edifice tends to deceive the people of the Irish Republic that a united Ireland is round the corner. If, on the other hand, there is another motive, it is the people of Ulster who will be deceived. Surely an executive based upon such a flimsy type of deception is bound to be unstable and is bound to feed violence on both sides? Surely the outlook must be grave?
The Prime Minister: I must strongly repudiate everything which my hon. and gallant Friend has said. I cannot accept that there is any element of deception. For the first time an Irish Government have declared their position on the status of Northern Ireland. The agreement is

31
to be registered as an international agreement at the United Nations. This is a major step forward of the utmost importance to everyone in Northern Ireland. I met no one at the conference during the long hours when we were working together who believed that a united Ireland was round the corner. Far from it. It was acknowledged that at present the majority of people in Northern Ireland wish to remain in the United Kingdom. Her Majesty's Government have accepted that if at any time the people of Northern Ireland change their view their wishes will be respected. That is absolutely right. There is no element of deception.
There is not, as my hon. and gallant Friend suggested, an enormous structure. All parties at the conference wished to ensure that the secretariat should be small and limited to the requirements of the work of the Council. It is, after all, a small council consisting of only 14 members. It was felt that the assembly should have all such services as are necessary to enable it to debate and advise when required. It is a consultative assembly and, therefore, it is out to achieve the purpose of enabling both parts of Ireland to work together more effectively in the common good.
Mr. Hooson: On behalf of the Liberal Party, I add my congratulations to all the parties who took part in the discussions for reaching an agreement. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are some people who will never be satisfied and who will try to shoot down any agreement? Is he further aware that that has been the great tragedy of Ireland, both in the North and in the South, over the years? To what extent have the executive powers of the Council of Ireland been agreed?
The Prime Minister: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his words of welcome for the agreement. It has been agreed that the Council should have executive powers. It will act on the unanimity rule. That was agreed on the basis of common accord between all those who took part in the discussions. We have listed the elements which we conclude should now be considered either for executive function or for harmonisation. Those elements will now be ex-
32
amined in detail and, as I said, recommendations will be made to the formal conference which is to be held early in the New Year. Each item will be considered on its merits.
We came to the conclusion, after considerable discussion, that it was not possible at the conference for those round the table to decide, for example, whether in the electricity industry North and South the Council should have executive functions and precisely what those functions should be. We thought it essential that there should be detailed examination of each item before reaching a conclusion.
Mr. Deedes: I acknowledge the rôle which not only the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland but my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has played in achieving this historic step forward. Does my right hon. Friend agree, and will he bear in mind sympathetically, that much may now depend on the rôle which the loyalists and Unionists apart from those who have been in discussion at Sunningdale may now assign for themselves—namely, whether they wish to be a working or a wrecking opposition? Will my right hon. Friend underline that point?
The Prime Minister: I agree fully with what my right hon. Friend has said. All who were at the conference were distressed by the scenes which took place at the Assembly last week. We hope that we shall never see the like of them again.
By the declaration of the Irish Government to register at the United Nations and the fact that the Council of Ireland will work on the unanimity rule, we hope that we have given a full assurance to all in Northern Ireland that their interests have been, and will be, properly protected.
Mr. Duffy: I, too, pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman and to everyone else concerned in this historic and tremendous achievement. While none of us should say anything which may prejudice the acceptance of the Council of Ireland in any quarter, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that if it is to have continuing life it must have the capacity to grow and to evolve? Does he not agree also that there is, therefore, a responsibility on any Government at Westminster to promote these conditions whilst

33
at the same time winning the active consent of the people of Northern Ireland?
The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. The conference was agreed entirely on this point, and there is capacity for the Council to grow. It has to do so by the unanimity rule, whereby both North and South are assured that their interests will be looked after. Where both feel that they can co-operate in the common interest, it is open to the Council to develop and grow in order to do so.
I take the view that, wherever possible, all decisions about the Council should be taken by those who are going to operate it—the Irish Government and the three parties represented in the Executive-designate. We were willing and able to help, but I felt it much better, as the Council is to consist of North and South and not the United Kingdom Government, that they should work out together how they wished to operate and to settle, for example, their places of meeting, procedures and so on.
Mr. McMaster: I, too, pay tribute to my right hon. Friend and the other parties present at this far-sighted agreement. Can my right hon. Friend tell us how far the other parties in the Republic support the statement in the communiqué by the Government in the South of Ireland recognising the status of Northern Ireland? Does this statement preclude any amendment of Article 2 of the Irish Constitution? Secondly, can the provisions relating to the trial of murderers be extended to other serious offences committed in the North and in the South? Will that have any effect on the amendment of the extradition laws of the South of Ireland? Finally what effect will the conference have as a whole on restoring law and order, both North and South of the border, and in particular on improving the security of the border itself?
The Prime Minister: I have already expressed the hope that the other parties in the Dail will support the whole of this agreement. Of course, this rests on the confidence of the Irish Prime Minister that he can gain the support of Parliament for the declaration which he will make, and I think that was the right basis on which to act in this conference.
This declaration does not in any way preclude the alteration of the Irish con-34
Stitution if the people of Southern Ireland so wish. Indeed, Mr. Cosgrave informed us at the conference that there is already a constitutional reform committee in existence, which is examining the whole of the Irish Constitution. As we know from our own proceedings, such commissions naturally take time to report. What we wanted at this conference was immediate action at the same time as we put forward proposals for the Council.
With regard to the question of offences, the Irish Government indicated that they would take immediate and effective action to deal with the particular problem of those accused of murder. The question of of the other offences will immediately be studied by the commission. Again, in the discussions we found that it was extremely difficult to come to conclusions on such proposals as that for a court of Ireland because, obviously, considerable problems are involved. I do not say that they cannot be overcome, but they need detailed examination by those specialised in the matter. The question of the other offences will come up for consideration by the commission we are setting up
Mr. Callaghan: May I offer my congratulations to all those who have succeeded in getting both the Northern Ireland Executive and the Council of Ireland? Did the right hon. Gentleman hear Lord O'Neill of the Maine, former Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, saying at lunchtime that, while he hoped the agreement would succeed, he feared that the history of Ireland showed that extremists always win in the end? I ask the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, to repeat once again that we shall proceed, despite the cost to this country, with the utmost resolution against extremists on both sides, who are the only people who can prevent the majority from having a peaceful future?
The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I can give the right hon. Gentleman the categorical assurance for which he asks. Of course, I know that there are some who will be pessimistic about anything in Ireland ever coming to fruition. It was right that in the discussions at the conference we should examine critically every proposal, and those round the table were anxious that there should be a proper balance between all the interests involved. I believe that we have achieved that. I believe that we

35
can now make progress in this respect. What is more, I believe that the agreement reached will so improve the political atmosphere over a large part of Ireland that it will make it more difficult for men of violence to achieve their purpose.
Mr. Goodhart: I add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend on this major step forward. Can he, however, give an assurance that there will be no change in the status of Northern Ireland until the majority of those on the electoral register in Northern Ireland, not just a simple majority of those voting in a single referendum, give a positive indication that they want a change in the status of their country?
The Prime Minister: Parliament has already laid down the procedures for ascertaining the views of the people of Northern Ireland, and we shall adhere to them.
Mr. Fitt: Does the Prime Minister agree that it was his impression that all those people involved in these very delicate negotiations were acting with the free consent of their electors, of those who had elected them to office, and that there was absolutely no compulsion upon them to reach any agreement except that they were acting in the best interests of the people, not only of Northern Ireland but, indeed, of Ireland? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the agreement was reached only with the co-operation of himself, the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and, indeed, many right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the House, particularly my right hon. Friend, the Leader of the Opposition and my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), and that it has been a joint effort over many years to try to lay the basis for the very successful conclusion arrived at yesterday?
In condemning the violent actions of violent men on both sides in Northern Ireland, will the right hon. Gentleman also condemn the violent words and the incitement to violence now being expressed by elected Members of this House in Northern Ireland?
The Prime Minister: I certainly acknowledge the contributions made by the right hon Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. Member
36
for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) in the proposals they put forward some time ago, some of which were embodied in the agreement. As the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) knows, I acknowledged to the conference last night and to the Press at the signing the part which my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has played. Again I pay tribute to those round the table from the Executive-designate as well as to the Prime Minister and his colleagues from the Republic.
I willingly confirm that the whole of these arrangements were reached voluntarily and without any sort of pressure or compulsion. I would have thought that the length of time the conference took, and the amount of work we had to do, indicated that clearly enough to everybody outside the conference, and those inside who heard the varied proposals put forward—some of them very ingenious for solving the problems we were confronted with also realised that there was no question other than that of voluntary effort by everybody and, in the end, voluntary agreement.
Mr. Harold Wilson: If the right hon. Gentleman's answers have been spoken in a voice not quite as robust as sometimes it is, will he accept our sympathy, and also recognise that the voice of this House today, through the exchanges about the agreement, is unassailably the voice of the House of Commons and that, should it be challenged from any quarter, we shall join him in supporting any motion put before the House in support of the agreement reached this weekend?
Since the word "loyalist" was used by the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), will the Prime Minister also recognise that when some of us hear the word "loyalist" we feel that it is sometimes a euphemism for "disloyalist"? Whether that may come from one side or the other of those who oppose it in Northern Ireland, the House of Commons, as it has shown today, is 100 per cent. behind what the right hon. Gentleman has put to the House.
The Prime Minister: Again I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the wholehearted support he has given to the agreement, as indeed has the Liberal Party.

37
The House knows that I condemn all those who use violence or try to wreck the democratic process. We have under way a new democratic process in Northern Ireland and a democratic arrangement between North and South. I hope that the Dail will give as wholehearted support to the agreement as we in this House are giving it.
Following is the communiqué:
1. The Conference between the British and Irish Governments and the parties involved in the Northern Ireland Executive (designate) met at Sunningdale on 6, 7, 8 and 9 December 1973.
2. During the Conference, each delegation stated their position on the status of Northern Ireland.
3. The Taoiseach said that the basic principle of the Conference was that the participants had tried to see what measure of agreement of benefit to all the people concerned could be secured. In doing so, all had reached accommodation with one another on practical arrangements. But none had compromised, and none had asked others to compromise, in relation to basic aspirations. The people of the Republic, together with a minority in Northern Ireland as represented by the SDLP delegation, continued to uphold the aspiration towards a united Ireland. The only unity they wanted to see was a unity established by consent.
4. Mr. Brian Faulkner said that delegates from Northern Ireland came to the Conference as representatives of apparently incompatible sets of political aspirations who had found it possible to reach agreement to join together in government because each accepted that in doing so they were not sacrificing principles or aspirations. The desire of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom, as represented by the Unionist and Alliance delegations, remained firm.

5. The Irish Government fully accepted and solemnly declared that there could be no change in the status of Northern Ireland until a majority of the people of Northern Ireland desired a change in that status.

The British Government solemnly declared that it was, and would remain, their policy to support the wishes of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland. The present status of Northern Ireland is that it is part of the United Kingdom. If in the future the majority of the people of Northern Ireland should indicate a wish to become part of a united Ireland, the British Government would support that wish.

6. The Conference agreed that a formal agreement incorporating the declarations of
38
the British and Irish Governments would be signed at the formal stage of the Conference and registered at the United Nations.
7. The Conference agreed that a Council of Ireland would be set up. It would be confined to representatives of the two parts of Ireland, with appropriate safeguards for the British Government's financial and other interests. It would comprise a Council of Ministers with executive and harmonising functions and a consultative role, and a Consultative Assembly with advisory and review functions. The Council of Ministers would act by unanimity, and would comprise a core of seven members of the Irish Government and an equal number of members of the Northern Ireland Executive with provision for the participation of other non-voting members of the Irish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive or Administration when matters within their departmental competence were discussed. The Council of Ministers would control the functions of the Council. The Chairmanship would rotate on an agreed basis between representatives of the Irish Government and of the Northern Ireland Executive. Arrangements would be made for the location of the first meeting, and the location of subsequent meetings would be determined by the Council of Ministers. The Consultative Assembly would consist of 60 members, 30 members from Dail Eireann chosen by the Dail on the basis of proportional representation by the single transferable vote, and 30 members from the Northern Ireland Assembly chosen by that Assembly and also on that basis. The members of the Consultative Assembly would be paid allowances. There would be a Secretariat to the Council, which would be kept as small as might be commensurate with efficiency in the operation of the Council. The Secretariat would service the institutions of the Council and would, under the Council of Ministers, supervise the carrying out of the executive and harmonising functions and the consultative role of the Council. The Secretariat would be headed by a Secretary-General. Following the appointment of a Northern Ireland Executive, the Irish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive would nominate their representatives to a Council of Ministers. The Council of Ministers would then appoint a Secretary-General and decide upon the location of its permanent headquarters. The Secretary-General would be directed to proceed with the drawing up of plans for such headquarters. The Council of Ministers would also make arrangements for the recruitment of the staff of the Secretariat in a manner and on conditions which would, as far as is practicable, be consistent with those applying to public servants in the two administrations.
8. In the context of its harmonising functions and consultative role, the Council of Ireland would undertake important work relating, for instance, to the impact of EEC membership. As for executive functions, the first step would be to define and agree these in detail. The Conference therefore decided that, in view of the administrative complexities involved, studies would at once be set in hand to identify and, prior to the formal stage of the conference, report on areas of common

39
interest in relation to which a Council of Ireland would take executive decisions, and, in appropriate cases, be responsible for carrying those decisions into effect. In carrying out these studies, and also in determining what should be done by the Council in terms of harmonisation, the objectives to be borne in mind would include the following:

(1) to achieve the best utilisation of scarce skills, expertise and resources;

(2) to avoid, in the interests of economy and efficiency, unnecessary duplication of effort; and

(3) to ensure complementary rather than competitive effort where this is to the advantage of agriculture, commerce and industry.

In particular, these studies would be directed to identifying, for the purposes of executive action by the Council of Ireland, suitable aspects of activities in the following broad fields:

(a) exploitation, conservation and development of natural resources and the environment;

(b) agricultural matters (including agricultural research, animal health and operational aspects of the Common Agricultural Policy), forestry and fisheries;

(c) co-operative ventures in the fields of trade and industry;

(d) electricity generation;

(e) tourism;

(f) roads and transport;

(g) advisory services in the field of public health;

(h) sport, culture and the arts.

It would be for the Oireachtas and the Northern Ireland Assembly to legislate from time to time as to the extent of functions to be devolved to the Council of Ireland. Where necessary, the British Government will cooperate in this devolution of functions. Initially, the functions to be vested would be those identified in accordance with the procedures set out above and decided, at the formal stage of the conference, to be transferred.
9. (i) During the initial period following the establishment of the Council, the revenue of the Council would be provided by means of grants from the two administrations in Ireland towards agreed projects and budgets, according to the nature of the service involved.

(ii) It was also agreed that further studies would be put in hand forthwith and completed as soon as possible of methods of financing the Council after the initial period which would be consonant with the responsibilities and functions assigned to it.

(iii) It was agreed that the cost of the Secretariat of the Council of Ireland would be shared equally, and other services would be financed broadly in proportion to where expenditure of benefit accrues.

(iv) The amount of money required to finance the Council's activities will depend upon the functions assigned to it from time to time.

40

(v) While Britain continues to pay subsidies to Northern Ireland, such payments would not involve Britain participating in the Council, it being accepted nevertheless that it would be legitimate for Britain to safeguard in an appropriate way her financial involvement in Northern Ireland.

10. It was agreed by all parties that persons committing crimes of violence, however motivated, in any part of Ireland should be brought to trial irrespective of the part of Ireland in which they are located. The concern which large sections of the people of Northern Ireland felt about this problem was in particular forcefully expressed by the representatives of the Unionist and Alliance parties. The representatives of the Irish Government stated that they understood and fully shared this concern. Different ways of solving this problem were discussed; among them were the amendment of legislation operating in the two jurisdictions on extradition, the creation of a common law enforcement area in which an all-Ireland court would have jurisdiction, and the extension of the jurisdiction of domestic courts so as to enable them to try offences committed outside the jurisdiction. It was agreed that problems of considerable legal complexity were involved, and that the British and Irish Governments would jointly set up a commission to consider all the proposals put forward at the Conference and to recommend as a matter of extreme urgency the most effective means of dealing with those who commit these crimes. The Irish Government undertook to take immediate and effective legal steps so that persons coming within their jurisdiction and accused of murder, however motivated, committed in Northern Ireland will be brought to trial, and it was agreed that any similar reciprocal action that may be needed in Northern Ireland be taken by the appropriate authorities.
11. It was agreed that the Council would be invited to consider in what way the principles of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms would be expressed in domestic legislation in each part of Ireland. It would recommend whether further legislation or the creation of other institutions, administrative or judicial, is required in either part or embracing the whole island to provide additional protection in the field of human rights. Such recommendations could include the functions of an Ombudsman or Commissioner for Complaints, or other arrangements of a similar nature which the Council of Ireland might think appropriate.
12. The Conference also discussed the question of policing and the need to ensure public support for and identification with the police service throughout the whole community. It was agreed that no single set of proposals would achieve these aims overnight, and that time would be necessary. The Conference expressed the hope that the wide range of agreement that had been reached, and the consequent formation of a power-sharing Executive, would make a major contribution to the creation of an atmosphere throughout the community where there would be widespread support for and identification with all the institutions of Northern Ireland.
13. It was broadly accepted that the two parts of Ireland are to a considerable extent inter-dependent in the whole field of law and order, and that the problems of political violence and identification with the police service cannot be solved without taking account of that fact.
14. Accordingly, the British Government stated that, as soon as the security problems were resolved and the new institutions were seen to be working effectively, they would wish to discuss the devolution of responsibility for normal policing and how this might be achieved with the Northern Ireland Executive and the Police.
15. With a view to improving policing throughout the island and developing community identification with and support for the police services, the governments concerned will co-operate under the auspices of a Council of Ireland through their respective police authorities. To this end, the Irish Government would set up a Police Authority, appointments to which would be made after consultation with the Council of Ministers of the Council of Ireland. In the case of the Northern Ireland Police Authority, appointments would be made after consultation with the Northern Ireland Executive, which would consult with the Council of Ministers of the Council of Ireland. When the two Police Authorities are constituted, they will make their own arrangements to achieve the objectives set out above.
16. An independent complaints procedure for dealing with complaints against the police will be set up.
17. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will set up an all-party committee from the Assembly to examine how best to introduce effective policing throughout Northern Ireland with particular reference to the need to achieve public identification with the police.
18. The Conference took note of a reaffirmation by the British Government of their firm commitment to bring detention to an end in Northern Ireland for all sections of the community as soon as the security situation permits, and noted also that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland hopes to be able to bring into use his statutory powers of selective release in time for a number of detainees to be released before Christmas.
19. The British Government stated that, in the light of the decisions reached at the Conference, they would now seek the authority of Parliament to devolve full powers to the Northern Ireland Executive and Northern Ireland Assembly as soon as possible. The formal appointment of the Northern Ireland Executive would then be made.
20. The Conference agreed that a formal conference would be held early in the New Year at which the British and Irish Governments and the Northern Ireland Executive would meet together to consider reports on the studies which have been commissioned and to sign the agreement reached.
Sunningdale Park.
9th December 1973.

HIGH COURT JUDGES
Mr. Speaker: On 22nd November, in response to requests from the hon. Members for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) and Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), I undertook to examine any submissions that were made to me about the procedures available to Members who wished to make charges against, or examine the conduct of, judges of the High Court.
I have looked carefully at the precedents which have since been drawn to my attention and have consulted my advisers. I am drawn to a simple conclusion, which is this. Whereas there is very little restriction on the form of motion which can be considered by the House in this context there is no way by which I could give such a motion precedence over the Orders of the Day.
As to the presentation of articles of charge referred to by the hon. Members, such a proceeding has been so long out of use that I am in some doubt as to whether it is still available. But in any case it would have to be part of a proceeding initiated by a motion and is therefore governed by the same consideration that all the time of the House is now appropriated according to the provisions of Standing Order No. 6. Standing Order No. 9 could not apply to these cases since the form of debate under that Standing Order is a motion for the Adjournment.
Mr. Orme: I thank you for your ruling, Mr. Speaker. I wish to thank you on behalf of my colleagues and myself who have made representations to your legal advisers and to the Clerks. We have received nothing but help and consideration in presenting what we consider to be a very serious and important constitutional issue. I do not take issue with you, Mr. Speaker, about your ruling. I accept it fully and recognise that because of the change of procedure in the House it is not possible, unfortunately, for private Members to use the time of the House in a way possible in the past.
As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, the last time that articles of charge were laid was in 1845 in the Lord Abinger case and in 1867 with regard to Sir Fitzroy Kelly. We represented to you, Sir, that

43
the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act 1925 re-embodied Section 12(1) of the 1711 Act of Settlement 1970 which allows Members of Parliament to raise on certain occasions the conduct of High Court judges with a view to considering whether they should be dismissed. We believe, therefore, that the 1925 Act brought the matter up to date, but we accept your point, Mr. Speaker, that, because of the lack of time, you have not the right to give this matter precedence over the Orders of the Day.
However, 187 Members signed the motion because we believed that this matter should be debated in the House. We shall not remove the motion from the Order Paper. I should like to ask you, Mr. Speaker, to advise us whether there is any other means whereby we can bring the matter before the House. In the interests of common justice, having made charges against a High Court judge and knowing the seriousness of that, we believe that Sir John Donaldson and other people who have opinions should be allowed to defend themselves and to make their own representations. This is the high court of Parliament; this is the highest court of the land in this regard. I therefore ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, whether there is some other manner by which we can bring this matter before the House.
Mr. Speaker: I have two observations to make. First, I thank the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues for the care which they took in presenting their case and for the way in which they put their submissions to my advisers and to myself.
I am not sure whether the second part of what the hon. Gentleman said is
44
a matter for me. As one of my predecessors said, if the Chair starts to give hon. Members guidance it may find itself in all sorts of trouble. I have nothing to add to my ruling, but I have noted that there are others present who no doubt heard what the hon. Gentleman said.

FUEL SUPPLIES
Mr. Cormaek: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration; namely,
"the problems arising from the current shortage of fuel".
The events of last weekend have served to add still further to the acute concern felt throughout the country on this front. I believe that this makes it desirable that the latest information should be fully presented to and debated in the House. This is certainly an urgent matter. It is most certainly specific, and it is of overwhelming public importance. I therefore hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will feel able to grant my request.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member gave me notice that he would make this application. I am afraid that the answer is "No".

Ordered,
That the International Organisations (Land) Bill be referred to a Second Reading Committee.—[Mr. Rossi.]

FOOD PRICES
Mr. Speaker: Before I call the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. David Stoddart) to move his motion, I should inform the House that I have not selected the amendment.
3.55 p.m.
Mr. David Stoddart: I beg to move,
That this House, appalled at the continued and unprecedented escalation in food prices, which bears most heavily on old age pensioners and others on low incomes, condemning the Government for failing to cut the rise in prices, at a stroke, but instead of allowing food prices to increase by 44·8 per cent. since June 1970, and, noting that many food items have been taxed through the imposition of tariffs and levies, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to take immediate effective action to prevent further food price increases, including a demand that the EEC Council of Ministers agree forthwith to a fundamental alteration in the Common Agricultural Policy and to deferment of tariff increases due to take effect in 1974, to subsidies for certain basic and essential foods and price controls on a wide range of articles which affect the price of food; and at the same time welcomes the understanding between the Labour Party and the TUC on prices, believing that this offers the best hope of stabilising food prices and preventing hyper-inflation.
I chose this subject for debate because I was successful in drawing first place in the ballot on the same day that the latest increase in the food price index was announced. The figure so horrified me that I thought that it was time that a backbench Member brought forward the matter for debate. Food prices is the No. 1 topic of conversation wherever one goes—whether it be in the bus queue, in the food shops, on the factory floor or in the offices. Housewives everywhere are talking about this problem because it worries and concerns them and, indeed, helps week by week to bring down their standard of living.
There is no doubt that the latest announced increase in the price of food—44·8 per cent. since June 1970—has come as a great shock. There has been an increase of 3·3 per cent. in one month. But even now, as this debate starts in an atmosphere of gloom, it is out of date because, according to the latest figures published by the Grocer, the figure now is 47 per cent. above the June 1970 level. Since the beginning of stage 3, the index has increased by 2·4 per cent. At this rate, it will not be long before food prices
46
are 50 per cent. higher than they were in June 1970. To ordinary people that means in real terms that they now have to spend £3 on food for ever £2 they spent three years ago. That is a significant sum of money by any standards and there is no doubt that many people are suffering great hardship as a result.
It is tragic that the heaviest burden falls on people whose income is lowest and who are least able to bear it. The smaller the income, the larger the percentage of income which has to be spent on food. Thus, the pensioners, disabled people, and people on low incomes are worst off. It is they who have failed to benefit in any measure from the Government's taxation policies.
High food prices are increasing poverty. Last July, the Daily Mirror summed up the situation with three short words in a stark headline—"Hungry Britons Shock". That was not dreamed up by a sub-editor. The Daily Mirror, in its report, said that 1½ million lower-paid families were underfed. It took its information from two articles. One was based on the Treasury Economic Progress Report, which said that there were still people in Britain who did not get enough to eat. The Household Consumption Expenditure Survey reports that the group most likely to suffer from rising food prices is those with more than three children.
The Prime Minister said recently that pensioners were eating better than ever before. That may be his impression, but a survey by Age Concern in July showed that rising prices were forcing pensioners to eat less well. It found that their diet was boring and restricted and that many could no longer afford meat. Perhaps the Prime Minister has not met many pensioners lately. If he had they would surely have disabused his fancy and told him the facts. Indeed, statistics have clearly shown that the Prime Minister was mistaken.
I turn to the National Food Survey, which includes the pensioners' food consumption index. It reveals that between the second quarter of 1970 and the second quarter of 1973 pensioners ate 27 per cent. less meat, 15 per cent. less butter, but 8 per cent. more potatoes and 9 per cent. more margarine. Those figures show that pensioners are not getting the protein

47
foods that they need. But, of course, the Prime Minister is given to making statements of fancy which are quickly belied by the facts of the situation.
We all remember the right hon. Gentleman's much-quoted speech to Leicester housewives. To convince them, and housewives throughout the country, he said that he would cut the rise in prices "at a stroke". That statement and its optimism were unqualified then. There was no mention that keeping the promise might be subject to extraneous matters like rising world prices. We heard nothing about that as he sought to convince the housewives of Leicester and of the country that if they voted for him he would cut the rise in prices "at a stroke". Just how false that promise would prove to be did not occur to most of us in our wildest nightmares. The 3s loaf forecast by the right hon. Gentleman if a Labour Government came to office is now just about with us under his administration, and many traditional foods have been priced off the ordinary family's table. For many the weekend joint is very much a thing of the past.
The enormity of some food price increases has to be seen to be believed. These increases were highlighted in an answer to a Question on 23rd November this year. It revealed that chuck beef was up 74·8 per cent.; brisket with bone up 99·5 per cent. since June 1970; loin of lamb up 65·4 per cent.; shoulder of lamb with bone up 55·8 per cent.; breast of lamb up 134·9 per cent.; cod fillets up 127 per cent.; herrings up 83·3 per cent.; eggs per dozen up 146·5 per cent. The figures show the enormity of the rise.
It is also interesting to note the higher prices that have occurred in high protein foods. What is more, if you listen to the figures, Mr. Speaker, you will see again that the highest price rise amongst those protein foods has been for the cheaper cuts of meat—just the very cuts which lower-income families have to buy to try to keep body and soul together. They are also the high protein foods that our miners need. We have heard much about the miners lately but these are the very foods they need to enable them to mine the coal to keep the economy going. They are the ones who need the roast beef of Old England and
48
the high protein foods, not the people pontificating throughout the week from golf courses in the south of England. I hope that the Government will make sure that those people are able to continue to pay for them.
As the housewives do their Christmas shopping and fork out 12½p to 15p per pound more for their turkeys—if they are lucky enough to afford them—as they pay out more for other Christmas fare—and I have some of the price increases here—they will, for example, have to pay 7p more for a 2 lb. Mrs. Peek's Christmas pudding. Brazil nuts will cost 20 per cent. more, from 7½p to 9p, and ground almonds will cost 50 per cent. more, with an 8 oz. packet rising from 40p to 59½p. It is such prices that people will pay this Christmas. As they pay they may well remember the pleasures of Christmas Past and contrast them favourably with the gloom of Christmas Present. The Prime Minister would do well to remember the awful warning given to Scrooge by the Spirit of Christmas Yet to Come, for political death—unloved, unmourned—surely awaits him unless he mends his ways.
If the tide of inflation of the shopping baskets showed signs of ebbing we might see some hope for the future. But it does not. Indeed, the reverse is true. The increase in food prices this year has hit a new peak. Between October 1972 and October 1973 food prices increased by 18·7 per cent. against 8·9 per cent. between November 1971 and November 1972. The increase was 12·4 per cent. between November 1970 and November 1971 and only 7·9 per cent. between November 1969 and November 1970 when the Labour Government were in office.
To see what this percentage increase means in real terms to the housewife as she goes around to buy her shopping, it will be instructive to look at The Guardian Shopping Basket published on 30th November. The headline is:
"Up, up, goes the basket …".
Without detailing the increases in prices, the difference between what the housewife would have paid in October 1972 and what she has to pay now is £1·47, nearly 30 bob a week extra in a single year. No wonder housewives are at their wits' end to know how to make ends meet. The sad fact is that prices are escalating even more sharply since the Government's

49
prices and incomes policy, and, with each stage, the situation seems to grow far worse instead of better.
So much then for acting directly to cut the rise in prices "at a stroke". Far from doing that, the Government have pursued policies which were bound to cause prices to rocket, and all the way along they have remained complacent to a most irresponsible degree. Of course, the Prime Minister does have his apologists, but these are dwindling in number. One does not see quite so many on television and in the Press who are still prepared to support him. Nevertheless, there are still one or two, notably the present Leader of the House, that erstwhile and voluble Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. His verbal gems used to shower upon the Opposition like manna from Heaven. Some of us were sorry to see him go. On 29th June 1971 that right hon. Gentleman was saying of the "at a stroke" statement:
"I do not think that they took that all that seriously. Housewives are far more sensible than that They knew perfectly well that we could not cut prices like that—at a stroke. Over a period of time the cost of food will decrease. Of that I am absolutely convinced."
The promised land has proved to be a mirage, and with each optimistic statement from the Government it pops further into the distance. The right hon. Gentleman, who has been transmogrified from Agricultural Minister to Leader of the House, regaled us with many other interesting statements during his tenure of office at the Ministry of Agriculture. In 1970 he was advising us to eat peaches. In 1971 he was telling housewives to shop around—with a pram and three kids. In June 1972 in the face of acute increases in beef prices he said:
"I believe this to be a temporary situation and that within a few weeks we shall be seeing a different story."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th June 1972; Vol. 838, c. 36.]
As we all know, that story turned out to be a horror tale indeed.
One of the right hon. Gentleman's most interesting statements was when he said in February 1972:
"I have always believed that there is a sensible moderate price for food which people should be prepared to pay."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th February 1972; Vol. 838, c. 241.]
Since he left the Ministry of Agriculture the right hon. Gentleman has more or
50
less maintained a shamefaced and embarrassed silence on food prices. He has left it to "Stonewall Joe" to hold the baby.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Where is he?
Mr. Stoddart: He is not here today. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Leader of the House will break his vow of silence on food prices and tell us what he believe to be a "sensible moderate price for food." Whatever his opinion may be now, he is a member of an administration that has allowed prices to rise in a way that is unprecedented, certainly in peace time. Even during the period of the Korean War food prices did not rise to the extent that they have done in the past three years. During the period 1949–52 the total increase was 38·35 per cent. The highest annual figure, according to a Written Answer of 19th November 1973, was 15·1 per cent. between November 1950 and November 1951. Even after the enactment of the Corn Laws in 1815 the highest figure recorded over three years was 24·1 per cent.—between 1822 and 1825.
We can see that this escalation of food prices over which the Government have presided is unprecedented. It is amazing that this should have happened to an administration led by a man who three years ago was promising the people of the country—and they believed that promise; they trusted the man—that he would cut the rise in prices at a stroke. Instead of doing that he has broken that promise and prices have gone on rocketing as never before. But the Government, presiding as they do over this unprecedented inflation of the shopping basket, decline to shoulder any responsibility.
It is always the fault of someone else, never their fault. They are always finding some scapegoat. First of all it is the trade unionists, then it is someone else, and now they have another to absolve them of the responsibility—world prices. Many in this House, and the majority of the general public, believe that the terms of our entry to the European Economic Community have a great deal to do with rising food prices. We believe that the common agricultural policy, designed as it is to benefit the producer at the expense of the consumer, has had

51
a lot to do with the rapid rise in food prices, not only directly, through the imposition of tariffs and levies, but also indirectly.
Many of our traditional suppliers who hitherto provided food at relatively low and stable prices because they wished to cultivate a long-term market have now raised their prices—and we cannot blame them—to get as much gain as the can in the short period of the transitional arrangements. Furthermore, to protect themselves—and who can blame them—they are finding new outlets for their products. While it could be true that the levies and the tariffs had accounted for only 1 per cent. of the rise in food prices over the first six months that we were in the Common Market—and that is 2 per cent. a year—these other factors have had a much greater effect and will continue to do so as Britain is forced out of the world food market and is forced to rely on the artificially high prices in a rigged EEC market.
It is right to call, as I do in my motion, for a fundamental alteration in the CAP. I believe that a majority of the House would favour that. It would enable Britain to continue to import food from our traditional markets. I would favour allowing the entry of food which is better and more cheaply produced elsewhere to the whole of the EEC. It would benefit the Community, certainly this country.
We hear so much about the world prices argument. The Government are currently sheltering behind it. No one would deny that world prices have gone up. That is not the whole of the story. If it were one would have expected that all countries would be uniformly affected. This is by no means so. Let us look at some of the statistics from the ILO Bulletin of Labour Statistics and the United Nations monthly Bulletin of Statistics. From these it will be seen that the percentage increases in this country are much higher than those in other countries. For example, between September 1970 and September 1973 the percentage increase in Belgium was 17·8 per cent., in Denmark 33·8 per cent., in France 26 per cent., and in West Germany only 19·2 per cent. Ireland was rather high with 38·9 per cent., Norway 19 per cent. and the United Kingdom
52
41·1 per cent. We were ahead even of the United States, which had a percentage increase of only 28·1 per cent.
That in itself undermines the argument that the Government have been putting forward, that it is world prices only which are having such an enormous effect on Britain's food costs.
There are other factors, and the Government would do well to recognise them, accept them and tell people about them. The first factor is the continued devaluation of the, pound as a result of allowing it to float. It is absolutely useless for the Government to say that that is not an element in this situation. It is a relatively large one. I wish the Government would stop trying to bamboozle people, telling them that they have no responsibility at all for this rapid increase in food prices. They would do themselves a lot more good if they were honest with the public and told them the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Then there is the Government's financial policy at home and abroad. Prices cannot be divorced from the Government's overall policy. The directions that the Government give and what they do with their internal finances have an effect on their external finances and on commodity prices. That happens in this way. The Government are borrowing this year £4,000 million more than they will get in. That is in some measure responsible for the devaluation of the pound and the reduction of confidence abroad. Furthermore, the Government have expanded demand and printed pound notes, which has resulted in the sucking in of imports and the disastrous balance of payments position. Again, this reduces confidence. A further factor is that at home and abroad people have lost confidence in paper money. Just as they turned to buying land and houses, they are turning to buy commodities, and that is pushing up the price of commodities. Therefore, the Government's own policies have had a direct effect on the world food market and have helped to push up world commodity prices.
I hope that the Government will no longer try to shelter behind the argument of world food prices, because it will not wash. I grant that there is an element of world food price escalation, but it is

53
not the full story. I wish that the Government would recognise that and tell people the truth.
Mr. Ian Lloyd: In searching for other than international explanations for the rise in world food prices the hon. Gentleman is looking at the domestic component of the British rise in prices. Does he believe that the nation's tendency to pay itself about 11 per cent. when in real terms it is producing about 3 per cent. may be an explanation?
Mr. Stoddart: I hoped that I had dealt with that argument. One of the problems of this nation is that it is paying the wrong people. It is not paying the people who actually produce the goods. The benefits are going not to those who earn money but those who make money. That is what is wrong with our society. It is an unjust society, and in those circumstances we shall not convince working people that they should put their shoulders to the wheel. They know that the faster the wheel goes round and the more they produce the more the surplus value will be creamed off by the makers of money who produce nothing.
What is the outlook for food prices? As far as I can see, it is pretty bleak. I have a host of newspaper cuttings predicting what will happen, of which I will select only two. The first prediction is by Sir John Stratton, who has been in the news recently for having had an increase in salary of £341 a week. His forecast is as follows:
"Though prices may remain relatively stable for a while, the underlying trend in the longer term must be upwards, and the solution must lie in the ultimate acceptance by the housewife that more realistic prices for meat have come to stay."
According to Sir John Stratton, housewives had better look out.
The Guardian on Friday 30th November contained an article headed:
"and soon the pie's the limit",
which reported that the price of pork pies, sausages and bacon will rise sharply next year as supplies are reduced. That is according to Mr. H. Newton-Clare, Chairman of the Meat Manufacturers' Association. He went on to say:
"I shudder to think what shop prices will be this time next year, even if feed prices drop in the first few months of 1974."
54
So, even if world grain prices fall, the outlook is still bleak for the housewife.
I understand from people who should know that even if housewives take direct action by going on strike and boycotting the food shops it will do no good. I read in the Evening Standard of Monday 26th November that a butcher boycott would mean less meat and higher prices:
"Housewives were given a warning today that a boycott of butchers would drive meat out of Britain and into shops on the Continent. It came from Mr. Colin Cullimore, general manager of one of Britain's biggest butchers."
Once again, dire warnings are given, and if housewives dare to protest too loudly the farmers will send the meat over to the Continent where they can get the price they want.
Added to that bleak outlook we shall also have to contend with further large increases in the price of freight. Fuel charges will rise, and that is bound to have an effect on prices. We have not heard about this yet; we shall perhaps hear about it before Christmas. The Minister may wish to comment on it if she intervenes.
What can the Government do? [HON. MEMBERS "Resign."] The sooner they resign the better I shall be pleased. Assuming that the Government intend to cling to office until the last moment, what can they do? They can do plenty if they have the will. To begin with, they can look at retail margins. I understand that they are based on percentages rather than cash margins. The Government could certainly institute price controls at retail level. We believe that this is possible and highly desirable. The Government should examine this possibility. The Government can also postpone the next round of import duty increases. But, first and foremost, they can adopt a policy of applying direct food subsidies on a wide range of essential foodstuffs.
That is the direct action that the Government should take. That is the sort of direct action that will help to cut the rise in prices at a stroke. That is the "stroke" we want from the Prime Minister. I realise that the Government so far have been adamant in their refusal to adopt this course of action, but, after all, one U-turn more in the succession of U-turns will not make much difference. It will be neither here nor there.

55
According to a leader supporting this course which appeared in the Observer of 8th July 1973 it seems that that would not upset Conservative dogma:
"The prices that matter are those that affect the cost of living, and particularly the costs of basic foodstuffs, because these hit the poorest most. What can be done about them? Certain basic foodstuffs, like wheat and butter, should be subsidised "—
the Observer is not a Labour paper—
"Some already are; so there is no sacrifice of Conservative dogma called for here … Across-the-board assistance of this kind goes, unnecessarily to rich and poor alike. And, of course, it all has to be paid for by increased taxation. But these drawbacks, while not exactly academic, are comparatively trivial beside the urgency of containing inflation. People are not going to eat all that much more of a few selected foodstuffs merely because their prices are stabilised."
The Government, without any sacrifice of dogma, can take this direct action by subsidising food prices. This would do more than anything to help to stabilise or cut down price rises and to counter the inflationary situation which now faces us.
I know that many of my hon. Friends—and, I hope, one or two Conservative Members—want to take part in this debate, so I shall keep my remaining remarks brief. I conclude by saying that, when I examined the evidence on which this indictment of Government policy was based, it was difficult to sift out the evidence I needed from the mass of evidence available. There is a huge mass of evidence to support the indictment against the Government, and there are hon. Members present—many perhaps more qualified than I to speak on this subject—who will support that indictment. Today's Guardian sums up the situation in the following way:
"Cost of living could be up 9 per cent. by May".
That headline is based on the Government's own forecasts. The Guardian article rightly says that if this increase happens, a coach and horses will be driven through the Government's prices and incomes policy. But more than that will happen, because the whole edifice of our society will be in danger. There is a point beyond which people will no longer put up with price rises; hyper-inflation will be with us. We are now on the threshold of hyper-inflation. If that
56
happens, we are all aware of the dangers to our institutions and our political life. In such circumstances food riots cannot be ruled out.
Therefore, I implore the Government to take note of this debate and take in what I have said, and what other hon. Members will say after me, about directly subsidising food prices. I regard food subsidies as the No. 1 food priority, because over the next few months, in view of the oil shortage, incomes will fall—and they will fall at a time when prices are still rising. That spells very big trouble. I implore, indeed I beg, the Government to take this matter seriously, to give our people a break and to save us from the ravages of the hyper-inflation to come.
4.34 p.m.
Mr. Charles Morrison: In his concluding remarks the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. David Stoddart) implored the Government to take food prices seriously. Purely by way of introduction, I assure him that everybody on the Conservative benches takes the matter of food prices with great seriousness and with no complacency whatever.
Other hon. Members in the House may be forgiven for assuming that this debate is becoming almost a Wiltshire affair. Since the hon. Member for Swindon is my nearest neighbour, I wish to start by congratulating him on being so lucky as to come out on top in the Private Members' ballot.
I give the hon. Gentleman full marks for consistency because he has said nothing today that has not been said on many occasions before. On the other hand, I give him no marks for originality, but some marks for accuracy since I suspect that most of the figures quoted at the beginning of his speech are just about accurate. However, it does not need the hon. Gentleman to tell people about the level of prices. Unfortunately, they already know the level of prices and are reminded of them only too often, and in many cases every day. But what they and the House must concern themselves with is the reason for the price increases and the question whether the Government are doing everything in their power to counteract those price increases and to cope with them. I believe that, broadly, they are doing so within the limitations imposed upon them. Therefore, on the basis of accuracy of

57
assessment of the criteria the hon. Gentleman has done very poorly and should get no marks at all.
The hon. Gentleman referred to world prices. They are the one simple overriding reason for price increases. Until recently the United Kingdom benefited from the existence of cheap world food supplies. But the era of cheap food has gone—at least for the present, and probably for some time in the future. Indeed it seems unlikely at this moment that cheap food will return. To corroborate the fact that there is no cheap food available, I turn to the October issue of a magazine entitled Land Worker, the Journal of the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers. That publication states that:
"… for most foodstuffs … world prices have gone sky high—well above EEC prices."
Additionally the Economist index shows how incredible has been the world food price increase. In August this year the food price increase was 706 per cent. above the figure for August 1972. The latest figure for December 1973 compared with the December 1972 figure shows a much lower increase of 37·1 per cent., but it is nevertheless a remarkable increase.
We must always remember that we in the United Kingdom import half of our food. Therefore, the impact of food price increases is bound to be considerable and totally beyond the control of the United Kingdom Government. When we couple food price increases with price increases in other commodities world wide, the situation is again beyond the control of the Government and is likely to become even worse since all manufactured and processed foods have within their price a large element of other costs.
The motion implies that inflation is the main cause of food price increases. Frankly, I think that this is nonsense. When the effect of higher import costs is discounted, Britain in recent months has had the slowest home-produced inflation of any OECD country. If the hon. Member for Swindon wishes to obtain corroboration of that statement, he can refer to the Economist of 17th November where he will find ample testimony to the success of the Government's anti-inflation policy.
It is also a regrettable fact that poor world harvests and growing demands for
58
higher quality foods throughout the world have forced up prices considerably. Let us take, as an example, the Soviet Union. Russia was at one time a grain exporter, but at present is a considerable importer. Let me give another example which shows how demand has increased. In 1959, Australia exported 324,000 tons of meat, including 213,000 tons to the United Kingdom, and only 1,200 tons to Japan. This year, 1973, Australian exports have risen to 823,000 tons, of which only 153,000 tons will come to the United Kingdom, while Japan will have increased her imports from 1,200 tons to 191,000 tons, and in that same period—1959 to 1973—the United States has increased her imports from Australia fourfold.
Against that kind of background—and we must appreciate that the effect of the oil shortage is unknown, and will remain so for some time—it was refreshing to hear the honest admission of the hon. Lady the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) on the "World At One" on 23rd November, when she said:
"I am bound to say that what the Government can do is very limited because one of the factors which no Government can change is that there has, of course, been a move towards a shortage of all sources of raw materials."
The hon. Lady went on to say:
"But let me make it absolutely clear I do not pretend that I, or anybody else, have got a simple answer to the problem of rising prices."
The hon. Lady is an honest person, and that is the sort of comment that one would expect from her.
The motion refers to the imposition of tariffs and levies, to the need to defer tariff increases, and to the need for a reform of the CAP. First, it should be said again that tariffs and levies are part of the CAP which was accepted in principle by the Labour Party when it was in office. Secondly, world prices are so high that the effect of EEC tariffs is minimal, and sometimes has the effect of lowering prices—[Interruption.] Labour Members may not accept that statement, but it is true.
Butter prices are 30 per cent. lower for New Zealand supplies, and 25 per cent. lower for Danish supplies than they were at their peak 19 months ago. Imports of pork and bacon from outside the EEC now carry an import charge of about £25

59
to £35 a ton, compared with £50 to £70 a ton under the preaccession régime. We are able to buy French wheat at £15 per ton less than we would be able to buy it if we were outside the Community.
The hon. Member for Swindon said that we had had a much larger food price increase than in other countries, and he referred to a number of countries in the EEC. Percentagewise our food prices have increased more than theirs but that is because prices in those countries started at a higher level, as we were continually reminded when the Labour Party was opposing British entry into the Common Market.
What has happened is that we have had to suffer a larger rise to level up to world prices, compared with the rise that has been imposed in other countries of the EEC. That has been to their advantage, but it does not mean that our prices are now much higher than theirs. As a matter of fact, food price increases in the EEC have generally been less than in many other countries throughout the world outside the Community. The increase in the United Kingdom this year has been 6·6 per cent., compared with 16·1 per cent. in the United States.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the reform of the CAP, and his motion, too, makes reference to that. With no help whatsoever from the Opposition, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, at meetings of the Council of Ministers, and Conservative Members who are Members of the European Parliament, are striving for reform, and I have no doubt whatsoever that that will be achieved so that there will be a CAP that is better designed for the EEC of the Nine than it was for the EEC of the Six. Instead of their carping criticism, Labour Members might give some credit to my right hon. Friend for the initiative which he took last spring and which has already produced some proposals for a change.
The motion—and not surprisingly the hon. Gentleman dealt with this in his speech—refers to subsidies for certain basic and essential foods. The hon. Gentleman enumerated one or two items, but he did not say at what level the subsidy should be, nor did he instruct us on what the cost might be to the taxpayer. In short, the hon. Gentleman's
60
proposals for subsidies seem entirely open-ended and, to that extent, irresponsible.
Does not the hon. Gentleman know, for example, that to reduce food prices to last year's level would cost £1,400 million in subsidy?
Mr. David Stoddart: I do not think that I or anybody else has suggested that prices should be reduced to last year's level. What we are suggesting is that subsidies should be applied now to prevent prices from rocketing up at an even faster rate. That is the suggestion.
Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman has made my point. He says that subsidies should be open-ended so as to ensure that prices will not continue to rise. Perhaps I may continue the point that I was making, because it is important that the House should be aware of the implications of food subsidies.
If it is the intention of the hon. Gentleman, or of the Opposition, to reduce prices to last year's level, what would that mean in terms of increased taxation? If there were a £1,400 million subsidy on food, it would mean the doubling of VAT and, at the same time, a 10p increase in income tax. It would mean that a man with two children and earning the average industrial wage would pay an extra £1·50 a week in taxation.
Mr. Harry Lamborn: The hon. Gentleman says that a working man would have to pay extra in tax. The position now is that because those on lower incomes spend a greater proportion of their incomes on food the less well off are paying more than the proportion envisaged by the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman has not understood my point. I am saying that a man earning an average industrial wage would have to pay that much more. I am not talking about the chap who is paid less than the average industrial wage. The Opposition are advocating subsidies, which would involve higher taxation. Much of the extra money would come from people on average earnings, and some from those on lower-than-average earnings. In addition, a lot of the extra money would be used to subsidise those who have earnings way above the average earnings

61
level, because subsidies would be provided across the board and not limited to those on lower rates of pay.
On the other hand, as the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, there is no dogma in the Conservative Party in respect of food subsidies, as for example regarding milk. I strongly object to uncosted general requests for subsidy. The hon. Gentleman's question as to what the Government can do was much more relevant. The Government have done, and are doing, a great deal, first, through the abolition of purchase tax and selective employment tax. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I wonder whether Opposition Members have any memory at all. By the abolition of these two taxes, taxes on food have been cut by £225 million.
Secondly, the introduction by the Government of the annual increase in retirement pensions has ensured that pension increases have kept ahead of price increases. Thirdly, the family income supplement has assisted the lowest paid. Fourthly, the Price Commission, established by the Government, has estimated that it has saved consumers £320 million by rigorous scrutiny of applications for price increases. Fifthly, the Government's strategy on economic expansion has helped, though indirectly. Sixthly, the Government have done much to encourage home agricultural production. Since 1970 a combination of good weather, good farming and good Government policy for agriculture has produced a remarkable expansion in the industry. Currently the livestock sector—
Dr. Shirley Summerskill: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that there is massive discontent among farmers throughout the country regarding the price of animal feeding stuffs? In my constituency, which is predominantly industrial, farmers are up in arms about the Government's general policy towards them. How can the hon. Gentleman say that there is expansion in farming?
Mr. Morrison: The hon. Lady has taken the words out of my mouth. I was coming precisely to that point. She might care to look at the figures published in the annual farm price review, and elsewhere, to see the overall expansion of production in agriculture.
62
The hon. Lady is right regarding the livestock sector. At present there is a trauma running through that sector of agriculture, arising from high feed prices. Undoubtedly this is, in the short term, reducing output of some products, particularly milk. I am, nevertheless, looking to the Government with a lot of optimism and I hope that they will restore my confidence. [Laughter.] The Opposition may scream with hysterical laughter, but the state of agriculture is not to be laughed at. It should be looked at seriously, and judgments should thereafter be made.
No doubt when the Government conclude the present farm review negotiations and discussions they will be able to announce the results which will restore confidence throughout the agricultural industry, particularly in the livestock sector.
Mr. J. R. Kinsey: Would not what the Opposition suggest mean to some degree putting up prices to the consumer again?
Mr. Morrison: Not necessarily—it depends what particular action the Government propose whether prices of agricultural commodities increase. It could be that prices of some commodities will increase, but if agriculture at home does not expand it is more likely that there will be price increases purely and simply because there will be an even greater shortage than would otherwise be the case in some products, particularly in the livestock sector.
Short of sending hundreds of efficient British farmers to help remove the inefficiencies and ineffectiveness of agriculture in the Communist world—which is the cause of much of the current world food shortage—the Government have done, and are doing, most things in their power to counteract food price increases. I emphasise that no-one can be complacent about food prices and I suspect that there is no other subject to which the Government pay more attention. The motion does not stand up. Nothing which the hon. Gentleman said makes it stand up and, therefore, I hope that the House will reject it.
4.56 p.m.
Mr. Douglas Jay: The hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Charles Morrison) said that food prices

63
were totally outside the Government's control, but what has never been explained is that if that is so, why did the Prime Minister give a categorical promise that he would bring down food prices?
Mr. Morrison: I did not say that. The right hon. Gentleman will see from the record that I referred to world food prices.
Mr. Jay: That may be so. If it is so, and if world food prices have such an obvious effect on our prices, why did the Prime Minister give a promise to bring food prices down? That remains unanswered.
I extend my sympathy to the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food because it seems that there is not one of her ministerial colleagues willing to sit beside her and support her today in her difficult task. Can she first clearly explain what sort of control the Government are exercising over food prices at retail level? I also wish to follow up what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. David Stoddart) when he asked whether fixed percentage margins are being allowed to the distributive trades under stage three; or are fixed cash margins to be the rule? This is a rather technical point but it is more important than might be supposed.
I remember that in discussions some years ago about the effect of the Common Market on food prices in this country I always found some people a little slow to understand that if distributive margins remained as a fixed percentage, the effect on rising food prices here would be much greater than if it were a case of cash margins. It is a simple but curious arithmetical fact that if distributive and other margins are 50 per cent. of the final retail price—and I believe that they are something like this—a 100 per cent. rise in the import price with fixed cash margins will lead to only a 50 per cent. rise in the retail price; whereas with fixed percentage margins a similar rise in the import price will lead to a 100 per cent. rise at retail. Therefore while this may appear as a technical point, it has much to do with the present situation, and it may explain a lot of what
64
is happening. What is the Government's position under stage three?
As we heard, however, from the speech of the hon. Member for Devizes, the major cause of the trouble is not a matter of distributive margins in this country. The major causes of the high prices now being inflicted on the British public are the temporary rise in world grain prices and the Government's blanket acceptance of the common agricultural policy of the EEC.
It is no good Ministers denying that the Government are deliberately raising food prices, because the EEC settlement forced them to do so. Ministers have said this themselves. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said it in this House on 21st February; and as recently as 15th November the Prime Minister said in this House:
"… in the longer term … we shall be moving up to Community prices."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th November 1973; Vol. 864, c. 661.]
That is what is going on. Now that the Prime Minister has himself admitted this, I hope that lesser Ministers will no longer try to deny it.
The case against the Government is not that the rise of food prices is due wholly to their actions or their Common Market policies. In my judgment the case is really three-fold. First, at a time when world conditions would have pushed up food prices anyway, instead of doing their best to keep them down, as any sensible Government would have done, the present administration have gratuitously forced them up further by capitulating completely to the common agricultural policy. Secondly, they have pledged themselves to raising a whole series of food prices under the CAP still further over the next three or four years. I do not think that the hon. Lady will deny that. Thirdly, as world food prices fall, as some almost certainly will, grain especially, the gap between world prices and EEC prices will grow wider and wider. This means that the worst damage to this country is still to come, and that it will grow even greater if we continue to submit to the CAP.
Prices have been forced up already by the CAP further than they need have been. No one really believes the Government's propaganda that the CAP has added only 1 per cent. to food prices so

65
far, especially after Mr. George Thomson himself told us that it was five times as great. But perhaps not everyone has seen through the exact form of the deception on which this fable has been based.
These official estimates of 1 per cent. purport to measure only the technical consequences of the CAP since February 1973. But a very large part of the rises due to the CAP was felt before February 1973, both because the Government put into effect a number of food import taxes and increases in such taxes leading up to the date of accession, and because, as the hon. Member for Devizes admitted, our traditional low-cost suppliers such as Australia and New Zealand, when negotiations started two or three years ago, changed their policies in self-defence and began to switch their supplies elsewhere in anticipation. They cannot be blamed for that.
This Government imposed import duties on mutton, lamb and beef as far back as 1971 in anticipation of joining. Traders also naturally pushed up prices in expectation of the EEC higher prices which were already prevailing on the Continent. At the same time Australia and New Zealand, the most efficient producers of butter and cheese as well as of mutton and lamb in the world, were given notice more than two years ago that their butter and cheese would be virtually phased out of the United Kingdom market by 1977. Having for years treated the United Kingdom market as an assured and favoured market, and having pursued a deliberate long-term policy designed to keep prices low, they started to divert supplies elsewhere. That is the folly and tragedy of the situation that we face. And, as my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon said, Australia and New Zealand, for the few remaining years in which they were allowed to have a market here, naturally let prices rise in order to do as well as they could.
Butter is already up 25 per cent. and cheese 75 per cent. since negotiations started, though naturally none of this is included in the Government's 1 per cent. since 1973. Even so, to give one example, we are at the moment paying 21p a pound for New Zealand butter, whereas the price that members of the Common Market have to pay if we buy from the Brussels butter mountain is almost double at 40p. If we were outside the EEC, like
66
the fortunate and now flourishing Norwegians, we could buy from the butter mountain as the Russians did, at 8p a pound compared with the official price of 40p.
There is a similar situation with imported lamb, where the rise is about 100 per cent. since negotiations started. This rise in price is in no way due to the world - price of feeding stuffs, because New Zealand lamb for practically the whole year t is fed on grass. The rise is due, first to the import duty already imposed to appease the EEC, and secondly to the fact that New Zealand was forced by our policy s to switch supplies elsewhere, and actually to put a tax on supplies sent to the; United Kingdom in order to speed up the; diversion elsewhere against her will.
The same is true of beef and bacon where, before entry, Ireland, Denmark, Poland and Argentina—and Australia in beef—competed in the United Kingdom as their main market and normally kept down prices. Now, as long as we are members of the EEC, the CAP imposes a floor price at an extremely high level, especially in the case of beef.
There is another major price-raising effect of Market membership which is not allowed for even in Mr. Thomson's 5 per cent. It is the effect of the devaluation of sterling. A major part of the rise in sterling food prices in 1973, which the Government call the rise in "world prices," and say is nothing to do with the EEC, is due, not to food factors at all, but to the 20 per cent. fall in the value of sterling since 1971. This is confirmed by the fact that in 1973 the industrial countries with strong currencies have shown the least rise in food prices. Compared with our rise of 15 per cent. between August and August, countries such as Norway, Switzerland and Sweden—
Mr. Roger White: Oh, come!
Mr. Jay: The hon. Member for Graves-end (Mr. Roger White) will find the figures in HANSARD for 9th November. In Norway the rise has been only 5·2 per cent. in the same period.
The fall in sterling has been due largely to the disastrous trade deficit, now of £900 million, incurred by this country with the EEC Six in the first 10 months of this year. Much of the rise in food

67
prices this year is due to the fall in the value of the pound, and that fall in turn is largely due to the enormous visible trade deficit that we have incurred with the EEC. And that part is not included in the 1 per cent., either.
If therefore we look at the total effect on food prices, direct and indirect, of EEC membership, and not just at the technical 1973 effect, there is no serious doubt that a substantial part of the 45 per cent.—now 47 per cent., I understand—increase in retail food prices since the negotiations began is due to Market membership and can be reversed only if we are wholly freed from the CAP.
In any case, how can Ministers maintain that the imposition of a battery of import taxes on food, and all the price raising and denaturing activities of the Intervention Board, have not raised prices? How can they have had no effect on prices? To give one or two examples, the import levy now on butter imports from our natural low-cost suppliers is £195 per ton. On cheese it is £328 per ton. These levies represent taxes of about 50 per cent. on the import price. Does that really have no effect on prices? If it does not and if, as the hon. Member for Devizes suggested, all these high prices are due to other factors which have come to stay, why do we have to impose these taxes? Why not remove them forthwith?
On beef, even at present famine prices, there is already an 8 per cent. duty on non-Commonwealth imports and 4 per cent. on Commonwealth supplies, both due before long to rise to 20 per cent. If beef prices fall only a fraction from the present peak levels a levy will be imposed in addition to the import duty. How can all that not affect the price? It is ridiculous to argue that.
On bacon, the levy is £35 a ton and canned ham, according to the latest figure, is £165 a ton.
On mutton and lamb the duty is already nearly £20 a ton and will be replaced in the coming year by an import duty of 8 per cent. which will rise before long to 20 per cent.
Indeed, the latter is only one example of the new or increased food import taxes to be imposed under the Import Duties (No. 8) Order which is to come
68
into effect on 1st January, although it has not yet been debated in this House. This will mean, in addition to the import levies, new or increased import duties on the main foodstuffs coming from our principal suppliers in the Commonwealth—Canada, Australia, India, New Zealand and others. These new or higher duties—the Minister can contradict me if I am wrong—will apply to meat, fish, eggs, vegetables, fruit, and even, apparently, tea from India, Bangladesh and Ceylon. I should like to know whether that is correct, as I thought we were previously assured that there would be no tax on tea from the Asian Commonwealth. If the hon. Lady can assure us about that we shall be extremely grateful. But that is not what the Import Duties Order appears to imply.
On top of all these levies and taxes the Intervention Board, on the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's own figures, has already this year spent £17 million on intervention buying and aids to private storage and a great deal more on denaturing wheat.
All these facts to date are only the beginning of the story. Our food prices, if we continue to accept an unreformed common agricultural policy, will rise far further over the next few years, with all the wrecking effect that is bound to have on the British economy. The price of butter, which now stands at a little over £400 a ton, has to go to £826 a ton over the next three years—more than double the present figure.
We are committed to all these high price targets if we remain members of the EEC. But, as world grain prices fall from their present record level, the damage to the United Kingdom from being forced to maintain the artificial EEC prices rather than take advantage of lower world prices will grow even greater.
It is surely madness to add this extra artificial burden of food import prices to our balance of payments, just when we are to be forced anyway to bear an immense burden from higher oil prices, whether we like it or not.
Let us consider the crucial case of wheat, where the prospect—I am sure even the hon. Member for Devizes will agree—is probably now for lower rather than higher world prices. Limits on

69
North American output have been removed altogether. The hon. Gentleman spoke of our assisting Communist countries to improve their agriculture. I expect he knows that out of Russia's total grain harvest this year of 215 million tons, actually 107 million tons is wheat—an all-time record, and more than double the United States wheat crop. So there are solid grounds for thinking that grain prices may come down. Yet the present EEC floor price for wheat is £49 to £54 a ton compared with a United Kingdom guaranteed price before entry of only £34 a ton—and the consumer often paid less. Similarly, the present EEC price of beef is 50 per cent. above the previous guaranteed price in this country.
All this means that if we continue to be bound by these policies we cannot take advantage of falling world prices in future. In addition, any further fall in the value of sterling will mean an automatic rise in food prices all round, which need never have been true and was not previously true in this country.
I would sum up the simple truth of this story as follows: that a large part of the 47 per cent. rise in food prices in the last three years in this country is due to the deliberate action of the Government in applying the common agricultural policy, with all its now visible consequences on the balance of payments and on the possibility of a rational incomes policy; that far greater increases are still to come if this policy continues; and that there is no tolerable way out other than a fundamental renegotiation or total abandonment of the CAP
5.16 p.m
Mr. J. R. KinseyI should like to add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. David Stoddart) who has indeed chosen an important subject for us to debate today. I shall follow his arguments, but he will not be surprised if I come to a different conclusion from that to which he came.
My hon. Friends and I put down what we thought was a reasoned amendment which would replace the myth of the motion as it now stands and put the reality of the situation, over which the hon. Gentleman glossed, about the diffi-
70
culties facing not only this country, but every nation of the world.
The trouble with the argument put forward by the hon. Gentleman is the same as the trouble with the whole of the Opposition's argument—namely, that they either misrepresent the situation for political ends, or, worse still, they do not understand it, and, not understanding it, they will have no hope, if they ever get the opportunity of holding office again, of correcting it.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: The hon. Gentleman has accused hon. Members on this side of the House of either not knowing or misrepresenting the situation. Will he, with respect to the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), tell me where he was either wrong on facts or sought to misrepresent the facts that he presented?
Mr. Kinsey: If I might be allowed to develop my speech the hon. Gentleman will hear where the Opposition went wrong. But he jumped in pretty quickly—the Opposition always jump in too quickly—without waiting for the explanation. The right hon. Member for Batter-sea, North went wrong when he told us that the industrial nations had done much better than we had. Japan is now second from the top of the list. That is one nation that is supposed not to be doing well. Canada, Australia and the United States are at the top of the list.
Mr. Jay: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Kinsey: No. I have already been taken off the course of my speech in the first few minutes. Obviously that is what hon. Gentleman opposite want to do. They want to detract away from the attack on their frivolous opposition to a serious situation.
This nation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Charles Morrison) said, imports 50 per cent. of its food. This makes us far more vulnerable than any of the agricultural countries that have been mentioned. The bill that the nation has had to face for food imports since we took office in June 1970 has gone up by 77 per cent. This figure was given by the Minister in November. This is due to inescapable prices on the world market. At the same time, retail prices

71
went up by 44·8 per cent. in this country. These figures show that the Government have been doing quite well in maintaining the level of retail as against import prices.
Later figures which I have obtained from the Ministry today show an even more alarming situation. Over the last 12 months alone, from October to October, food import prices are up by a massive 50·9 per cent.—inescapable again. During this time retail prices in this country went up by only 18·7 per cent.—considerably less than half the food import bill. That is an absolute compliment to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and to the other Ministers in the Department for the way in which they have assisted in this direction.
In addition, we should thank the food manufacturers and the distributive trade for what they have done in absorbing so much of these costs. The Government's incomes policy has also helped to take the heat out of the massive increase in world prices. Quite clearly the competitive system does its work in this direction. Nor should we forget to thank the moderate men in the unions. They have co-operated through stage I and stage 2 of the incomes policy, and their restraint is reflected in these figures. Wages are an important element in costs, as we have often said in this House, but in the last 12 months or so they have been overshadowed by the increase in world food prices.
I suppose that with these rather dismaying figures that have been quoted, it is difficult to claim any success in our policies, but they really have been successful. The Economist of 17th November, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes referred, shows clearly that we are gaining, and that whereas in 1970, under a Socialist Government, we were top of the list of those suffering inflation the most, we have now changed our position to 14th in that list—14th out of 17. That article is headed:
"The miracle that Ted pulled off and nobody saw him do it."
I assure hon. Members that we on this side of the House did not write that article. It refers to Britain as being "top of the pops", a situation which is hardly
72
recognisable compared with what the Opposition have said this afternoon. Britain wants the best people to handle this situation of food prices. The important question is: who will handle the situation better—the Socialists, or the Conservatives under whose régime our position in the inflation league came down to 14th?
What has caused the present situation and these high prices? Is it the Common Market? Are all those things to which the Socialists have referred responsible for the situation? In fact, it is shortages. That is supported by sources independent of the Government, such as the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation The Financial Times, reporting on its meeting in June of this year, said that world food stocks were
"at their lowest level in 20 years; heavy snows and severe flooding in America … catastrophic drought in much of Africa …"
all of which had contributed to the all-time world food shortage.
Obviously the answer to world shortages is to get a world expansion, and here is where I thought the Socialists might help. Instead, they have concentrated on a niggling attack on Government policy. The major problem is to improve the diminishing stock of food. We cannot do this by giving a diminishing return to the producer. That point was made by the hon. Lady the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) who wanted to know why our own producers were not given an adequate return. Although we have to reward people, we cannot improve food production by indiscriminate food subsidies. It simply will not work by giving subsidies to quarter-millionaires such as the Leader of the Opposition who has made a bit of money out of a book that he has written. He would get the same subsidy as an old-age pensioner. Who wants that situation? We must restrict any increase in subsidies; otherwise we increase the tax bill. We have seen this happen before.
Much criticism has been made of the Common Market agricultural policy, particularly in the speech of the right hon. Member for Battersea, North. Yet that policy is designed to increase the output of world food. It is the one thing which will improve the food supply position. I am no fanatical Common Market man,

73
but I should like to quote from the Daily Mail of Thursday, 20th September:
"A bid to head off a world famine which one expert believes could kill up to 10 million people in a year opens in Rome …".
That referred to a meeting of representatives of the great exporting areas. It went on to say:
"Soaring prices will effectively ration housewives in every major population area—except the Common Market, for the EEC's heavily criticised Common Agricultural Policy has suddenly begun to benefit the consumer instead of the farmer."
I am not satisfied with the working of the Common Market agricultural policy. This has been made clear. The Minister and hon. Members whom we have sent to Brussels have put forward our case. We want amendments to be made to the working of that policy. But we have to be there to do it. Which Socialist Members are in Brussels? What have they done to bring prices down? They are here, but they are not in the right place. They are here, carping at the Government—
Mr. David Stoddart: The hon. Gentleman is waxing very eloquent about what these chaps are doing in the Common Market parliament, but I have not noticed that they have done anything, nor do I know that there is anything that they can do. Will the hon. Gentleman say what powers they have?
Mr. Kinsey: The hon. Gentleman's interpretation of what people can do differs from mine. I have every faith in my hon. Friends and in what they have done for our protection. Their powers are as great as anybody's. It is our job to be there to do it. One cannot do it by stopping at home.
Another way in which the Government have worked successfully and had an impact on prices is in the level of taxation. We have done exactly what we told the nation we would do. We have kept our promise. Personal taxes are down, SET is abolished, purchase tax has been replaced by VAT, and the level of tax has been reduced at many points. The change over to VAT and the abolition of SET have saved the British taxpayer £900 million. No policy under the Socialist Government ever did that, and no policy which the Opposition now propose would do it. The removal of purchase tax on food alone has given
74
£2 per year per head to the British people. This is but another example to show the way the Government have worked and have carried out their promise. Prices were cut at a stroke.
Every hon. Member received a letter from Fine Fare announcing that after the abolition of SET prices would be cut. Dewhurst, the butchery firm, sent a letter to every hon. Member saying,
"The abolition of SET enables Dewhurst to slash beef prices."
And so it did. This is the way things went. Food prices were cut at a stroke under this Government. When VAT came in, food prices were cut, because VAT was not levied on food whereas, under both Governments, purchase tax was charged on various food items.
Those are examples of the way in which the Government have worked successfully on prices. The savings on VAT were enormously helpful to the family. However, as we know, they have been overtaken by the escalation in world prices which, as I say, is unavoidable. But we did what we promised to do. We should never be mad enough to put those taxes back, should we? I say that, but we can be pretty sure of what would happen under the Socialists. The right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) has already told us what their policy is—tax till it hurts. Anybody with an income of £3,000 a year or more will be taxed till it hurts. That would put about £3·50 per week on to each family in the country, which was just about the amount of taxation which the last Socialist Government imposed on the country—£3·50 a week, or a total of £3,000 million. That gives some idea of what we could suffer under another Socialist Government, with all the consequences for the nation's food bill.
One factor in the overseas context, which, I agree, is inescapable, is the devaluation of our currency. But the industrial unrest which is fomented by hon. Members opposite in their support for every wage claim which comes along is a factor which destroys confidence in Britain's economy, and that is where our currency comes under attack, leading to devaluation. The Opposition's peace formula, based on co-operation with the unions, would be an impossible deal, with unrestricted wages and restricted prices.

75
Such a proposal is economic madness, yet they dare to put it forward. There can be no substitute for voluntarily co-operation on prices between Government, workers and business. The success which we have attained so far proves that that policy is right.
Those who are threatening industrial unrest—the miners, the power men and the railway workers—should think again. I urge them to think again, to return to the policy which has been so helpful up to now, that is, co-operation with the Government. We are fighting a battle in this country now. What would our position have been in past battles if, for example, we had gone on strike at Dunkirk, or threatened industrial action at Waterloo?—which, incidentally, has a familiar ring about it.
It has been said more than once in the House that men cannot dig coal with bayonets. But not all enemies carry bayonets. The economic enemy is the enemy now, and it must be defeated. We can win only by production, and that is the Government's policy, to expand production. It should be supported by everyone. We can get out of our present difficulties only if we work together and fight together to beat inflation and bring prices down.
5.35 p.m.
Mr. Emlyn Hooson: I felt some sympathy for the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Kinsey) because he manifested such a touching faith in his Prime Minister. He wanted to claim that his Government's policy had been a great success, yet he obviously could not think of any possible grounds on which he could sustain such a claim. In the end, of course, the hon. Gentleman failed to do it. Indeed, my impression is that if the Prime Minister now found that he could cut prices, he would have a stroke such would be his surprise.
The indictment against the Government is that they misled the country on food prices. No one doubts that world food prices have had an enormous effect on food prices in this country, yet the rise in those food prices was manifest when the Prime Minister made his claim, with an eye only on political considerations.
76
The truth is that this country is in a serious situation. For a long time, we were the beneficiaries of cheap food supplies from the rest of the world. In the historical context, one may argue about whether this was fair as between the developing countries and ourselves, but the fact remains that the statistics which have been used today in relation to other European countries and ourselves to show that the percentage rise has been greater here arise from the historical circumstances that in the past Britain had based its policy on cheap food. Our cheap food policy was an important element in Britain's industrial development and the industrial predominance which it enjoyed over many years, and when that policy came to be changed—a most significant historical event for us—the nation was ill prepared for it.
The Government, the Opposition and members of my own party have a good deal to answer for in not telling the country, and in not themselves sufficiently analysing the enormous changes which would come if we entered a dear food Community. I am one of those who believe that we should not have gone in at the time we did, for obvious reasons. Those reasons have been proved to be well founded, but I take no pleasure in that. All I say today is that, whatever one may think about it, if we withdrew from the Community now we should be in an even worse state.
The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) was right to point to some of the factors in the Common Market negotiations. In passing, I must remind him that the relevant time was not two or three years ago. Negotiations took place in the days of his Government as well, so the period is much longer than that. Our traditional suppliers were already considering what they would do if Britain entered the Community. They were considering new markets and looking to the time when they would have to cope with a different situation if Britain joined the EEC.
Mr. Jay: I agree that the Labour Government's application did harm, but, to be strictly correct, it was an application and there were no actual negotiations.
Mr. Hooson: Technically, that is right, but it had the same effect. That is the

77
point I make. We must be realistic about it. It had a substantial effect upon our traditional suppliers over a period of time. All I am saying now is that, historically, the die is cast. We cannot go back to our traditional suppliers. It is most important, therefore, that we bring all possible power to bear to change the common agricultural policy. There can be no doubt about that. There are hon. Members on both sides, whether in favour of the Common Market or not, who do not support the common agricultural policy.
We must make a realistic assessment of whether world food prices are up temporarily or permanently. It seems to me that, over the past two or three years, certain unusual factors accounted for the rise in grain prices, in particular. I do not think that the same applies to beef, lamb or pork prices, although pork is much more linked with the price of grain than are the other meats.
The additional acreage brought into production in the United States and the improvement in the Russian harvest give cause for hopes that grain prices might drop. I estimate that it will not happen before 1975, however. I do not know what the effect of the fuel crisis will be. It could mean that we shall not enjoy the benefit of the lower grain prices. Let us assume, however, that, as in the normal course of events, grain prices were to fall. We would be in a ridiculous position if we were still tied to the common agricultural policy with its highly sustained grain prices.
I represent an agricultural livestock area. I know how many small livestock farmers and dairy fanners are struggling today. If there is one thing they hate it is Ministers quoting across-the-board figures for farmers' incomes—lumping the corn barons together with the livestock farmers in the western parts of the country. It must be in the overwhelming interests of the country to make serious modifications to the CAP and I further criticise the Government for pussyfooting in their attitude towards it. I am sure that all the pro-Marketeers will agree with my criticism that we have not been throwing our weight about in the Common Market as we should have done. The Common Market countries are certainly benefiting from having access to our markets and we therefore have considerable bargaining power.
78
I take the view that in the long term the balance of power is shifting, as I have forecast in almost every agriculture debate in which I have spoken, steadily in the direction of the primary producers. I think that certainly applies to agriculture and energy and probably to many other spheres also. What does that foretell for Britain, the EEC and the whole of the Western world? Except for those who are much more self-sustaining than we are, it represents a most serious situation which goes above party politics.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. David Stoddart) on his luck in winning the ballot and on the way in which he presented his motion. I criticise him in one respect, however—over the completely unnecessary last few lines of the motion relating to the Labour Party and the TUC which prevent my party voting for it. He said nothing about that aspect of the motion but it nevertheless excludes those who feel very much as he did from voting with him.
The Government are too sanguine about food prices. At the Liberal Party Assembly in September I said that I thought there would be a serious food shortage next spring with the possibility even of rationing for some goods. I was criticised then for taking such a pessimistic view. I believe now that the fuel crisis will add to those difficulties. Nearly every dairy fanner I have spoken to in my area believes there will be a shortage of milk in this country within a year or two. It will come much sooner than most people expect.
There is a great shortage of agricultural labour. I know of a man who is today selling his dairy herd at very short notice because he is unable to run his farm. In my area the farmers are not feeding cattle as they normally would because of the high price of feeding stuffs. The cattle are being kept in store condition and not in prime condition as would otherwise be the case. They will not come on to the market in the spring. Many more breeding sows and cows have been sent for slaughter in the last three or four months than at any other time in recent years. This is because of the uncertainty which faces particularly the smaller farmer over interest rates. They do not know what the future holds so they cut their losses and keep the minimum of stock. The Government should consider

79
what effect this will have for a country such as Britain which depends on imports for 50 per cent. of its food. The energy crisis means that we shall pay still higher prices for the food we import.
I forecast now that food prices will rise in the next five or six months much more than in the last two or three years. The Government were warned about this development months ago yet they remain completely sanguine in the face of it. They have completely underestimated the seriousness of the situation. I have never supported the CAP and if that policy is to be followed it will be better to pay subsidies to those who cannot afford to buy the food. We cannot have a sustained policy of subsidy for both producer and consumer and the best solution is to subsidise the consumer. That means ensuring that pensions, family allowances and so on must be geared to the new price rises.
I do not see why, as a temporary measure and in view of the unprecedented rises which face us, we should not introduce temporary subsidies of feeding stuffs to enable the supply of milk to be maintained. There should be subsidies, too, for various other commodities, and if the Government ignore the need for these measures they are heading for considerable trouble. The situation will get worse for another reason. I agree with the right hon. Member for Battersea, North who said that one element in rising world food prices for which we are accountable is the money with which we buy the food—and that means the value of the pound. We have been compelled to export 20 per cent. more goods in order to buy the same amount of agricultural produce as a year ago. That is a serious situation which, with an energy crisis, will get much worse.
It gives me no pleasure to say it but I believe the country to be facing one of the most difficult periods in its history. In the debate today we have underplayed the problem that will face us over food. We are facing a situation of food shortage and we should be taking drastic steps now to deal with it. There is no sign of the Government being even remotely aware of the nature of that problem.
5.54 p.m.
Mr. Tim Fortescue: I, too, congratulate the hon.
80
Member for Swindon (Mr. David Stoddart) on his good fortune in winning the ballot and on the way in which he presented his case. He sang a familiar tune but he sang it nicely and the whole House listened to him with pleasure. He quickly glossed over the part in his motion dealing the pensioners and others suffering from high food prices. Some of my hon. Friends have pointed out how much the Government have done for pensioners and those on low incomes. The over-80s, whose increased pension the Labour Government rejected five times, were not mentioned by the hon. Member. The invalidity pension has been introduced by the present Government who have also increased the benefits for younger widows and have increased the advantages for those in disadvantaged positions.
Although the hon. Gentleman says that food prices have increased, the people who suffer most from such increases have been helped more by this Government than by the last Labour Government. Further, between April and August of this year the Price Commission, which is the creation of the present Government, saved the British food consumers £42 million by refusing to grant applications for increases in food prices. That is direct action by the Government related to the price of food. That is action which was never taken by the last Labour Government.
One factor always puzzles me when I hear Opposition hon. Members speaking about prices, and especially food prices. It is genuine puzzlement. If any Labour hon. Member can explain to me that I am wrong to be puzzled, I shall be delighted. Labour hon. Members take pride—and I support their pride—in agitating and working hard to ensure that workers overseas, and mostly in ex-colonial countries, have their way of life improved. They work hard, they agitate, they demonstrate and they march to support the case for workers in tropical countries to have a better standard of living. They are proud of doing so and I honour them for it.
However, when workers overseas get a higher standard of living, which means that they want more to eat and that they can afford to eat more meat, more protein and more of all the desirable foodstuffs, Labour hon. Members seem to be

81
astonished that world prices for foodstuffs go up.
Miss Betty Boothroyd: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the primary producers in the banana industry in the Caribbean receive only l½p per pound for fertiliser, machinery, land and labour whilst the British housewife is paying 10p a pound for bananas so that approximately 8½p remains with the shipper? The primary producer in the Windward Islands receives only l½p for the elements I have mentioned.
Mr. Fortescue: I am grateful for that statistic. I am sure that it is right. I was not aware of it. It does not in any way invalidate my point.
Miss Boothroyd: They are not receiving it.
Mr. Fortescue: The wages and standard of living of the primary producers should be improved. I agree entirely. Their wages should go up. They should receive the benefit of increased prices. That does not alter the fact that when their wages go up—I am not talking only about banana producers—and when wages increase throughout the world it is inevitable that not only the demand for primary foodstuffs will increase but also the price. Therefore, the prices of foodstuffs in this country will go up. Part of the reason for the increase in world prices is the campaign in which the Opposition have been indulging. They do not seem to understand simple cause and effect.
Mr. Mark Hughes: I accept the inevitability of what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Will he give one example of a tropical food producing country which has produced a major increase in demand for temperate zone foodstuffs?
Mr. Fortescue: The hon. Gentleman is trying to beg the question. Let me assure him that I am not criticising his colleagues—indeed, in this respect I honour and respect them—for what they are seeking to do in many ex-colonial countries. I used to be in the Colonial Service. I worked in that service for a long time in a food and agricultural organisation. That has been my life.
It is inevitable, because the world food supply is not increasing as fast as the world's population, that increased demand
82
from people who are under-fed will lead to an increase in world prices. That must be so, but the Opposition will never recognise that fact.
Mr. Hughes: I accept that.
Mr. Fortescue: I cannot understand how the Opposition can indifferently and enthusiastically support every wage claim which is made. If a claim is for £10 extra they support it. If the claim is for £15 extra they still support it. The same would apply if the claim was for an extra £20. Whatever the unions claim, they support it. It seems that the Opposition have no judgment. They make no discrimination between large claims and small claims. If a claim is made they automatically support it.
At the same time they seem to fail to realise that if the cost of moving things by train goes up because the engine drivers' pay has gone up, the cost of food will go up. Of course it will. That cannot be avoided if we indiscriminately support every wage claim. If support is given to every wage claim, support is given to increasing the cost of living.
It would behove the Opposition, and especially the hon. Member for Swindon, who moved the motion, to take those matters into account when criticising the Government for the increase in the cost of food. By their actions during the 3½ years of this Parliament they have contributed as much as the Government have to increases in the price of food.
I take up what the hon. Member for Swindon said about the increases which have taken place in the cost of living. The hon. Gentleman took the period since the General Election. That is a fair political point to make, but I suggest that it would be fairer and more realistic to take the increase of the last year. A year ago we were not in the Common Market and prices had not begun to rise as fast as they have risen recently.
Yesterday the Observer published its Shopping Basket. It does so regularly. It takes the price of 34 different items of food. It has followed the prices of those items regularly for several years. Yesterday it indicated the increase between November 1972 and December 1973. The 34 articles in November 1972 cost as a total £9·85. They now cost £12·11. The Observer says—I have not checked the

83
figures—that that is an increase of 23 per cent. I agree that that is staggering and alarming. The interesting thing is that if we analyse the statistics—I am sure that everyone will agree that statistics must be considered closely and that immediate conclusions should not be drawn from them—and if we eliminate six items from the 34, we find that the increase during the past year has been only 67p instead of £2·26. On that basis the percentage increase is 7 per cent. instead of 23 per cent.
The items which I have arbitrarily eliminated for the purpose of my argument are beef, lamb, bacon, chicken, eggs and tinned salmon, which is obviously an imported foodstuff.
Mr. David Stoddart: They are all proteins.
Mr. Fortescue: It is a fact that the other 28 items in the Shopping Basket have either gone down in price or have remained comparatively stable. The fact that the total increase in a year for 28 items has been only 67p is completely ignored by all the commentators on the food situation. It is only when we analyse the figures that we realise how many items of food have gone down in price during the past year. There has not been a progression of price rises as indicated by the hon. Member for Swindon.
Another factor which emerges clearly from the statistics is that the retail price of all foods has gone up by 47 per cent. Since the General Election the price of manufactured food has gone up by only 29 per cent. During the last year the price of food has gone up by 17 per cent. and the price of manufactured food has gone up by only 6·9 per cent.
Therefore, it becomes more obvious, as one examines the situation, that price increases, both since the General Election and in the last year, have been almost entirely concentrated on fresh food and that food processed or manufactured in this country has increased in price very little. This factor must be recognised; it deserves the congratulations of the House to those who manufacture and process foods, who have contributed a great deal to the efforts to keep down prices. It is something we should not forget.
84
In the Government's counter-inflation policy, of which I am not an unreserved admirer, although I believe that some kind of policy was necessary, there is a weakness. I am informed—this is an example of the weakness and not the whole story—that those farmers in this country who grow peas, and whose peas will be harvested next year in the autumn, have signed contracts for next year's harvest with those who buy the peas for freezing or tinning providing for an increase of 40 per cent. above their price for this year.
I am told that the farmers are asking 40 per cent. more because, they say, the world price of cereals is high and they could easily grow cereals on their land and get the higher price. They say, therefore, that if these manufacturers or processors want them to grow peas, they will have to pay an extra 40 per cent., and if they do not pay it they will not get the peas.
Mr. Mark Hughes: Has the hon. Gentleman noticed that it was reported in the Farmers' Weekly last week that the current sale price is £42 a ton but that stuff not good enough for human consumption was sold at £67 a ton? Thus, some farmers got 67 per cent. more for their peas. As the Farmers' Weekly said:
"What a mad, mad world this is
Mr. Fortescue: I will not go as far as that, but I was not particularly emphasising that it was a very sane world when, in one year, the price of peas could increase in the contract by 40 per cent. The man who has to buy at a price 40 per cent. above this year's price has his margin strictly controlled under the Price Commission's rules. He cannot increase his prices by any more than a very limited amount, in which all sorts of his costs may not be included. Then he passes his frozen peas or tinned peas to the distributor, and the distributor's margin is calculated in percentage terms. He is all right because he can charge the same percentage on the increased prices and so increase his margin automatically.
Therefore, the manufacturer and processor are squeezed between the farmer, who can charge what he likes in the contract, and the distributor, who is allowed to charge more on a percentage

85
basis. The manufacturer and the processor are caught in the middle in the terms of the price code. I ask my hon. Friend to look at this. It is an unfair anomoly. The farmers are being treated far too easily under the prices policy, and the distributors are being allowed to get away with very larger profit margins, while the manufacturers and processors are being squeezed.
I want to turn now to the question of food prices in the EEC. We have heard of the horrors which go on in Europe and of the increase in prices we have to suffer because of them. We have heard again the anti-Common Market sentiments of the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), which we have heard many times before. We hear him with respect because we respect him, but we do not now take his sentiments so seriously.
In dairy products, the price of butter in the shops is now 20 per cent. less than it was in January last year, when we were not members of the EEC. Practically every other dairy product is approximately the same price in the shops today as in January 1972. In the meantime, we have joined the EEC and have been cut off, as we have heard, so dramatically from the southern hemisphere. Yet prices have stayed level for most dairy products and have actually gone down for butter by 20 per cent. How, therefore, can the right hon. Gentleman say that British membership of the EEC has been so disastrous for the housewife? He mentioned all the prices which have gone up because he opposes the Common Market, but he did not mention the prices which have gone down.
The right hon. Gentleman and others have mentioned that in the last year the £ sterling has been devalued and that when the £ sterling is devalued the price of imported goods goes up. That is the natural consequence of devaluation. Yet the price of imported butter has gone down and the price of imported cheese has stayed about the same. The reason is that the monetary compensation mechanism operated by the Common Market countries in Brussels by the Commission has compensated us for the loss in the value of sterling, so that there has been no increase in the price of most dairy products, and butter has actually gone down in price. If any anti-Marketeer wants to attack me on these
86
figures, he is welcome to do so, but these are the facts and they are not emphasised often enough. Prices have gone down for some commodities because of our entry into Europe.
I turn now to the question of revision of the common agricultural policy. The Government's view of this seems to be like the view of the parson who is against sin. They think that the policy should be revised, but they are very chary of telling anyone at all, let alone the House, how they think it should be done. They think, and no-one disagrees, that the cost of the policy should be reduced. We all agree. No-one could quarrel with that view. They say that the effects of revision of the policy should be for the price of bulk commodities to be reduced. We, too, would like to see that. They say, finally, that they think the policy should be revised so that exceptionally large surpluses, such as we have seen for butter, should be eliminated. So do we all think.
What the Government have not told anyone yet is how in their opinion these desirable effects should be brought about. I believe, as has been said already, that hon. Members on both sides of the House, however fanatically pro-Europe they are—I count myself amongst that number—wish to see steps taken at an early date towards revision of the common agricultural policy. They want to see the British delegates banging the table in Brussels in order to get the policy revised. They want to see, sooner rather than later, detailed proposals from the Government as to how it could be done.
6.8. p.m.
Mrs. Doris Fisher: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Kinsey) accused my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. David Stoddart) of putting down a frivolous motion. Going round my constituency, I do not find any frivolity amongst the women I have met while they have been doing the shopping. Some hon. Members opposite seem to think that the Opposition are seeing a kind of mirage of prices, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon said, the housewives were blamed by the Government originally and told to shop around. They did so but that did not solve the problem.

87
Then we had the accusation that housewives were buying convenience foods. I was not able to find what a convenience food was. Eventually I learned that such a food was ice cream or crisps, which the Government relieved of tax.
Then the trade unions were blamed because they asked for higher wages for their members. Workers' wages have been frozen and yet prices are still increasing. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he would solve the problem by dealing wtih selective employment tax and purchase tax. But prices continued to rise and still the Government were looking round for excuses. Then the Prime Minister came up with the best excuse of the lot—the weather. The British are absolute wizards at blaming the weather for certain eventualities. It seems that it is either the weather or computers which are to blame for everything.
At the beginning of this year's summer we had rain practically every day and the President of the National Farmers' Union appeared on television forecasting gloom about higher grain prices because of the wet weather. Then the sun came out and we did not see him any more. He did not say, "Now that the sun is out we shall get higher grain production." He supported the Government only when the weather was bad. The latest excuse is world prices. We must accept that world prices are to blame for some increased costs, but I am wondering what excuse the Government will give after Christmas for their failure to keep down the high cost of living.
The figures show that 1973 has been a bumper year for farmers. The Minister said in answer to a Question which I tabled,
"Yields from the 1973 harvest are expected to be excellent …".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd October 1973; Vol. 861, c. 406.]
He said that the estimated yields showed a substantial increase, not only in England, but in Scotland and Northern Ireland. On the following day he gave the yields which he expected from the potato crop. He said:
"The crop seems to be in good condition. … the indications are that the yield from the 1973 crop will probably show an increase of more than ½ ton per acre over that of 1972."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd October 1973; Vol. 861, c. 474.]
88
British agriculture is one of the most efficient agriculture industries in the world, and the farmers and farm workers have accomplished this bumper harvest together. The indications are that there will be a large increase in farmers' incomes this year. I should have liked this prosperity to be shared. I should have liked the Government to show a little more sympathy for the farm workers' claim for a £25 a week basic wage. As hon. Members opposite have said, the farmers are doing very well out of the present food situation. Let us have a little more sympathy for the farm workers, for they are subsidising the farm industry.
An advertisement which used to appear on the media and on placards said, "Go to work on an egg". That was in the good old days of the Labour Government and before Leicester. The Prime Minister said at Leicester that under the Labour Government workers were forced to eat a smaller, cheaper egg. Now the workers are trying to find that cheaper egg. In Birmingham last weekend eggs were being sold at 50p a dozen. Their price has increased by 115 per cent. this year. I wonder whether the Ministry goes into the reasons for such substantial increases or merely takes the percentage increase in some other commodity and accepts it. It should conduct much more research into the reasons for substantial price increases.
The price of eggs used to fluctuate. There was a summer price and a winter price. I do not know whether the chickens have changed with the seasons or whether, because we have battery chickens, it is summer or winter all the time for them and therefore we have summer or winter prices all the time, but there seems to be no seasonal drop in the price of eggs as there used to be. Eggs are one of the main protein foods.
There has been a substantial increase in the price of bacon. In Birmingham last weekend gammon ham was being sold at 75p a pound. Bacon and eggs, which used to be a cheap source of protein for people on average incomes, have become luxury items. Bacon and eggs is no longer a breakfast; it is a main meal.
The hon. Member for Garston (Mr. Fortescue) quoted from the Observer, but he did not refer to the substantial increase in the price of fish fingers, which

89
is one of the products of the frozen food industry. The price of the articles in the list which he gave, which were not by any stretch of the imagination luxury articles, has risen by £2·26 in one year. Can we wonder that the workers are concerned about their decreasing standard of living? They are expected to bear the brunt of restraint in the freeze while others seem to be immune.
Rank-Hovis-McDougall, Britain's biggest baker, made a record profit in the year ended September. All the food manufacturers are making not just profits but record profits. In the year to September Rank - Hovis - McDougall, which makes Mother's Pride, made a record profit of over £27 million—an increase of more than £4 million on the previous year. FMC, the meat marketing group, increased its profit by 50 per cent. Its profit was more than £3 million larger than the profit it made the previous year. The workers cannot make anywhere near these profits. Yet they are expected to bear the brunt, while these companies get away with it.
Mr. Fortescue: Will the hon. Lady say how much of the Rank-Hovis-McDougall profit was due to operations in this country and how much was due to overseas operations? The profits which she has quoted are up to September this year. Does she agree that the figures for the year to come and the year after that, when they have been subjected to the operations of the Price Commission, will tell a very different story?
Mrs. Fisher: We can all tell different stories to suit different pictures. These are figures for this year. It does not make any difference whether the profits are made in this country or elsewhere. The profits made by Rank-Hovis-McDougall were made in this country. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston shakes his head but I have a quotation here supporting my view. We say that the Government have failed to keep a strict control of essential foods. They have actively encouraged people to make a quick buck. We have seen property and land developers all making maximum profits. Cost of land obviously has a direct effect on the cost of food.
When the Government appointed the Price Commission we knew that it was
90
a political gimmick. People were told to telephone in their complaints to the commission if they had problems. Obviously, the commission got too publicity-conscious. The Government decided, after the Tory Party conference—when the Tory housewives probably told them that the Price Commission was not good politically—that the commission would not publish the increases.
The housewife does not need to have price increases brought to her attention by the commission because when she shops at her supermarket she knows the prices—they are stamped on every packet and tin. She is reminded of the prices when she puts the articles into her pantry or refrigerator and when she takes them out.
People do regard the Price Commission as a gimmick. I received a letter last week from a constituent complaining about the price of Findus plaice portions which have gone up from 21p. She buys them regularly and she wrote to the Price Commission which said it was looking into the matter. After 10 weeks my constituent reminded the Commission that she had not had a reply. The commission said that it was difficult to contact London. If that is the way that the commission works—and how a housewife can do nothing about her complaint—then it is a political gimmick.
I do not wish to deal at any length with the Common Market. Some of my hon. Friends are much more capable than I to do that. But Common Market policy means that the consumer can never win. The system encourages food gluts which are bought up by intervention boards to create artificial shortages and to keep prices up. The common agricultural policy was never a policy to protect the consumer, and we have the ridiculous situation of paying more in import levies and taxes to the CAP. That keeps food dearer than we paid under the deficiency payments which were aimed at keeping food cheap.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Lady forgive me? It is hoped that Front Bench speakers from her side of the House will catch my eye at twenty five minutes past the hour and that gives her another two minutes.
Mrs. Fisher: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I shall be exactly two minutes. The Opposition feel that this has not been a frivolous debate or that it was a frivolous motion. I sincerely believe that in 1970 the housewife was conned. She was cheated by the Prime Minister. But because the Prime Minister has not acquired marital status and does not have any personal knowledge of how a female reacts when she is spurned, the sooner she has an opportunity to show the Prime Minister at the next General Election that reaction the sooner will he realise that the housewife is aware that she has been cheated and that she will use her vote to make sure that that anger is on the record.
6.25 p.m.
Mr. David Clark: My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mrs. Doris Fisher) is one of the ladies who were not conned in 1970. Her judgment is as good today as it was then. I am delighted to speak immediately after her.
The whole country feels that the Government have shown—I do not wish to be unkind—a lack of understanding and unwillingness to take any positive steps on the food issue. From talking to constituents and people throughout the country the Opposition get the feeling that the food question is the most serious problem. Despite their efforts, the general feeling is that the Government have failed to grasp the nettle. I hope that today the Minister will give us some encouragement. That is the spirit in which we approach the debate.
The House and the country are indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. David Stoddart) for his choice of topic. It is a subject worthy of a debate longer than the three hours at our disposal, but we must be thankful for small mercies. My hon. Friend's speech was full of cogent arguments. It was an accurate assessment of the situation, with positive suggestions which set the tone of the debate on a matter on which the vast majority of people would disagree with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Kinsey) who claimed that the Government's food policy was a success. We respect and listen to minorities, but I disagree with the hon. Gentleman, as do the vast majority of people.
92
We want to try to help the Government by making positive suggestions. I start with a minor point about packaging. In studying the horticulture industry recently I noticed a suggestion that much of this year's excellent apple crop would not reach the market, due to a packaging shortage. I have raised the problem with the Minister before and should like him again to study its wider implications. Retailers tell me that they are not able to get packaging and paper bags, and that when they can they cost twice as much as last year. According to a figure I have, the fruit people last year estimated that half a penny on a pound weight was the cost of parcelling. If the price is now doubling it means an addition of 1p per pound weight on prices, due to packaging. That may not appear much, but to old people concerned with every copper it is a vital matter. The Government would do well to examine it.
Many of my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite have referred to world prices. Everyone has agreed about the increases, and that the situation has made it difficult for the Government. What we find difficult to forgive the Government for is that in 1970, when they were talking in the election campaign, they did not refer to world prices. It is not good enough to take that line. We find it particularly difficult to accept that as an excuse while the Government seem to be intent on washing their hands of responsibility. They say, "We cannot do anything about world prices," but we know that the Government have been responsible for devaluing our currency by approximately 20 per cent. over the past two years, which, for a country which imports 50 per cent. of its food products, is a most serious matter. It means 20p on every pound we spend on food, and that is a direct result of the Government's economic policies, which are disastrous.
I call it devaluation by stealth. It has not been followed up by the necessary political and economic decisions and it has made the problems of controlling prices much more difficult. We hear a lot about world prices, but these do not apply when we consider such things as Iamb. Why should the price of lamb have gone up as much as it has? My right hon. Friend the Member for Batter-sea, North (Mr. Jay) spoke of New Zealand lamb, fattened, fed and grazed for

93
10 months of the year. That is not affected by world prices. The same is true of cheese. I understand that there is a tax of over £350 per ton upon all cheese entering this country. That has nothing to do with world prices; It is the result of the Government's policy.
We are eating less beef, bacon, cheese and almost every high-protein product than we did three years ago. The Government must examine the reasons for this and find out where so much of our food is going. I have discovered that there are 34,000 tons of beef in store compared with 15,000 at the same time last year. Why?
Many hon. Members have spoken about the effects of the Common Market. Apart from some Government supporters, no one now accepts as correct the Government's estimate of the increase in prices as a result of our entry into the Common Market. The claim that it is lp in the pound is beyond belief. Even George Thomson, the EEC Commissioner, speaking earlier this year—I do not know whether it was a slip—said that it was ½p in 10p, which is 5 per cent. I would have thought that to be rather on the low side, but it is perhaps more honest than the Government's figure. Food prices will get worse. As the years go by, until 1977 and 1978, we will find duties increasing.
We eat a great deal of tinned food. From 1st January there will be an increased import tax on tinned food. My hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing) has done a great deal of work on this subject and has discovered that as from 1st January the tax will put an extra £1½ million upon tinned fruit, an extra £1½ million on corned beef and an extra £1 million on tinned salmon. All this means that the poor housewife will be paying extra when she goes shopping.
We want to put forward some positive suggestions. How the Government must have regretted axing the Prices and Incomes Board in their post-election euphoria. They had to put something in its place. They put up the Price Commission, which is unsatisfactory in that we are not able to debate it in detail. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood has said, the Commission is a laughing-stock among housewives. We have all received letters
94
from constituents saying that they have been unable to get satisfaction from it.
There is the feeling that the Government have misled the people, especially when they said that the commission would be able to consider fresh foods. There is a great deal of difference between considering fresh foods and taking positive action about their prices. This is one of the basic weaknesses of the commission. I hope the Minister can reassure us that she is prepared to make price control more effective. This is the key to the problem.
We warned the Government three years ago that the terms for entry to the EEC were unsatisfactory and unacceptable to the people. The Council of Ministers should not just tinker around with the common agricultural policy. We want a fundamental reform. Only in that way can the people of Britain get anything like a fair deal from Europe. Only then will there be any hope of getting reasonable food prices.
The livestock farmers have had a raw deal in the past few months. The increase in feeding stuffs has been about 70 per cent. The longer-term effect on British agriculture is much more serious. What is serious for the agriculture industry will, in turn, be serious for the consumer. We welcome the fact that the Government have brought the Price Review forward, but that is not enough. Their refusal to help dairy and livestock farmers generally will inevitably lead to higher prices. Even at this stage the Government should give far more to these farmers, who are the real victims of world food prices.
I turn now to subsidies. The Government have said that they are not against them. The Prime Minister told us this when singing the praises of the Milk Marketing Board. There is, therefore, no dogma problem. I realise that the Government will have to do a "U" turn. They have, however, removed subsidies from bacon and sugar and if they do a "U" turn on this I can promise them that they will not find us breathing down their necks.
We shall support the Government if they are prepared to introduce subsidies on the basic foodstuffs, of which there are about 11. These items weigh heavily in the budgets of those on lower incomes

95
and pensioners. They account for about 36 per cent. of all household food expenditure. If we include tinned foods the figure rises to about 40 per cent. This represents an expenditure of about £8,000 million per annum. If we wanted a reduction of 10 per cent. on those items it would cost the country approximately £350 million. That is a price worth paying. Hon. Gentlemen may ask where the money will come from. By coincidence, this figure is almost the same as the relief given to surtax payers, about which this Government boasted a short time ago. Let us try to help the ordinary person and not just the surtax payers.
I must ask the Government to examine the commodity market in London. I read the Adjournment debate on this with great interest. I do not think that this market has been thoroughly investigated. Even the governing body might welcome some discussions.
It seems that the Government were elected on a false prospectus. "Cheaper food for the housewife" was the cry, but what do the statistics show? The Observer speaks of an annual increase in prices of 23 per cent., while The Guardian says that the price of the goods in its basic shopping basket has increased by 25 per cent. in 12 months. The Hudders-field Daily Examiner last Friday reported
"This is the blackest year by far in the six year history of the Examiner's food price service—the biggest quarterly increase of 6·6 per cent., running at an annual increase of 26·4 per cent."
So we are in a fairly narrow band of annual increase. On the Government's own figures—they are October figures, and out of date—there has been an increase of 44·8 per cent. since 1970, which represents an annual increase of nearly 19 per cent. On the Government's figures, food prices are doubling every five years, but according to all the newspapers the prices of basic foodstuffs are doubling every four years.
I end, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon, with the comment that it is not the credibility or the safety of the Government that we are worried about. With food prices possibly doubling every four years, we are worried about our democracy.
6.41 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Peggy Fenner): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. David Stoddart) for having initiated this debate, even though I cannot congratulate him on the terms of his motion. We have had in this House many exchanges about food prices, and mini-debates at almost every Question Time, but this is the first occasion for some time on which we have been able to devote a larger debate to this subject. It is right that we should do so. Food prices are a matter which touch us all. I, as a housewife and a Minister, am doubly aware that this is the case, and I am, therefore, particularly glad to have the opportunity to reply to the various points which have been made this afternoon. If in the limited time I am unable to answer all the questions that have been raised I will write to hon. Members.
As the debate has shown, rising food prices concern hon. Members on both sides of the House. This is not something of which Opposition Members have a monopoly. It is sad that, as the motion shows only too well, they still fail to understand the realities of the situation.
The fact is that the world is facing an explosion of food commodity prices on a scale and to an extent unparalleled since the Korean war. We have seen two enormous countries which are normally able to satisfy their own cereal needs unexpectedly take off the market more than half the world's exportable surplus of wheat. We have seen countries which were formerly among our major suppliers of beef severely restrict their exports to meet their own growing demand—and we have spoken about rising living standards of producer countries and new buyers entering this world market in strength for the first time and increasing competition for the reduced supplies. We have seen crop failures for a number of tropical commodities such as dried fruit and cocoa, of which this country is among the world's largest single buyers. I have stood at the Box and said this often enough. We have seen changes in ocean currents decimate world fishmeal supplies, and the world's largest single exporter of another major source of protein—soya beans—ban all exports for a period earlier this year. We have seen increased competition for the

97
world's dwindling fish stocks result in considerably reduced landings.
This combination of natural disasters has struck in the short space of 18 months, at a time when there has been an unprecedented degree of movement in world exchange rates, often working against the £ sterling. The world food markets cannot survive shocks of this nature without showing signs of severe strain. These have inevitably been reflected in rising prices. In the last year world food commodity prices have risen by no less than 50 per cent. That is more than the rise over the whole of the previous 14 years. Hon. Gentlemen opposite when they were in Government had no experience of world inflationary pressures of this order, for while world food commodity prices have risen by no less than 77 per cent. in the three and a half years since we took office they went up by only 6 per cent. throughout the whole six years of the previous Labour Government.
There is no question of the Government having allowed food prices to increase. We in this country have to import half our food requirements, and we are, therefore, particularly vulnerable to external inflationary pressures. We have to pay the going rate on world markets or go without. Our experience over the last 18 months is by no means unique. Every major industrialised country in the world has suffered rising food prices of an order similar to our own. The most recent annual figures show that food prices in the United States have risen by 19 per cent., in Japan by 13 per cent. and in the nine countries of the European Economic Community by about 11 per cent. Those are the most recent annual figures. The adverse world food supply situation has hit rich and poor countries alike, States both large and small, and countries inside and outside the EEC equally. It is not a phenomenon peculiar to this country or to the Community, as some Opposition Members would like to think.
Mr. Jay rose—
Mrs. Fenner: I am coming on to Community points. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me the limited time I have.
As I expected, a number of hon. Members have again tried to suggest that the common agricultural policy of the EEC
98
is to blame for the sharp rise in our food prices. I will explain once more why this view is wholly mistaken. Because we were able to negotiate a gradual transition to EEC farm prices over five years there was no large increase to be faced immediately we joined. The first formal step for each of the main commodities has now been taken but, for most products, this has had no effect on United Kingdom prices. This is simply because the Community prices for the majority of foods, including such important items as cereals and beef, have been below world prices. We have, therefore, continued to pay the going market rate, just as we would have done had we remained outside the Community.
For only a few foods has this first transitional step meant a change in our prices. In the dairy products sector it has meant some increases in the price of skimmed milk powder, and some cheeses have also been affected, but the only other significant items for which prices have risen as a result of the changes to bring our market arrangements into line with those of the EEC are sugar, pig-meat products and corned beef.
But—and this is an important fact which many hon. Members choose to overlook—there have been benefits, too. My hon. Friend referred to butter, and we are able to buy certain grains from other member States more cheaply than we could have done as a non-member. The system of monetary compensation referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue) has moderated some of the effects of the floating of sterling, particularly for bacon and dairy products. The overall effect on food prices so far of our membership of the EEC is estimated at less than 1 per cent.
I want to deal with the point raised by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) about Commissioner George Thomson's statement. Mr. Thomson has been reported as saying that out of every 10p increase in food prices ½p was due to EEC entry. At the time Mr. Thomson made his statement the increase in the food index, since January 1973, was 10 per cent., and 5 per cent. of that increase is ½ per cent. on the food index. That is completely consistent with the Government's estimate that the effect is less than 1 per cent. this year.

99
In the longer term we have always made abundantly clear that membership will mean a gradual rise in some food prices, but the extent of the increase should not be exaggerated. The Government's assessment is and remains that the increase in retail food prices resulting from our adoption of EEC marketing and support arrangements will be about 2 per cent. a year over a period of about six years. This is equivalent to only about ½p in the £ each year on the cost of living as a whole.
The hon. Gentleman's motion suggests that
"many food items have been taxed through the imposition of tariffs…."
I know that Opposition Members are concerned about the effect of Community tariffs on the price of food here, but we really must face the facts. No tariffs on food items have yet been imposed or increased under the common external tariff as a result of EEC entry. I must take this opportunity to put the effect on food prices into perspective. Only about half our total food, feed and drink imports are subject to tariffs, and duties are actually payable on a very much smaller proportion. For a substantial part even of this section of our food imports there will be no change in the tariff when we take the first move towards the common customs tariff on 1st January. Ireland, Denmark and the other EFTA countries will continue to have duty-free entry, as will those developing Commonwealth States which provide many of our needs for tropical foods, such as coffee, cocoa, spices, bananas and oilseeds. Our tariffs against the Six, which are sending us an increasing proportion of our food imports, will of course continue to decline.
Even where there is a move to the CCT, the changes will not always be upwards. For a number of imported foods such as oilseeds and oilcakes and dried fruit the movement will be downwards. In other cases—the right hon. Member for Batter-sea, North referred to this point—such as tea, both tariffs are nil. In practice, therefore, the scope for price increases is limited to a few items like lamb and some canned fruits and fish, where the CCT is higher and where our supplies are obtained from developed countries.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mrs. Fenner: I cannot give way. I have only eight minutes left. This very limited price effect was fully taken into account in the Government's estimate to which I have already referred. It remains within 2 per cent. per year for six years. The part of this attributable to next January's move towards the CCT represents no more than between ¼ and ½ per cent. on the food index. That is only about one-tenth of 1 per cent. on the cost of living as a whole.
Mr. Jay: The hon. Lady mentioned tariffs, but does she deny that large import levies will be imposed on butter and cheese, and indeed that they are now in force, as a result of EEC entry?
Mrs. Fenner: As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston pointed out, the price of butter has gone down, so the right hon. Member for Battersea, North is on a weak wicket. I have already said that the price of some cheeses has increased, but this limited price increase has been fully taken into account in the 2 per cent. figure per year.
The hon. Gentleman's motion also calls for immediate and fundamental alterations in the common agricultural policy. He must know that the Commission has recently presented to the Council of Ministers a report which reviews the CAP, that a preliminary discussion on it is to be held, and that the subject is being discussed by the Council today.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture has made the Government's position very clear on this question, both in the House and in discussions in the Council of Ministers. We have said that, in accordance with the obligations which we incurred when joining the Community, we accept the basic principles on which the policy is founded. Nevertheless, like most other member States, we recognise that the CAP has not been successful in fully achieving all the objectives the Community set for it. We should like to see the CAP developed for a number of reasons. We should like to reduce inflationary pressures; to improve the use of resources and get a better balance between supply and demand; to reduce the cost of support; and to ease international trading difficulties.
The Government are far from complacent about the speed and degree to which

101
food prices have risen. We recognise all too clearly the difficulties that this situation presents for food manufacturers and retailers. This is why we have taken action, wherever possible, to mitigate their effects. I shall not repeat those matters since many of my hon. Friends have mentioned them in the debate today, but there are a number of ways in which we have sought to mitigate the effect of world food commodity prices.
Mr. Alfred Morris rose—
Mrs. Fenner: I must get on.
The hon. Member for Swindon referred to the Price Commission. A strict approach to prices is being maintained in stage three, which for prices began last month. The Price Commission is responsible for the implementation of those controls, and I should like to pay tribute to what it has achieved. The Commission estimated that in its first five months alone, as a result of its scrutiny of applications under the price code, it has saved consumers £320 million. The Government have taken action specifically tailored to the needs of the particular circumstances.
This is a merit which is conspicuously lacking in the Opposition's proposals, although the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. David Clark) suggested some subsidies. I repeat that Conservatives have no dogmatic ideology contained in a set constitution with various clauses. Indeed it is difficult to pin down what the Opposition propose because each time the Deputy Leader of the Opposition speaks on this subject the cost of the proposals seems to go up and the coverage shrinks.
He has, however, always failed to explain how his party would ensure that their proposed subsidies would be fully reflected in retail prices without comprehensive controls over food markets. Several of my hon. Friends have referred to the £1,600 million that would have been required to subsidise food prices at the same level as they were at this time last year. That figure is equivalent to 7p in the pound or 23 per cent. on the standard rate of income tax.
The world market situation must continue to be dependent on the overall balance of supply and demand. We have sought to ensure during our period of office an increase in agricultural production over the whole range of activity, although we appreciate the temporary difficulties of the specialised dairy farmer. This is why my right hon. Friend has brought forward the preliminary discussions in respect of the annual review. The Government will continue to maintain our strict controls over prices and charges and will be ready to take further action, wherever appropriate, to stabilise food prices.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) said that the Government were not taking a proper account of the future in terms of world food prices. I believe that our actions show that we recognise the true facts of the situation. Certainly the Opposition's motion does not recognise the true facts. Therefore, I accordingly ask the House to reject the motion.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 142, Noes 195.

Division No. 19.]

AYES

[6.58 p.m.

Abse, Leo

Dalyell, Tarn

Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Davidson, Arthur

Golding, John

Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Armstrong, Ernest

Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

Hamilton, William (File, W.)

Atkinson, Norman

Deakins, Eric

Hamling, William

Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)

Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

Hardy, Peter

Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

Doig, Peter

Harper, Joseph

Bidwell, Sydney

Dormand, J. D.

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Bishop, E. S.

Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

Booth, Albert

Driberg, Tom

Heffer, Eric S.

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Duffy, A. E. P.

Horam, John

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

Eadie, Alex

Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

Ewing, Harry

Huckfield, Leslie

Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

Faulds, Andrew

Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Clark, David (Colne Valley)

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

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

Cohen, Stanley

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Concannon, J. D.

Foot, Michael

Hunter, Adam

Cronin, John

Ford, Ben

Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Gilbert, Dr. John

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Spearing, Nigel

Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Stallard, A. W.

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

Moyle, Roland

Stoddart, David (Swindon)

Kaufman, Gerald

Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

Kerr, Russell

Oram, Bert

Strang, Gavin

Lamborn, Harry

Orbach, Maurice

Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

Latham, Arthur

Orme, Stanley

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

Lestor, Miss Joan

Oswald, Thomas

Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

Lomas, Kenneth

Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

Tuck, Raphael

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Pavitt, Laurie

Varley, Eric G.

McBride, Neil

Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

Wainwright, Edwin

McElhone, Frank

Pendry, Tom

Wallace, George

Mackenzie, Gregor

Perry, Ernest G.

Watkins, David

Mackie, John

Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Mackintosh, John P.

Prescott, John

Whitehead, Phillip

McNamara, J. Kevin

Radice, Giles

Whitlock, William

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

Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

Marks, Kenneth

Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

Marshall, Dr. Edmund

Roper, John

Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

Meacher, Michael

Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

Woof, Robert

Mendelson, John

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

Mikardo, Ian

Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton. N. E.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Millan, Bruce

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

Mr. James Wellbeloved and

Molloy, William

Silverman, Julius

Mr. Dennis Skinner

Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

NOES

Adley, Robert

Fookes, Miss Janet

Marten, Neil

Allason, James (Hamel Hempstead)

Fortescue, Tim

Maude, Angus

Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

Fowler, Norman

Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

Astor, John

Fry, Peter

Mawby, Ray

Atkins, Humphrey

Gardner, Edward

Maxwell-Hyslop. R. J.

Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

Gibson-Watt, David

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord

Goodhart, Philip

Mills, Peter (Torrington)

Batsford, Brian

Goodhew, Victor

Miscampbell, Norman

Bell, Ronald

Gower, Raymond

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

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Benyon, W.

Gray, Hamish

Moate, Roger

Berry, Hn. Anthony

Green, Alan

Monks, Mrs. Connie

Biffen, John

Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

Monro, Hector

Body, Richard

Grylls, Michael

Montgomery, Fergus

Boscawen, Hn. Robert

Gummer, J. Selwyn

More, Jasper

Bossom, Sir Clive

Gurden, Harold

Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

Bowden, Andrew

Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

Braine, Sir Bernard

Hall, Sir John (Wycombe)

Morrison, Charles

Bray, Ronald

Hannam, John (Exeter)

Mudd, David

Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

Onslow, Cranley

Bruce-Gardyne, J.

Haselhurst, Alan

Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

Bryan, Sir Paul

Havers, Sir Michael

Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Hawkins, Paul

Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

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

Hayhoe, Barney

Page, John (Harrow, W.)

Carlisle, Mark

Hicks, Robert

Parkinson, Cecil

Channon, Paul

Holland, Philip

Peel, Sir John

Chapman, Sydney

Hordern, Peter

Percival, Ian

Churchill, W. S.

Hornsby-Smith. Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

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

Cockeram, Eric

Jessel, Toby

Proudfoot, Wilfred

Coombs, Derek

Jopling, Michael

Raison, Timothy

Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick

Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

Cormack, Patrick

Kilfedder, James

Redmond, Robert

Critchley, Julian

King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

Crouch, David

King, Tom (Bridgwater)

Rees, Peter (Dover)

Crowder, F. P.

Kinsey, J. R.

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

Knox, David

Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Lamont, Norman

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid. Mal.-Gen. Jack

Lane, David

Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Dixon, Piers

Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'n C'Field)

Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas

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

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Drayson, Burnaby

Longden, Sir Gilbert

Rost, Peter

Dykes, Hugh

Loveridge, John

Russell, Sir Ronald

Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John

Luce, R. N.

Sainsbury, Timothy

Edwards. Nicholas (Pembroke)

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

MacArthur, Ian

Scott, Nicholas

Emery, Peter

McCrindle, R. A.

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

Eyre, Reginald

McLaren, Martin

Shelton, William (Clapham)

Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

McMaster, Stanley

Skeet, T. H. H.

Fidler, Michael

Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Maurlce (Farnham)

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

Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

McNair-Wilson, Michael

Soref, Harold

Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

Spence, John

Fletcher Cooke, Charles

Madel, David

Sproat, lain

104

105

Stainton, Keith

Tilney, Sir John

Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

Stanbrook, Ivor

Tugendhat, Christopher

Wiggin, Jerry

Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

Waddington, David

Winterton, Nicholas

Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

Walder, David (Clitheroe)

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Sutcliffe, John

Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

Tapsell, Peter

Walters, Dennis

Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

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

Ward, Dame Irene

Younger, Hn. George

Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

Warren, Kenneth

Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

Weatherill, Bernard

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Tebbit, Norman

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Mr. A. G. F. Hall-Davis and

Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

White, Roger (Gravesend)

Mr. Marcus Fox.

Thompson Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

Question accordingly negatived.

NEW PALACE YARD (LANDSCAPING)
7.8 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Reginald Eyre): I beg to move,
That this House approves the Sixth Report from the House of Commons (Services) Committee in the last Session of Parliament on the Landscaping of New Palace Yard (HC Paper No. 424).
My right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council has asked me to tender his apologies to the House for being unable to attend the debate.
The Services Committee recommended that the entire yard should be paved with a uniform surface of granite setts, the centre area being separated from the roadway by bollards. It also considered that cars should be excluded from parking in New Palace Yard.
The Committee did not favour the proposal for a Tudor-style fountain about 50 ft. high and costing about £100,000 on the site of the original medieval and Tudor fountains. However, it did recommend that the necessary water services should be incorporated beneath the surface of the yard so that, if the House wished, a fountain or a simple pool could be constructed to mark its historic position.
The arguments are summarised in the Committee's report, which also contains an illustration of the recommended solution. This has, of course, also received the support of the Royal Fine Art Commission, the Greater London Council and Westminster City Council. I commend the Committee's solution to the House. The House will agree with the Committee that it is right to align the two ramps to the car park on an east-west axis rather than on a north-south one, and to exclude cars from parking in the yard.
106
Generally, the keynote of the favoured solution is simplicity. I am sure that the Committee is right in rejecting the suggestion that we should spend a relatively large sum of money on erecting a mock Tudor fountain and leave open the possibility of marking the historic position of the original fountain with either a modern one or a simple pool. In the meantime, it would be possible, if the House accepts the recommendation before it, to mark this position in the pattern of the setts.
If part of the original superstructure had been retained it might have been a different story, but, as the House knows, the remains which were located and excavated were all part of the substructure and it would not be appropriate to incorporate them in a modern fountain. These remains are, of course, now in the safe custody of the Department of the Environment's Ancient Monuments Inspectorate. Much of the foundation material used in the substructure has proved to be of great archaeological interest, consisting of nearly half a richly carved twelfth century marble fountain, about 5 ft. high and 12 ft. across. This fountain is believed to have been brought from Old Palace merely as hard core when the fountain in New Palace Yard was erected, probably late in the fourteenth century.
Much of the marble has deteriorated, and I am told it would not be possible to set up the remains out of doors. Consideration is being given to a suitable indoor site where it can be displayed when its restoration is complete—perhaps in one of the rooms in the Jewel Tower opposite the Victoria Tower.
Work on the interpretation and publication of the New Palace Yard car park excavation proceeds steadily. The fountain is currently being cleaned in the Vincent Street carver's shop under the most careful supervision, and results are

107
awaited from the various specialist bodies who are assisting in the laboratory analysis of material recovered in the course of the environmental study. This latter study, while less spectacular than the discovery of the fountain, is of fundamental importance to our understanding not only of the immediate environmental context of the Palace but of the changing behaviour of the lower reaches of the River Thames as a whole.
The House will wish to know when the car park will be ready for use and how long after that it will take to complete the landscaping. About a year ago we thought that the car park would be finished around mid-February 1974. Unfortunately, there have been delays, including a nine-week strike at the works of the lift builders and about a month on account of archaeological work. We now expect the work to be finished by the end of the Easter Recess.
Landscaping of the type proposed by the Services Committee will take about four months, and if the present recommendation is approved this could be carried out between the beginning of March and the end of June 1974.
Mr. Tarn Dalyell: Will the hon. Gentleman make clear that the Government do not resent the fact that archaeology held back the work a little? May we have, in quantitative terms, precisely how many weeks of extra work arose because of the archaeology it involved?
Mr. Eyre: It would probably be difficult to quantify that precisely. When I mentioned the reasons for the delay, which all hon. Members will agree is moderate in all the circumstances, I was in no way complaining about the archaeological work. Like the hon. Gentleman, I regard it as being of great importance as well as of considerable interest.
The cost of landscaping is expected to be about £110,000, within a total revised estimate of £2·5 million for the car park as a whole.
7.15 p.m.
Mr. Douglas Houghton: We are grateful that the debate, which will probably not be a long one, is taking place at a reasonable hour. When the motion was put down in October it was
108
on an evening when it may have gone to 3 o'clock in the morning. That would not be the way to treat matters affecting the House of Commons. Had the debate on the car park come up at a reasonable hour on 30th July 1971 the House might have had a better opportunity to judge whether that project, and the expenditure incurred was justified in all the circumstances. I regard the proposal now before the House as a smaller moonbeam in the larger lunacy.
What we are now considering is to be the top of a car park which will go down five storeys, and accommodate 500 to 600 cars for Members of Parliament and staffs of the House. The policy of building a car park in the Palace of Westminster was surely open to the strongest question at the time it was debated, yet the Services Committee made a proposal to the House, which was accepted with very little discussion late at night, which I much regret. However, it would not be in order now to hold an inquest on the car park proposals, the delays involved, how much or how little use is to be made of it, or how terrible it will be that more and more cars shall be brought into the centre of London. Nor, without the leave of the oil-producing countries, can we now discuss how many cars will be brought into the centre of London. These are important factors connected with the main project, but the landscaping is the matter now before the House.
Anyone outside the House who reads the report of this debate will probably wonder what on earth the House of Commons is doing talking about this matter this week. People will wonder whether we have got our priorities wrong, or are indifferent to the problems now besetting the nation. Does not the gloom of this place impress us with the gravity of the fuel situation? People will wonder whether we have taken leave of our senses because we are debating this matter at this time. Nevertheless, these are important matters from our point of view and we must give attention to them.
Any matter connected with the Palace of Westminster has to do with history. Tonight, we are being asked to approve the laying of a foundation stone of another phase in the history of the Palace of Westminster, and that is important. Millions of people come to see the Palace

109
of Westminster. The numbers of visitors are increasing. We see them every day when we are working here. They are also here when we are away. Overseas visitors come to look at this place, which they perhaps regard as the most stable institution in the world. They look at what we are doing to it and consider whether it fulfils their dreams and expectations of what the British Parliament should look like, and they consider whether we have tastefully dealt with various matters affecting the place.
I am pleased to be one of the sponsors of the scheme for the Churchill statue in Parliament Square. That matter impressed upon those concerned with it how important it was to consider the placing of a statue, how it would look in relation to the environment, and whether it would dwarf other statues in the square. We also realised how important was its siting, in regard to how it would impress the public, and we also had to consider whether the statue had a fresh challenge which was not present in some of the earlier statues of Churchill.
Matters of this sort involve choice and judgment, which are important, because what we are doing will probably last a long time. The choice before us seems to be between a garden and a courtyard. Many hon. Members may ask, "Why not get in a landscape gardener? Let him have a go and see what he makes of it." Again, I stress that when we are dealing with matters connected with this place we have to take the best advice we can. It will be seen from the report of the Services Committee that extensive advice has been taken from those quarters which this House respects and will wish to follow.
I believe that the original idea was that there should be lawns, presumably with trees, and possibly flower beds. Anyhow, it was to be decorative. Probably in the centre of London and in Westminster, the more lawns and flowers there are the better it will look. Nevertheless, in dealing with New Palace Yard we are dealing with a very ancient courtyard. It is a yard and not a garden. I see that the Committee was advised that New Palace Yard has been a courtyard since records were kept of the environs of this palace. The advice that we are given now is that it should be simple and traditional and
110
should reflect something of the gravamen of the Palace of Westminster.
One eventuality against which we must guard is the abuse by hon. Members of this courtyard when the new car park is completed. We all know the temptations. Members come in late on a three-line Whip and the bells are ringing. They want to rush in, stop their cars, jump out, leave them to the police to put away or get them out of other people's way, and run. Then, when other Members wish to leave they find their way blocked. We know from experience what a shambles it has been sometimes, when cars have been parked in all sorts of inconvenient places cheek by jowl and the police have been unable to check people's behaviour.
When it comes to behaviour we are no better than other people. We all do as people do everywhere else. If there is an opportunity to put our cars in spaces which look convenient to us, even if they block someone else's room, we stick them there. Hon. Members cannot claim any virtue in the way that they have used the courtyard up till now. When the car park is completed I hope that discipline, in terms of the use of the New Palace Yard, will be very strict. I shall not be affected because I do not bring a car into the yard or to London at all. I hope that what is proposed will achieve that object.
We are fortunate in having an illustration attached to the report of the Services Committee. We do not often get illustrated reports from that Committee. We see from it that there will be bollards. I hope that they will be unobtrusive and will not make the yard look like a kind of bull ring. I hope, too, that they will indicate clearly the way round to pick up and put down passengers, and show that the area is not a part of the car park.
Hon. Members have asked me a number of questions, which I hope will be dealt with during the course of the debate. The Minister has just told us that it is proposed to lay on water in the middle of the courtyard in case, later on, we wish to erect a mock Tudor fountain, re-erect the old Tudor fountain or, for that matter, do something else. The idea is to have water laid on. Perhaps that is a useful precaution, although I do not think that many hon. Members will wish to see that.

111
The other question being asked is whether, if in the end we decide to grass over the yard, it will be possible to do so without a great deal of additional expense. In other words, will it be possible to lay it on to what will be there already? I ask the question only because none of us has yet seen the final effect. The granite setts in the middle of the yard may look a bit empty and severe when we see them day by day. It is difficult to tell what it will look like and whether it will be useful for pedestrians. It is a little difficult to know what the centre will do, except be there. If we could be allowed a change of mind at some future date without in-curing a lot of expense I think that that would be a comfort to hon. Members, who feel that the last word on this may not have been said, looking to the fairly long distant future. Alter all, these are matters of judgment and taste, and of what one sees in opportunities of this kind.
That is the only real suggestion that I have to make. I do not think that anyone could advise the House to go against the recommendations of the Services Committee, especially as it has taken such sage, qualified advice on what it should do with the top of the car park. I deplore the fact that we are having to put a top on the car park. Nevertheless, that matter is not before the House at the moment, so I shall not go into that any further.
7.27 p.m.
Mr. Roger Moate: We all welcome the fact that we are debating this matter at a civilised hour, but it is ironic that we should be allowed several hours for this debate when the original decision from which all this flows, that on the car park itself, was taken at a very late hour when few hon. Members realised or appreciated what was going on and when the decision was taken without much debate.
We are in something of a dilemma. I find these proposals quite unattractive, but I recognise that they flow from the original decision and that it is hard to upset the work done by the Services Committee and to delay matters even further.
I do not believe that the proposals do justice to what is an historic, important and very valuable site. They flow from the decision to spend £2·5 million on an
112
underground car park to cater for 500 cars—
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Outrageous.
Mr. Moate: I regard that as an example of unnecessary indulgence which is exceeded only by the decision taken by about one-third of the Members of this House to construct a new parliamentary building—
Mr. Cormack: That is even more outrageous.
Mr. Moate: Prior to that decision, New Palace Yard performed a useful economic purpose as a car park for 220 cars. No one will call the motor car, individually or collectively, a thing of beauty. Nevertheless, a crowded car park at that time, the bustle of cars, and the additional activity of cars coming in up to Division time represented part of the modern Westminster scene. It was a useful car park. It was alive. Now, by contrast, we intend to make it a waste space and by contrast it appears sterile—
Mr. Cormack: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Moate: I prefer not to. I am sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that my hon. Friend will be able to catch your eye in due course.
The question is "At what cost are we leaving this space waste?" From the cost of the construction of the new car park we know that the average cost of a parking space is £5,000 per car. The site originally was a car park for 220 cars. Now the intention is to leave i; sterile at a cost of about £1,100,000. I find that very hard to justify.
As for the proposed layout of New Palace Yard, the intention is not landscaping, which is something of a misnomer, but paving it with a uniform surface of granite setts, the centre area being separated from the roadway by bollards. It is about the most dull and unimaginative scheme that could possibly have been produced.
Could we not use New Palace Yard for something more functional, recognising the economic value of the site and its important position? I do not pretend to know the answer to this question, but I should

113
have preferred more exploration of this possibility by the Services Committee.
First, there is the possibility of more car parking space. The right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) referred to the problems that sometimes arise at Division times when cars are left parked in odd positions. The right hon. Gentleman called it an abuse. Another way of looking at it is the necessity to provide car-parking space for last-minute arrivals. In the nature of things, many hon. Members find it difficult to get here until the last minute. For example, they might have speaking engagements in their constituencies. Anyway, there could be a large influx of vehicles at any given moment Therefore, it seems sensible to make car parking provision for such emergencies for a limited number of vehicles. It may be that even Ministers' cars will need space to park. Also, taxis come in and out frequently, so there could be a build-up of vehicles. Therefore, there may be more need for car-parking provision within the scheme for New Palace Yard.
Is it not possible for the site to be used for exhibition purposes—for example, archaeological displays of items discovered in London, whether in Westminster or not?
I believe that the site will be left sterile, dead and unattractive, whereas we could use it much more imaginatively.
It may be that we cannot use the site for a functional purpose, but let us accept that we want to make it attractive. Are we satisfied that this proposal offers the best solution to beautifying the site? I are not satisfied that it does, and I should like the Committee to think again.
I believe that the report disposes of alternative possibilities far too easily. For example, it says that grass-and-water schemes are incompatible with the tradition of New Palace Yard. I find that hard to believe, particularly when we see on the next page a reference to the Tudor fountain and its medieval predecessors. Did they not have water flowing through them? Therefore, a traditional feature of New Palace Yard has been a water scheme. I do not know whether a fountain or water scheme is the right solution, but I think that the committee disposed of grass and water somewhat glibly. The report does not make impressive reading.
114
I was pleased to hear from my hon. Friend that arrangements are to be made to display the remains of the old fountain in the Jewel Tower, but I think that it would have been better to find a way to display it on or near the original site. It would be better if it could be put in one corner of New Palace Yard rather than in the Jewel Tower.
The idea of reconstructing a mock Tudor fountain at a cost of £150,000 struck me as faintly ridiculous. I was surprised that the Services Committee felt that it could dispose of the argument about the fountain by putting in an Aunt Sally like that so that it could be knocked down.
I turn to the suggestion of putting the stones in one corner of New Palace Yard. I wonder whether my hon. Friend could explain one phenomenon that has occurred there. In the corner nearest to the tunnel to the underground station a large number of small granite blocks appeared recently. I thought that they were part of the future display arrangement for the fountain. They were beautifully arranged in a fan shape. A few weeks later they were taken up and then put down again some weeks afterwards, but this time they were embedded in the ground. They looked very attractive. I should be interested to know what present and future purposes they might serve.
Mr. Robert Cooke: Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend. He saw a demonstration of what was intended. The stones were taken up because further works had to take place at that point. They were then put back again. I am glad that my hon. Friend saw them on both occasions.
Mr. Moate: I have seen them put back, but I have yet to learn what they are for.
I feel that the original decision was wrong. We are faced with a great dilemma to know how to proceed. We are creating a bad example to the general public regarding what we do with public funds. I regret that New Palace Yard will look the worse for what we propose. I wish that there were a chance for us to send the Committee back to reexamine the matter and to think again. If other hon. Members wish to pursue that line I will certainly join them.
7.35 p.m.
Mr. Phillip Whitehead: I follow the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) only in that I also believe that a wrong decision was taken—taken in the wrong way at the wrong time in parliamentary terms—to build the car park which we are now topping and tailing in the debate.
I must say, if I can do so and still remain within the rules of order, that this is a fatuous debate. It seems absurd at a time of national crisis—the greatest economic crisis in my lifetime—to debate whether we should spend £100,000 on an imitation Tudor fountain in the centre of New Palace Yard which has had to be reconstructed as a new shrine and citadel for the motor car which we shall not be using much longer because of the economic crisis.
We all have to render to our constituents some accounting for the time that we spend here and for what we say in our debates. I do not relish going back and telling my constituents this coming weekend that the House of Commons spent as much time debating the fountain in New Palace Yard as it did on the problem of prices earlier. We are told that Nero fiddled while Rome burned. He played his fiddle perhaps for the amusement of the populace. We are deciding in this debate whether and where to play our fountains.
I want to refer to the whole question of what is to be done with New Palace Yard and to comment on the recommendations by the Services Committee, but without taking them as seriously as did the hon. Member for Faversham.
New Palace Yard is not a great thing of beauty at the moment. I did not recognise the idyllic picture of taxis coming in and going out, of hon. Members coming back from speaking engagements in their constituencies, and the hub of the Commonwealth and Empire being reflected at five minutes to ten o'clock as hon. Members arrive in their carriages, and so on, to take part in debates.
New Palace Yard is somewhat unimpressive at the moment. But I agree with the hon. Member for Faversham that it provided space for 220 cars and that, even at the height of the works which have been going on, it has seemed fairly
116
easy for most hon. Members who came in cars to find parking spaces when space was very restricted. If one could not get into New Palace Yard, one could park by the House of Lords or across the road in Broad Sanctuary. It therefore seems absurd, looking ahead 10 or 20 years when fewer people will be using motor cars in the city centre, to spend £2½ million on a five-storey car park for 600 motor cars. The motor car is being forced into retreat in our cities, and our policies will have to reflect that situation. Therefore, it is the height of absurdity to spend that money here.
I have one suggestion to make to the Minister. We should use part of New Palace Yard for recreation. No sport, with the exception of chess, has been practised in the Palace of Westminster since Tudor times when the fountain was constructed. I believe that tennis balls dating from the reign of Henry VIII were found in the beams of Westminster Hall when it was reconstructed. Clearly the game of royal tennis was played in Westminster Hall, probably to the better health of those who frequented the Palace, until at least the end of Tudor times. I suggest that we should put two tennis courts in the middle of New Palace Yard. Hon. Members would then not need to go as the pensioners of Westminster School tennis courts down the road to which we are allowed access once a week. We should attempt to keep ourselves fit by playing tennis, for example, and discover that there are more things for which one's right arm can be used than in other places of recreation in this building.
A cobbled surface to New Palace Yard is no great thing. I think that we should put it to some use. Hon. Members would do a good deal better keeping fit playing tennis all the year round, as they could, for an insignificant amount of expenditure by the Government at this stage rather than having this curious landscaped effect that simply pretends at the end of the day that there is not an enormous car park beneath.
I should like to know whether any assessment has been made by the Government, in the light of the changed economic situation that we now face—our changed expectations of oil consumption over the next 10 to 30 years—about the use of motor cars by hon. Members.

117
How many hon. Members will be coming into the Palace of Westminster in motor cars in 10 to 30 years? Are the estimates on which the Government are now working those which were put before the House briefly and unsatisfactorily when the decision to build the car park was first taken?
I do not believe that this is a very good use of parliamentary time. I dissent from my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) at least in that. It does not seem to me that the time between seven and 10 o'clock at night should be used for this purpose. It seems the most absurd comment on current events since Louis XVI entered "Nothing" in his diary on the day of the storming of the Bastille.
7.40 p.m.
Mr. Robert Cooke: I am sorry that hon. Members object to this time of day being used to discuss this matter, but it is precisely because of pressure by hon. Members that it is being debated at this time. Many hon. Members are prepared to discuss this matter at a late hour, and had more of them been present, as on a previous occasion, the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) would not be quite so cross as he is because we have a car park.
Some of us view that question with mixed feelings. If at some future time we find that we do not want a car park it can be put to all kinds of other uses. To have that amount of available space close to the functional part of the Palace of Westminster may be extremely useful at some future time. I am not suggesting that people should be buried underground there, but there are all kinds of pieces of machinery and other things which serve us in the Palace and which take up space, and it would be very useful to hon. Members and others who work here if those things could be put underground. Let no one say that this large amount of usable space is a complete waste, although it has been a pretty costly undertaking.
To get on to the subject of the debate and what this report is about, I am sorry that some hon. Members have misunderstood it. I do not entirely blame them for that; it is written in somewhat bald language, as indeed all Select Committee
118
reports tend to be. As hon. Members know, if one wants a case put in an elegant fashion, one Member should do it. I forget how many members of the Services Committee there are, but there seem to be an awful lot of them when I attend, and when they have to have their say we get something like the Shell building—rather dull and not particularly explicit. That is what has happened to this report. I do not think that any member of the Services Committee will disagree with me or be cross with me for saying that.
It is because the report does not do full justice to what is possible within the various options that are open to us that I can perhaps help the House a little. The idea is to provide a fitting setting to the historic parts of the Palace of Westminster which adjoin the yard and, indeed, historic Whitehall as a whole. The entrance to Westminster Hall and the space leading to the base of the Clock Tower is an important part of the setting of the Palace of Westminster.
We have been given a certain amount of historical background. This has been a yard since the beginning of British history. It was, therefore, felt by the Committee, with all the advice that was offered to it, that the appearance of a yard should be preserved. The idea was to get the surface of this yard covered with something that was attractive to look at, permanent and useful. Hon. Members may have their ideas about what should have been used. I think that most people would agree that tarmac would be a little dull and prosaic.
Mr. Michael English: It used to be mud.
Mr. Cooke: I am sure that is a very helpful suggestion. If hon. Members on the Labour benches suggest that it should be returned to a muddy area, that is up to them. Granite is a permanent material and yet reasonably flexible if laid in the form proposed, because one can take up parts of it if one wants to plant something, and one can alter the surface without much difficulty. This form of surface is referred to in the report as granite setts; I have heard it called pavé, a French term, and I hope hon. Members will not object to that. It is proposed to be laid in fan shapes, running into each other. This answers the point raised by my hon.

119
Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate). If he had looked at the photograph with a magnifying glass—it is a badly reproduced photograph—he would have seen fan shaped groups of granite setts. If one looks closely at the photograph one can see this all over. I apologise for the photograph; it is not a good one, and it was reproduced badly. It was felt that that was a good way to carpet the whole of the available surface. By using the same material over the whole surface one gives a much greater idea of the spaciousness of the yard. It is not a very big yard, but it makes it look a good deal bigger and more impressive.
There is also the question of the differences of level. The yard is by no means a level place. It slopes in various directions. The use of an all-over carpet of granite seemed to be the most appropriate method. Those hon. Members who have studied the use of this material abroad will, I think, agree that it produces a usable and attractive surface.
Now I come to the small print in the report. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary indicated that a considerable number of options were open if we adopted the scheme as outlined in the report. It is possible to plant within the surface of the yard, in the central part which is surrounded by bollards in the photograph, a number of trees. These could be a kind of formal tree planting which one sees in town squares and cathedral squares on the Continent, an example of which we have near St. Paul's Cathedral—the use of lime trees trained to form a shaded walk round the centre of the square, or something of that kind. Many options are open here. It is perfectly easy by the use of such trees, to provide a shaded area in the middle of what might be a rather hot and dusty yard during the summer months. There is plenty of space for a considerable depth of soil in the centre of the yard. Hon. Members will see how the car park ramps have been constructed. Quite a number of schemes could be devised to hide them. As a result of to-day's debate, if there were strong enough feeling for the formalised use of trees there is no reason why they should not be planted when the yard is surfaced.
Mr. Sydney Chapman: Can my hon. Friend give
120
any indication of the cost of completely surfacing the yard with granite setts or pavé? I think that not only would it be better to have a variety of surfaces, like water, granite setts and grass, but it might be considerably less expensive than surfacing the area with these expensive imported granite setts.
Mr. Cooke: It is up to the Minister to answer that question. I hope he will consider my hon. Friend's suggestion. My hon. Friend and I are both devoted to the use of trees. My hon. Friend wants to see water and grass as well. I submit that it would be extremely difficult to keep grass looking decent in this locality. However, it might be worth trying, and I hope the Minister will address himself to that question.
As regards water, all options are open. The plumbing is to be put in, and that would not cost more than about £100 if I did it. If the Department does it, it will probably cost £500. All it needs is a drain pipe and a tap hidden beneath the surface, marking the site were the original fountain was, so that if we want a formal pool or something else at a later date, no expensive work will be required.
Hon. Members have referred to the Tudor fountain. It was a water feature in a sense, inasmuch as it had water inside it, but one could hardly see the water. The idea of the superstructure was to keep the tampering public away from the water lest it should become polluted. I think that hon. Members would like something a little more available than that, were we to go in for a water feature.
I should have liked to see one or two other versions or possible schemes included in the report, but we were told that there was not time, or that the only photograph available was this rather dreary one, which has come out rather poorly. It would have been possible to show what the yard would look like with formalised trees, and perhaps some grass in the middle, though I imagine the House would prefer to decide on something rather more durable.
There could certainly be some stone seats, permanently fixed, in the middle of the yard, shaded by trees, and this could make an area of considerable value to the House and those who serve us, and, for all I know, to the public as well. A

121
good deal more could be done to screen or obscure the ramps and the down slopes of the holes which the cars will have to use in gaining access to the car park.
I hope that I have said enough to show that the report could have done a good deal more to explain the options. But it is up to the House, with the report as a basis, to say what it wants. After all the fuss that has been made about having a debate at a businesslike time, in daylight, so to speak, it is rather depressing to find that hardly any hon. Members have turned up. But I hope that they will write in with their suggestions, and perhaps some illustrations, to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, who, I am sure, will be most receptive.
7.51 p.m.
Mr. John Pardoe: On both sides of the House there is a general feeling that we are shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. All of us who were Members at the time are to blame. Whether or not the decision was taken late at night, I accept my share of responsibility and I acknowledge at once that it is scandalous that the House of Commons accepted the provision of car parking spaces—between 500 and 600, at £4,000 to £5,000 a time—in the middle of London when we ought to have been discouraging people from bringing in their cars, and when, as we know, we should be the first to discourage others, apart from ourselves, from bringing in their cars. However, perhaps we can rescue something from this unhappy situation if we can get one or two decisions right today.
I come at once to the question of alternative uses. The hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) said that if, at some future date, the House had any ideas for alternative uses for the space beneath the courtyard, it would be perfectly possible to fill it up with old bits of machinery which might be got out of the way of other parts of the Palace of Westminster. I should like to know from the Minister whether the Government have any more far-seeing thoughts about alternative uses for the space underneath the courtyard.
If we, as a House, were to make the fundamental decision to go back on what we earlier decided, and frankly said we did not want the car park anyway, the temptation, I suppose, would be to fill it
122
in, but that would be rather expensive. Are there any alternative uses apart from simply filling it with old bits of machinery?
Mr. Robert Cooke: Accidentally, I hope, but perhaps deliberately, the hon. Gentleman is misrepresenting what I said. I did not go into the matter in detail, but I never suggested that it should be filled with old bits of machinery. The hon. Gentleman knows very well that there are masses of stuff—I say "stuff", and he knows what I mean—which gets in our way in this place and which could well be put in the underground space.
Mr. Pardoe: I was just coming to that. It will depend upon other decisions not yet reached, but it is possible that at some future date we shall build for ourselves an extremely luxurious palace, so to speak, with new offices. [An hon. Member: "Never".] It may well be that that will never happen. But I imagine that if we were faced today with the decision which we made about car parking spaces some time ago, most of us would say that if the money was to be spent at all it would be far better spent on building office space for Members to do a decent job in controlling the executive rather than on building car parks.
What studies has the Department done on genuine and valuable alternative uses for the space underneath the courtyard? Can the spaces be converted into working places? Are there uses which are now taking up space within the Palace which could be put into some of the floors beneath the surface of the yard? In other words, could we, for example, put underground offices in the car park? If there is no alternative use but the putting down there of bits of furniture and things that get in our way, that does not seem to me to be a particularly sensible use of the place.
I come now to the question of the yard itself. Where will the granite come from? I hope that we shall have a categorical assurance from the Government that it will come from quarries in the United Kingdom—preferably the granite quarry which has supplied the stone for the new London Bridge, that is, Hanter Gantick quarry in my constituency of North Cornwall. If the Government dare to place the order for granite away from Hanter

123
Gantick they will have some difficult questions to answer.
Mr. English: What about Scotland?
Mr. Pardoe: I am thinking of Cornish nationalism at the moment.
I come now to the question of trees. If we are to have a courtyard of this kind, the suggested use of trees seems very parsimonious. If we are to have them, we could have many more.
Next, what are the Government's ideas about the use of this courtyard not when the House is sitting but during the large part of the year—and especially during the tourist season in the summer—when the House is not using it? We are guilty of scandalous under-use of this building during the height of the tourist season. At the time of the Labour Government, I raised with the then Lord President the question whether we could use this place to a large extent—I do not mean the Chamber but Westminster Hall, some of the rooms in the House of Lords building, and so on—for a festival of Westminster.
What would the Government's attitude be, for instance, to using the courtyard during the Summer Recess for son et lumière, or as a sculpture park during the summer season? Would they tend to take the view that was taken by the then Lord President when I raised the matter, that it would somehow diminish the dignity of Parliament to use it for these purposes? I hope that we shall be given some idea about that. Obviously, it would not be in order for me to go into the general question now—
Mr. English: I was on the Services Committee at the time. It is unfair to say that it was a decision of the then Lord President. It was a collective decision of the Services Committee, and, as I recall it, a unanimous decision. It had nothing to do with the dignity of this place. We simply did not want to use it for a private profit-making commercial organisation.
Mr. Pardoe: I am much obliged. I accept that although the letter I received came from the Lord President it was not entirely his decision, but it represented the outcome of his discussions with the Services Committee. However, what I should like to know now is whether the
124
views of the House and the Government on the matter have changed. It is not a question of profit making. This place costs a great deal of money to run. The restaurants are highly subsidised. They could make a "bomb" if they were handled properly, and there is no reason why they should not be leased out to commercial concerns to manage in the summer, on a profit basis, perhaps, or, better still, be run by the Government's catering services or the House of Commons catering service.
Mr. Whitehead: I can understand the Liberal Party's concern with catering nowadays, but is the hon. Gentleman so pusillanimous in his outlook as to see us for the rest of time taking five months' holiday a year as a House of Commons? If we had one month's holiday and worked 11 months, as most other institutions do, he would not be prompted into these notions about what could be done during the recesses.
Mr. Pardoe: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not realise that I have signed the motion which calls for an entirely different approach to the working hours of the House. I entirely agree with him, and ever since I came to this place in 1966 I have advocated a change in working hours. But we are not debating that now. We are debating what should be done with the courtyard which we have, having in mind the likelihood that next summer we shall be in recess from the beginning of August to the middle of October. What I want to know from the Government is whether they would be prepared to allow this courtyard to be used, and would encourage it to be used, for the sort of purposes that I have mentioned.
8.0 p.m.
Mr. Sydney Chapman: I suppose that a cynic might say that the best point of this Sixth Report of the Select Committee is that it is short. It is for that reason that it is one of the few reports that I have read completely. It is a little unfair for my right hon. Friend the Lord President to be pilloried for arranging this short debate, which I understand need not go on until 10 o'clock anyway, when he was pilloried for putting on late at night the main debate on the question whether we

125
should have an underground car park. I should have thought that it reflects not on him but on us all if we now decide that we never wanted an underground car park in the first place, for we were responsible for letting the proposal go through.
I suppose there will be as many suggestions for what we should do to the surface of New Palace Yard as there are hon. Members. It was perhaps for that reason that we asked the Committee to advise how the surface should be treated. My initial reaction was one of disappointment—if I may dare to say so—that it tended to consider three possible methods of treatment as if only one of the three could be chosen. In other words, we would have to plump for a grassed area with a roadway around it, a reflecting pool and fountain, or a uniform surface of granite setts. I should have thought that there was at least a fourth possibility, which consisted of two or of all three of these things. I recommend that it should be a combination of all three and I shall briefly explain why.
We must consider the area as whole. There is no doubt that Parliament Square is a formal area, albeit in the main grassed. There is therefore a case for a more informal treatment of this large area. The question remains how should it be treated if it is to be treated more informally. In a sense, the area will be broken up because of the need for a vehicular way around the courtyard, which I understand and recognise cannot be provided in four straight lines with ramps going down. There is also a good case, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) admitted, for more trees to be provided, because in Parliament Square and New Palace Yard they soften the harshness of the surrounding buildings. I emphasise that aspect because we are concentrating on a national tree planting campaign this year.
I do not underestimate the importance of a pool area on a site such as this. The reflective qualities would be a great asset, since the site is surrounded on two sides by beautiful buildings which will be more beautiful when they are cleaned, as I hope they shortly will be. Therefore I ask the Services Committee to look closely at the possibility of providing a pool. It would be a waste of money to
126
spend £100,000 on recreating the Tudor fountain when the one provided would not be the original, but there might be a case for putting a more modest fountain in the pool. I agree with the decision to realign the two ramps on an east-west axis rather than on a north-south axis.
I would ask that the question of the granite setts be examined most carefully. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Idris Owen) has much more expert knowledge than I on the costs of materials and I hope he will agree with me that a conservative estimate of the cost of granite setts would be about £25 a square yard. That in itself is a reason for having the pool and a grassed area at least on part of the site. I cannot remember from where I got the information, but I was under the impression that the most suitable setts—and I hasten to add I do not agree with this—that the Services Committee considered would have to be imported. I am all "in favour of getting the best possible surface treatment but I should be grateful for any information that my hon. Friend the Minister can give on that point.
If there is a reason for having the underground car park other than for the provision of car parking space for hon. Members and staff, it is surely the environmental consideration that we should be clearing away the clutter and paraphernalia of vehicles which hitherto existed on the surface. I should therefore be very much in favour of prohibiting cars from parking on the surface—all the more so because we shall have spent £2½ million on the scheme. For that environmental reason I support the underground car park, although I agree it is too late not to support it. Once built, however, we should consider, as the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) suggested, opening the area to public access at least when the House is in recess. Surely it is not beyond the wit of the authorities to devise a system by which this could be done.
The hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) mentioned the possibility of the surface being used as a recreational area. I suggest that this should not be for the more formal communal games that he may be better associated with than I am, but certainly it could be a place where people might

127
sit, perhaps enjoying the view and talking. There are precious few places where that can be done in a civilised manner within the Palace of Westminster, even though it contains 1,100 rooms and two miles of corridor, and covers eight acres.
I hope, therefore, that ways of using this area, in addition to the obvious possibilities, will be gone into, and, with the greatest respect, I ask the Services Committee to look to the possibility of revising the surface treatment and including the pool in at least part of the area. I shall not vote against the report, at least at this stage, if these assurances can be given.
8.8 p.m.
Mr. Michael English: I had not intended to speak in this debate until I heard some extraordinary sentences uttered around me, begining with my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton). I agree with him in most things, except that this debate is not as important as he claimed. New Palace Yard has been in existence for a long time—from the beginning of history, I think someone said, or at least from the beginning of the recorded history of this Palace. It has been gravel; it has been mud; it has been covered and uncovered; people have put fountains in it and taken them away; and now beneath it is a car park. But I do not think it is the most important thing to have happened in the British Isles and I do not think it is as important as some of the crises which I suspect are developing around us.
We have had some extraordinary nonsense about the past history of the yard. The origin of the nonsense was the Committee itself, which says that it should be austere and covered in granite setts. One member of the Committee has said that he did not know what granite setts were until he joined in writing the report, when, presumably, someone told him.
It has been said that people were stopped from getting at the fountain. That was so with the Tudor fountain, but not with the mediaeval fountain. The fountain in mediaeval times provided so much water for the palace—this was in about 1440, I think—that the surplus was given away free to the citizens of Westminster.
128
Those citizens were very pleased, and lots of people used to walk in to get free water. Water in those days cost money. I suppose it still does as we pay a water rate.
In those days the yard was not a yard in the austere sense. It was a little place surrounded by buildings. There were pubs. I think somebody mentioned that there should now be a hamburger stall. Indeed, there were once shops which sold food. Free water was supplied to Westminster citizens. At one time Cromwell lived across the road. There were houses, shops and pubs. They called them ale houses but they were basically pubs. It was a busy little place. I do not know how the idea of austerity crept in. I am grateful to the Committee for one thing, I now know that the trees along one side of New Palace Yard are called catalpa trees. I never knew that before.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: It is the man who writes in Socialist Commentary.
Mr. English: We are told that the yard should be paved austerely with granite setts. I used to live in Rochdale, and I note that driving over granite setts has not been mentioned. I am not renowned amongst my colleagues as a great car driver. I remember distinctly taking a driving test and driving at a 40 degree angle on a road in Rochdale which was paved with granite setts. I did not pass my test. The granite setts will at least slow up the traffic. I hope that that is realised by the Committee.
There will be a little road round the yard. That has presumably been designed to slow up the people rushing in late at night. I also notice, having looked closely at the photograph, that there is a gap in the bollards. That makes it possible to park cars in the middle of the yard, despite what is said in the Committee's report. The photograph gives a demonstration of how that can be done.
As the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) implied, it would be ridiculous to spend such a large amount of money to provide parking for more than 500 cars underground, or whatever the figure is, and not to allow one car above the ground at ten o'clock when there is a Division. I sincerely hope that we shall

129
not be so daft as to say that if the underground car park is full no one can park on New Palace Yard. People have been doing that for centuries.
Our ancestors used to have Divisions later at night than we do now. The standard finishing time for the House was long after ten o'clock. The parking of vehicles on New Palace Yard goes back to the days when there were coaches pulled by horses. The days of coaching go back to the seventeenth century. Presumably before that there were sedan chairs. They go back to the sixteenth century. Presumably before that horses were brought to the yard and hitched up there. In those days they had not invented sedan chairs.
In so far as the yard is a yard, it is one of the busiest places in Westminster. I hope that we shall not make a meal and an incredible nonsense over this stage of the arrangements. We are talking now about austerity and granite setts. They will have to be set in little fan-shaped scollops. To think in austere terms might be to think of straight lines. Incidentally, straight lines would look very good. I suggest that somebody should consider the design of the granite setts before they are put down.
The long and short of it is that we are making a rather long-winded nonsense about the matter. Having said that, I shall sit down.
8.15 p.m.
Mr. Idris Owen: I rise not to delay the proceedings but to add a little weight. I cannot offer any more illumination on the subject than my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Sydney Chapman). I am in agreement with him. I, too, am distressed and disappointed with the solution being offered by such a body as the Fine Art Commission. I am distressed and disappointed that it should be so austere. Austerity in itself may be worthy, but in this instance I feel that we must complement the House of Commons with something much more attractive than just a paved yard.
I echo the views expressed on the Opposition benches about the public use of the place during times of recess and at weekends. It is terrible that we should claim exclusive right in this place and that no one else should have the use
130
of premises which the nation has had to pay for and which it will have to pay for.
I know that hindsight may be a wonderful thing, but I am appalled at the cost of the project. I understand that it will cost approximately £15 a car in interest charges alone, even if it is used for 52 weeks of the year and seven days a week. The cost of the project is frightening to contemplate.
I support my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth. He is a professional architect and planner. His advise to me has been sounder than the advice given by the Fine Art Commission. We should have more tree planting. We should have a floral background. We should have some water. I support the use of the pavings to a limited extent. I am frightened by what the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) has described. The question has been asked, "What is wrong with putting an occasional car on to New Palace Yard at Division times?". Once that practice had been established it would not be possible to stop it. Before long the paved yard would be covered with motor cars. That is something which we must try to avoid at all costs. Surely we have not considered expending such a vast amount of money to get rid of the modern paraphernalia of transport only to concede that there should be the parking of cars at some future date? If I owned the yard I should want to put a substantial restrictive covenant on its future use for motor car parking.
I should like to make the yard so attractive that it would be a great delight and pleasure to visitors to this country and the people of London. I should like to see them enjoy it to the full in times of recess and during weekends. They could not enjoy walking round an austere paved yard with just a few catalpa trees on the Bridge Street side.
I plead with the Minister to think in terms of making it a more attractive place in which to walk and sit. It should not be a place only for hon. Members to reflect and relax in but a place to give pleasure to the people who will have to pay for this expensive venture.
8.18 p.m.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Derby,

131
North (Mr. Whitehead), I hope that none of my constituents asks me what I was doing on the evening of Monday 10th December. I do not know how I would explain that I was solemnly discussing the landscape of New Palace Yard during a raging economic crisis and a major resources shortage. I do not know how that could be convincingly explained. I should prefer to see the House discussing the matter after ten o'clock.
The Committee is right to reject a replica Tudor fountain. That would have seemed a bit of a phoney. The Committee has not considered marking the position and outline of the Tudor fountain by the use of granite setts of a different colour. Such a scheme would relieve the unbroken tedium of the surface which is now proposed. Second, it would conform more closely to what we conceive to be the real historical situation than merely an unrelieved open yard. I refer to paragraph 5 of the report. Third, it would add to the few surviving indications of the mediaeval and post-mediæval palace. It would make it possible for Members, visitors and others to orientate themselves more effectively to the past situation. The needs of visitors might sensibly be taken into consideration.
Mr. Eyre: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would go back to the beginning of his remarks. I have noted the points which he has just made, but I understand that he was making a suggestion to add variety of some kind, which I missed.
Mr. Dalyell: I was suggesting the marking and the outlining of the position of the Tudor fountain by the use of granite setts of a different colour. Red granite or certain shades of grey granite could be used for that purpose. This idea at least deserves an answer and some consideration, if not tonight.
There is a point of concern to me. Why was the Committee told, according to paragraph 7 of the report, that
"none of the remains of the earlier fountains which have been excavated could be incorporated in a new 'Tudor' fountain"?
The impression given by the Minister in explaining the demolition and insisting that all was not lost was that the remains had been carefully taken down for
132
eventual preservation. On 7th March 1973, the morning when the Tudor fountain was being broken up by pneumatic drills, my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton)—who, we hope, is recovering in hospital—asked why it was being demolished. The Minister replied in words which every developer now doubtless cherishes. He said:
"The conduit is not being demolished. Its remains are being dismantled …".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th March 1973; Vol. 852, c. 122.]
What is the difference between "demolition" and "dismantling"? This is playing with the English language. I see the Under-Secretary of State chuckling, but I hope that he will get some explanation from his officials about what has happened. The answer certainly gave the impression that there was going to be some proper conservation of what was found.
An earlier fountain was subsequently found, described by the Minister as
"a splendid and highly important piece".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th March 1973; Vol. 853, c. 55.]
It is surely pertinent now to ask just what all this means. How much has been destroyed, how much dismantled? How much can be reconstructed, if it is reconstructed? If anything remains—it is a bit of an "if"—where is it going to be displayed? After all my hon. Friends have said about the use of the motor car in the future, one might surely find some tiny corner for a public display. What action is going to be taken on display?
In a sense, although I have asked innumerable questions about the fountain, it may be a bit of a side issue. The truth is that it understandably caught the imagination of both hon. Members and the Press, but the real point in criticism of the Department and the Minister, certainly for me, was the failure to bother even to establish the archaeological potential of New Palace Yard before its destruction by development. This was really a major blunder, and there has been no defence of the failure to take action. No excuse has been offered which gives satisfaction. It must remain water under the bridge now, but at least even at this point of time some specific questions are worth putting.

133
First, as a result of the New Palace Yard situation, what steps have been taken to draw up a detailed survey of the archaeological potential of the various areas of the palace and to lay down a code of practice to be followed in all disturbances of the soil in the palace precincts?
Secondly, what steps are being taken to make public the archaeological results of the rescue work in New Palace Yard? When will a report with detailed descriptions appear? In what form is it likely to be published?
Thirdly, what steps are being taken to arrange for the public display of the discoveries, and when and where will this take place?
Fourthly, it is rumoured that considerable timbers, preserved by the waterlogged conditions, were pulled up by the mechanical diggers in March and April, and that work was halted to allow for archaeological examination. How long was the delay? How much did it cost? What was achieved? What evidence has been recovered of the use of the New Palace Yard area in the late Saxon period? Can we be quite certain that the discoveries went right down to bedrock, because, if so, no serious dating can be given of the Saxon palace, which, certainly of the period, is one of the most remarkable monuments in the whole of England.
Finally, I ask about the cost of the archaeological element. It is said to have been about £20,000, and it is very much mixed up with the question of delay, about which I asked earlier. So, expressing a good deal of criticism—which should be answered—about the general attitude to archaeology, I express the hope that if we have other major archaeological sites excavated and new building, either in London or elsewhere, more attention will be paid than to Baynard's Castle and to our own doorstep. One of the gloomiest aspects of this whole story is that, whereas we in the Palace of Westminster should have been setting an example in archaeology to the rest of the country, on our own doorstep we have not distinguished ourselves—and that, frankly, is the fault of the Government.
8.26 p.m.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: I share the sense of embarrassment that we
134
are debating this matter at so early an hour. Although I quite understand the reasons which prompted the holding of the debate at 7 o'clock, it is a bit ironic to recall that we passed the car park scheme in the dead of night and that we had to struggle for months to get a three-hour debate about the parliamentary building, which was to cost £30 million, on a conservative estimate. That justified three hours. We are now being allowed to spend up to three hours in discussing expenditure of under £250,000 at a time when the nation is faced with grave problems, whether one calls them crises or otherwise. It is ludicrous and shameful, and I intend to exercise one little option tonight and call a Division, because we may as well justify our presence in some way. I am not happy about what is being proposed.
Mr. Sydney Chapman: I share my hon. Friend's sentiments about having the debate at this time of day. All of us do. But the point is that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House arranged the debate at this time because it was demanded of him on both sides of the House. In fairness to my right hon. Friend, I should point out that it is for that reason that the debate is being held tonight.
Mr. Cormack: My hon. Friend is entitled to his opinion. I am entitled to mine. I just do not feel that this hour is justified. I believe that we could have justified a full day's debate on the parliamentary building. I certainly think that the principle of the car park and the £3 million expenditure on it justified this sort of debate. I do not believe that the landscaping of New Palace Yard justifies it. I think that the select few who are sufficiently interested in architecture, archaeology and the rest, would have been here at 3 o'clock in the morning if necessary. We could have had the debate after the normal business of the day. However, let it pass.
What we are tonight commemorating in a sense is a monument to our folly in letting this car park suggestion go through. Although hon. Members have talked about it being £2½ million for 600 cars, that is not strictly true because 226 cars are provided for already. In fact, we are to spend about £2½ million on parking for about 300 cars. It is ludicrous.

135
I sincerely hope that much thought will be given to alternative uses of this space. Many things could be done with it. Taking up the suggestion of the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead), Congress for instance has underground gymnasia to keep members fit. Many things could be done with these five levels with proper air conditioning underground. I shall vote against the proposal partly for that reason. I want to register my protest and I hope that we shall think again, even at this late stage.
But if we cannot—and we must be realistic and expect that initially the cars will go in—what would be the best use for this space? I do not believe that the suggestion of the Services Committee is particularly imaginative or challenging. In fact, it is rather dull and dreary. I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Sydney Chapman) said, although we have frequently crossed swords on issues of this sort. We were on opposite sides during the parliamentary building fiasco. God preserve us from that coming to pass. If it does, we would need something to soften the impression of the gargantuan abortion which will be put up across the road. That indeed would be a monument to the folly of Parliament.
Let us use the space as imaginatively as possible. I entirely endorse the comment of the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) that it should be more accessible to the public. If we had a granite surround, with some grass and a pool in the centre, it would at least be a place of which Londoners would be proud and which people coming to the capital would be glad to see, when we are here and when we are not here. I do not see why we should totally isolate ourselves from the public. Whatever happens, not to have a focal point in the yard whether it be a pool or a statue, would be quite ridiculous. We could perhaps put Cromwell's statue there. It is standing outside under some dust sheets. It might be appropriate to have a statue of Cromwell in New Palace Yard.
My plea to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State is twofold. First, let us think carefully about the use of these five storeys of space. Let us consider whether a Members' bicycle shed and
136
room for 200 cars on the top of the yard would be adequate and see whether we can use the space underneath in a better way. If this is not possible, let us use much more imaginatively the space on top with some water and a bit of greenery, something which will help to complement what is by any standards one of the finest series of buildings in one of the most wonderful environments in the world.
8.32 p.m.
Mr. John Mackie: I, too, deprecate the time taken to debate this subject during this week. I think of the number of times when I have sat on these benches wishing, without success, to intervene in an important debate and here I am, with plenty of time, during a week of what can only be called crisis, debating this matter.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth, (Mr. Sydney Chapman) has defended his boss for choosing this subject for debate this week, and so perhaps we had better get on with it. If somebody had asked me even a couple of hours ago whether I had anything in common with the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate), politically anyway, I would have said, "Certainly not." However, I agree with his remarks, but I wish to go even further than he went in suggesting what we should do with the space.
One can see from the plan that basically it will be a wide open space. I cannot see that much skill is involved in landscaping it with a ring of bollards and a dozen lamp posts. Basically there is nothing else other than the vague pattern of granite setts to which the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) referred which we can see if we look closely enough. That seems to be all the landscaping there is. If my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. James Lamond), who was a provost of Aberdeen, were here, he would agree that Aberdeen granite setts would last many Parliaments if they were laid.
I should like to digress on the question of the fountain about which my hon. Friend he Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) spoke so knowledgeably. An underground pass for pedestrians was required under the main square in Sofia—a fairly busy traffic area. When the workmen started to dig they discovered

137
some very old Roman remains and, instead of dismantling or demolishing them, they incorporated them in the underground passage and made them into a museum. It was extraordinarily well done. If we had been clever enough to incorporate the fountain in the car park, it would have been a good thing.
Can we afford to make the area into open space? We have Parliament Square. We do not need more open space. We have trees on one side and closed railings on the other. Frankly the concept is a complete waste of money. The car park is there—we all agreed that it was a mistake. The decision slipped through late at night. It was a fait accompli. Someone said, "You must support it now".
If the estimate is £2½ million now, we can be certain that it will be £3 million when it is finished. But what return shall we get? Do we and the staff deserve this expensive perquisite? We have had 200 to 300 cars parked there for many years. My suggestion is that we should pay for the new car park. It is difficult to get parking in London. The other day I went to Glasgow for a day and a half, left my car in the Euston railway station car park and when I returned I had to pay £3·15. Nearly 50 per cent. of MPs use their parking space free. Why should it be free? One hon. Member left his car for months. What would that cost in a private car park?
Mr, Dennis Skinner: My hon. Friend is on an interesting point. I canvassed this idea some time ago. Would he be prepared to comment on the fact that although a majority of hon. Members use the car park, there are those like myself who do not in normal circumstances travel to the House by car. But as I sometimes travel as a passenger in somebody else's car, I should be prepared to pay, say, £1 a week. If the 630 MPs and 400-odd staff were involved in that exercise it could raise about £50,000 a year.
Mr. Mackie: My hon. Friend has put a good deal of my speech ahead of its time. I suggest that the area should be laid out again as a car park and that the parking spaces should be sold to MPs. We should charge fees for the top half, not at £1 a week but at £100 a year,
138
which is only £2 a week. That would still be much cheaper than the normal parking fee for Central London. The first storey of the underground car park could cost hon. Members about £80 a year, with a cheaper rate the lower one goes. No one should begrudge such payment.
There is much talk of the motor car being on its way out. That is wishful thinking. It will be with us for many years and used probably as much as today.
If we should find that we have extra space, let it to the public on the basis of so much a year, so much for six months. In that way one would avoid the expense of attendance and we should start to get some of the money back. Some people say that it will not affect them because they will be leaving this place at the end of this Parliament. Like the hon. Member for Faversham I like the bustle of people coming and going. It must have been much the same when carriages were used.
If this suggestion is not accepted I have to say that I rather liked the suggestion put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) about putting the space to some use. Tennis courts or some such thing would be my choice. It has been said that using the other storeys for other purposes had been considered. What uses were in mind? We realise that the car park was a mistake in the first place. Let us not make a second mistake and waste more money. Let us get something out of the open space.
8.41 p.m.
Mr. Eyre: This has been an interesting and wide-ranging debate. The right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) questioned the timing of the decision. Very fairly he acknowledged that this is a smaller decision following upon a larger one. I must remind my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) that it was made clear in the debate of 22nd December, 1972 that my Department is only the servant of the House in this matter. We accept our directions from the House collectively. I go back to the debate of December 1972 to point out that the general order of costs stems from the recommendations of the Services Committee.

139
It was emphasised in that debate that the Services Committee has all-party representation. Its decisions, which are important, receive considerable publicity and the decision referred to tonight went back to the Session 1967–68. It was endorsed by the House without a Division after a debate which began at 3.55 p.m. on 9th June, 1972, was continued at 11 p.m. on 13th June and ended at 12.34 a.m. on 14th June. If any hon. Member thinks that the car park was in the wrong place or that it was too costly or out of tune with current environmental concepts he ought to consider seriously what he was doing when that decision to go ahead was made on 14th June, 1972.
Mr. Robert Cooke: My hon. Friend will also concede that way back in 1967 this idea of an underground car park came from the Government of the day, from the Department and not from hon. Members. It would never have got anywhere if the Government had scotched it then.
Mr. Eyre: I note what my hon. Friend says. He has a great knowledge of the detail. We all have to admit that all hon. Members must collectively accept responsibility for the decision then made.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether New Palace Yard was to be a garden or a courtyard. He suggested that hon. Members must park their cars properly before Divisions. The placing of well-designed bollards round the driveway might be a practical help to that end.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked about the laying on of water to the site. There is a possibility that later generations may wish to erect a fountain and we are trying to be considerate of their interests. It occurred to my Department that hon. Members might decide to have a pool. We are trying, at a time when it is not expensive to do the preparatory work, to give the opportunity for that to be done. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the granite setts which are proposed will be comfortable to walk on. By their nature they are of substantial weight, as they have to be to provide a firm walkway. The decision is not irreversible. It could be changed by another Parliament should it so wish.
140
My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham also questioned the original decision and spoke of the necessity of avoiding a dull and unimaginative use of the courtyard. The open paving which is proposed would make the courtyard suitable for many uses. My hon. Friend suggested an archaeological exhibition, and the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) suggested a son et lumière demonstration. All these suggestions are worthy of consideration, and ultimately the decision will be taken by the Services Committee, the Select Committee of the House which is responsible for decisions about the use of the Palace of Westminster.
Mr. Dalyell: As the Liberal Party has put forward this fruitful suggestion of a son et lumière exhibition, may we have a son et lumière exhibition of the Liberal Party spokesman's policy statement about the dam across the Channel?
Mr. Eyre: That would be interesting, but not entirely relevant to the question of paving stones.
One difficulty about an archaeological exhibition is that it might cause a degree of confusion when hon. Members arriving late from a speaking engagement are rushing to take part in a Division. All these suggestions merit careful consideration by the Select Committee.
The hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) asked about the use of the courtyard for recreational purposes and he suggested that two tennis courts might be appropriate. We must bear in mind that a security aspect may be involved in such use. However, all these proposals merit consideration.
The hon. Gentleman went on to raise wide-ranging questions about the future use of motor cars. He will appreciate that I am in no position to answer those questions with authority, but probably the successful extraction of North Sea oil and the possible successful development of the electric car for private carriage would be a relevant consideration.
The hon. Member for Cornwall, North asked what would happen if the House reversed its earlier decision in regard to the use of these underground premises as a car park. To some extent the posing of the question is somewhat hypothetical. No studies have been undertaken, but I have

141
noted the hon. Gentleman's remarks on alternative use, including use in the recesses. I shall arrange for his suggestions to be examined by way of a report to the appropriate Select Committee. That reply also goes for the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack). We should consider all these matters in detail.
I come to the major question about landscaping proposals which the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) posed in his remarks. He asked why there should be a hard surface to the courtyard. The Committee recommended that New Palace Yard should be given a hard surface of granite setts. Should some small tree planting be required in addition, this would be technically possible, although some are of the opinion that this would be aesthetically and historically undesirable. There is a difference of opinion on this matter.
New Palace Yard has been an open courtyard as long as records go back. It was at one time twice as large as we see it today, and its wide expanse set off the great north end of Westminster Hall and was relieved only by an elaborate well head or fountain. The Royal Fine Art Commission holds the view that although New Palace Yard is smaller today than it was in times past, it is important to retain its noble scale and simplicity and that a yard with a common sloping surface consisting of setts, with its simplicity relieved by the catalpa trees, which we all regard with affection, would be an appropriate solution.
Mr. Cormack: There were some alarming reports about a year ago that the catalpa trees were dying or were likely to be killed off as a result of the excavations. Can my hon. Friend reassure the House on this point?
Mr. Eyre: I think the catalpa trees have a limited life. The trees we have at present are 80 or 90 years old. It is likely that they will come to the end of their life in 10 to 15 years' time.
Mr. Cormack: They have not been affected by the excavations?
Mr. Eyre: No, they have not been damaged or interfered with. I am sure that hon. Members will require us at a later stage to take every care to replace
142
the catalpa trees. I shall refer to that subject a little later.
Mr. Mackie: I have it on good authority that these catalpa trees require a lot of moisture and that this is the reason why they might be dying. Would it not be possible to see that they obtain artificial moisture?
Mr. Eyre: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point and I am sure that experts working in my Department will take note of that remark and try to do everything possible to preserve the catalpa trees. That is our intention. It is important to retain the noble scale and simplicity of the proposal so that we have a yard with a common sloping surface consisting of setts, its simplicity relieved by catalpa trees. That is believed to be an appropriate solution. Westminster City Council takes a similar view, and it has been suggested that to do otherwise presents a danger of producing a suburban solution to a problem on a monumental scale.
For that reason, it has been suggested that the breakdown of the surface by the use of water or grass would be inappropriate, and in that respect I was glad to have the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) who has given a great deal of time and effort to studying these problems. I thought that my hon. Friend admirably described the use of fan-shaped groups of concrete setts to provide a serviceable and attractive surface. I noted the advice of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) about the pattern of paving stones, though it was, to some extent, in conflict with the advice given by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West.
Mr. Robert Cooke: My hon. Friend will appreciate that what I was describing was produced by his Department in the photograph in the report. It was not my idea. It was his Department's idea, and a very good one, too.
Mr. Eyre: I was trying to say I was glad that my hon. Friend had noted that the Department's design was appropriate to the circumstances and pleasing to him. I confirm, as my hon. Friend said, that trees could be planted between the setts. I mention that because a number of hon. Members raised the point, and it is obviously a matter of concern.

143
I come back to the question of the cost of alternative schemes. This was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Sydney Chapman). My hon. Friend asked for a combination of all three features—grass, water and paving—and in his argument he was supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Idris Owen). I assure my hon. Friend that it is intended to prohibit parking in this area. His great fear was that cars would be allowed to park there.
Mr. Idris Owen: The hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) was concerned about that.
Mr. Eyre: My hon. Friend would disapprove of any proposal to allow parking in New Palace Yard. I assure my hon. Friend that it is intended to prohibit parking.
I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Handsworth that only the recommended treatment has been costed. It is likely that it would be rather less expensive in capital costs to cover the centre of the yard with grass, although that would involve an appreciable continuing expenditure. A water treatment would cost more, both in capital and in recurring terms. The reason is that it would need to be still water and the surface would require to be self-cleaning, as would the pool. If there is a still surface, apparently it must be a self-cleaning installation. That is expensive, and an adequately designed bronze lip or something of that sort to the pool would also be an expensive item.
Mr. Houghton: If the House wishes to be warned against the use of still water, I invite hon. Members to look at what visitors do with the water near the Old Jewel House. They throw in waste paper, they try to feed fish that are not there, and they do all sorts of funny things to the water. I am sure that using water would be risky.
Mr. Eyre: I share the right hon. Gentleman's view. I have seen empty cigarette packets floating in the water there, and the whole thing looks extremely unpleasant.
I come back to the principle of the surfacing of the yard. Granite setts are
144
not a cheap material, but New Palace Yard is a very special place where dignity, nobility of scale and great simplicity are appropriate. With respect to my hon. Friend, who I know has great experience in these matters, it is no place for an effect which might apply in a new town market place. New Palace Yard is already very small and break-up treatment would make it even smaller in appearance. What is sought is simplicity, dignity and spaciousness, and it is believed that this would be best achieved by the use of granite setts. There is not sufficient granite available in this country to provide all the granite setts that would be needed and we expect to find a continental source. I have noted the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Handsworth and other hon. Members on this score and I will certainly arrange that—
Mr. Cormack: My hon. Friend cannot seriously believe that from the quarries of Cornwall, Aberdeen and other areas we are unable to find enough granite to pave New Palace Yard.
Mr. Eyre: I am being perfectly frank with my hon. Friend and other hon. Members in telling them what I have been informed in this respect, but there will certainly be a check to see whether suitable supplies are available in this country.
Regarding trees and shrubs, paragraph 6 of the report notes the view of the Royal Fine Art Commission that the simplicity of the yard should be relieved by the catalpa trees. It should be borne in mind that there will be an opportunity in the future, when the catalpa trees have come to the end of their effective life, to reconsider what new planting will be required. That would be a good time for hon. Members to consider whether the replanting on the Westminster Bridge frontage should be extended to the Parliament Square frontage. Hon. Members often argue that the Parliament Square frontage would be improved by a row of catalpa trees. That would be more appropriate if the proposals being put to the House this evening are carried out.
Mr. Robert Cooke: Does my hon. Friend agree that if there were big trees all along that side it would not be possible to see into the yard, or to see half of the parliamentary buildings, from Parliament Square. Consideration should

145
be given to having small trees, set out in a formal fashion in a similar way to those outside St. Paul's Cathedral. Such a scheme would provide in two or three years a series of shaded areas which would be much more useful for hon. Members and for the public.
Mr. Eyre: I am grateful for that suggestion, which will be carefully considered. The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) suggested marking the position and outline of the former site of the Tudor fountain with coloured paving stones. We shall consider this interesting suggestion. My Department will prepare a report on that proposal and forward it for consideration to the appropriate services committee. The hon. Gentleman referred to the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton). I wish to pay tribute to the keenness with which the hon. Member for Brixton applied himself to the matter of the developments in New Palace Yard. He was always keenly interested and I am sorry that he cannot be with us this evening.
There was reference not to "demolish" but to "dismantle". The hon. Gentleman has an imaginative turn of mind in relation to words he uses on occasions, but I think he chose the word "demolished", whereas it was being dismantled with considerable care.
Mr. Houghton: Is not the difference between demolition and dismantling that demolition is breaking up and dismantling is taking to pieces?
Mr. Eyre: That must be so. Indeed, I understand that in the United States demolition contractors call themselves "wreckers". I think that that rather supports the right hon. Gentleman's view.
Mr. Dalyell: After the wreckers or demolition contractors finish, the point of substance is where these remains are now.
Mr. Eyre: I shall be coming to the further matters raised by the hon. Member for West Lothian in a moment.
The hon. Member for West Lothian asked what was the time spent on the archaeological work. The answer is that there were six weeks of intensive work on the fountain followed by a similar period
146
for environmental study. In addition there were several brief excavations at specific points. There was also a continuous monitoring of the work of the contractors as it progressed.
I am doing my best to answer the questions raised by the hon. Member for West Lothian. I intend to write to him giving further details after careful consideration of all his points. I am afraid that I cannot fairly and adequately answer them all tonight. However, I much appreciate his consistent interest in archaeological work and I realise what a serious interest he has in the subject.
Mr. Whitehead: Will the parts, fragments or shards of the fountain, which hon. Members were able to see before it was taken to pieces, be put together? The whole point about dismantling is that it can be "mantled".
Mr. Eyre: Yes, quite so.
Dealing with the background of the large-scale archaeological excavations and the reasons why the work on the car park was carried out in that way, the Department did not embark on the project without considering the archaeological and historical significance of the site. We consulted our Inspectorate of Ancient Monuments in September 1971 and we were advised that the results of a prior excavation would not justify the expense and the inconvenience to Members though it was desirable that the inspectorate should hold a watching brief throughout the period of construction. In view of that, we have had an inspector of ancient monuments and an assistant on the site continually since work began in July 1972. All the evidence found during the course of the work confirms that this was right and that we would not have been justified in ignoring the historical research and using the taxpayers' money in a large-scale preliminary diagram.
A thorough environmental study was made of the area which proved that the area of the yard had been a marsh until about 1066. This has been proved by both radio-carbon tests made by Harwell and pollen analyses made at Oxford. There was no question of a Saxon palace being sited in a morass. All the historical and documentary evidence points to it being situated close to Old Palace Yard.
Mr. Dalyell: Does all the carbon dating of timbers justify the assertion that everything found there is after 1066?
Mr. Eyre: It is difficult for me to reply to all the hon. Gentleman's technical questions. However, there is no note of any timber believed to be mediaeval being removed, though possibly remains of posts or of fencing of a later date may have survived. I shall be happy to send the hon. Gentleman all the information that I have about these points.
The hon. Member for West Lothian went on to suggest a code of practice. I can assure him that no digging takes place within the Palace of Westminster without full consultation with our professional advisers, and they have a very keen interest in these matters.
The hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie) and others asked specifically about the fountain. The first specific mention of a fountain or conduit-house in New Palace Yard is in 1399 when it was decorated for the coronation of Henry IV. It was later rebuilt in the middle of the fifteenth century and again in Tudor times. Incorporated in its foundations were the remains of about half of an elaborately decorated marble fountain of about the time of Richard I, thought to have stood originally in or near Old Palace Yard. It is the remains of this fountain that we want to exhibit, what is left of later fountains being too fragmentary and best illustrated with drawings and photographs.
I have already suggested that the site of the Great Fountain might be indicated in the pattern of setts to be laid in New Palace Yard. The hon. Member for West Lothian has suggested a way that that presentation might be improved.
This late twelfth century fountain had a central bowl, the plan of which was a flower of ten petals. The outside of the bowl was decorated with ten slender columns with deeply carved foliage capitals supporting a richly moulded rim. The bowl was placed above an encircling moulded balustrade and between the bowl and the balustrade a marble trough received the water flowing from the outlets in the bowl.
The essential thing for the disposal of the archaelogical finds is to find a site for exhibiting the remains of the twelfth century fountain where it can be protected
148
from the weather. Various possibilities occur, some long term and some short. It would be impracticable to reconstruct them in New Palace Yard; nor would this be entirely appropriate when the remains of the substructure were only used as hardcore there and properly belong to Old Palace Yard.
I have noted the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Enfield, East who asked whether the fountain could be exhibited in the car park. It might not be easily accessible down there, and there may be some other technical objection of which I would not be aware. I shall certainly ask for the hon. Gentleman's suggestion to be investigated to see whether there is a chance of the exhibition being put into the car park. The hon. Gentleman's point about charging for the use of the car park is, of course, a matter for the Services Committee.
Various possibilities occur for the exhibiting of these interesting finds. As I said, it would be impracticable to reconstruct them in New Palace Yard; nor would this be entirely appropriate as they properly belong to Old Palace Yard. Our experts will give this matter a good deal more thought before a final solution is reached, although the Jewel Tower opposite Victoria Tower may be the best interim solution.
Mr. Idris Owen: I get the impression from the Select Committee's Report that the Minister for Housing and Construction recommended the construction or the re-erection of the fountain. He appears now not to be particularly interested in that suggestion. Will my hon. Friend tell me why he has changed his mind?
Will he also spare a thought for those poor people who sit and stand outside the St. Stephen's entrance hour by hour in inclement and other weather—the excavations are now transferred up the ramp—and consider offering them some facilities whilst they wait to get into the Palace of Westminster when the pressure is great?
Mr. Eyre: It was thought to be inappropriate to erect a mock Tudor fountain on the site, first, because of cost and, secondly, because there were doubts whether it was the right thing to do.
Mr. Owen: It was the Minister's suggestion.
Mr. Eyre: Upon consideration of these matters certain objections arose, one of which was cost.
Would it be of great advantage to re-erect these archaelogical finds and to place them on this spot? I think that many hon. Members would have been interested if that had been a practical proposition. Unfortunately, the nature of the finds and the damage that has been done to them throughout history means that they are not suitable for exhibition in the open air. That is why we are now searching to find an appropriate place in which these exhibits can be shown in good style under cover.
Mr. English: To return to the point raised by the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Idris Owen), the Under-Secretary may be coming to it, but he has not so far mentioned the criticisms which have been made. One was about the timing of this debate, which is the responsibility of the Lord President of the Council. He has said about five times that he is not responsible for what is being put forward because the Services Committee has recommended it, but it so happens that the Chairman of the Services Committee is also the Lord President of the Council. It may be that he is ill and that we should express our condolences, but at some point we should be told why the right hon. Gentleman who should be moving this motion is not doing so.
Mr. Eyre: On the question of timing, I put it to the hon. Gentleman that, as has been said earlier in the debate, this item which we are discussing is the small completion of a much larger project which was decided by a resolution of the House. The work on the main car park is proceeding, and we are discussing the finishing item which governs access to the Palace by a very large number of Members and other people, and therefore the practical requirements of timing in that respect require the House to come to a decision now on that issue. That is why we are having this debate tonight and discussing this matter in detail.
Mr. Whitehead: In fact, it was I who first raised this matter. The point surely is why such a trivial matter should take up three hours of peak parliamentary time in a situation of such national gravity.
Mr. Eyre: It was at the request of hon. Members.
Mr. William Hamilton: Which hon. Members?
Mr. Eyre: Hon. Members have raised this matter and have asked that this subject should be discussed at a convenient hour and that proper time should be allowed for consideration and debate. It is a matter of some interest that so many Members have taken part in the debate. There has been an exchange of ideas and I think we have all benefited from that exchange.
Mr. Hamilton: Who are the hon. Members who expressed such tremendous interest in a three-hour debate on this trifling matter?
Mr. Eyre: The hon. Member is able to look back as well as anyone else over questions which have been raised during Business Questions in the House. He is normally very diligent in requiring that the House should be sensitive to these matters and should try to give time for discussion. Time having been allocated, that does not control the number of Members who take part in the debate, and a great number of Members have been interested. I have tried to reply to the points which have been raised.
We have had considerable discussion in detail of these matters tonight. A vital point was raised by the right hon. Member for Sowerby, whether New Palace Yard is to be a garden or a courtyard. For the reasons which I have advanced, concerned with simplicity, scale and dignity, I hope it will be thought more appropriate that the recommendation of the Select Committee should be accepted, bearing in mind that that would not preclude at a later stage the growing of trees to bring about some variation, or indeed another idea of a more profound nature, to answer the question posed by the right hon. Member for Sowerby. But tonight I should like to urge that we accept the recommendation of the Select Committee.
Mr. Moate: May I ask for my hon. Friend's assistance? He has courteously offered to consider many suggestions which have been put forward, but am I right in thinking that if the House approves this sixth report we shall be

151
proceeding with the recommendations of this report, including the overall covering of granite setts?
Mr. Eyre: Yes, that would be so, but I want to make clear to my hon. Friend that I have tried to demonstrate that within that major decision, which I believe to be right, there is still an opportunity for variation in other finer points
Question accordingly negatived.

NEW PALACE YARD (LANDSCAPING)
  ADJOURNMENT
  Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Gray.]

TEACHERS (LANARKSHIRE)
9.25 p.m.
Mr. John Smith: I applied for this debate because of the critical staffing shortage which exists in Lanarkshire schools, particularly secondary schools. The education authority calculates that there are 366 vacancies in the county's secondary schools and in a recent report by the Scottish Education Department—I think it was the Staffing Census Survey—the Department calculated that there was a
which have been raised in the course of the debate. I hope that will meet the wishes of hon. Members.
Question put,
That this House approves the Sixth Report from the House of Commons (Services) Committee in the last Session of Parliament on the Landscaping of New Palace Yard (HC Paper No. 424).
The House divided: Ayes 35, Noes 42.

Division No. 20.]

AYES

[9.20 p.m.

Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

Awdry, Daniel

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

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Benyon, W.

Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

Shelton, William (Clapham)

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Stanbrook, Ivor

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

Kilfedder, James

Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Kinsey, J. R.

Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

Crouch, David

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Waddington, David

English, Michael

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Ward, Dame Irene

Eyre, Reginald

McNair-Wilson, Michael

Weatherill, Bernard

Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

Monro, Hector

Gower, Raymond

Perry, Ernest G.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Gray, Hamish

Redmond, Robert

Mr. Robert Cooke and

Grylls, Michael

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Mr. Ray Mawby.

NOES

Austick, David

Golding, John

Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

Beith, A. J.

Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

Pardoe, John

Biffen, John

Hooson, Emlyn

Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

Braine, Sir Bernard

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Roper, John

Carmichael, Neil

Hunter, Adam

Skinner, Dennis

Chapman, Sydney

Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

McBride, Neil

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

Cohen, Stanley

Mackie, John

Torney, Tom

Concannon, J. D.

McNamara, J. Kevin

Walder, David (Clitheroe)

Dalyell, Tarn

Marshall, Dr. Edmund

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Doig, Peter

Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

Whitehead, Phillip

Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Duffy, A. E. P.

Mudd, David

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

Oswald, Thomas

Mr. Patrick Cormack and

Fookes, Miss Janet

Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

Mr. Roger Moate.

Fox, Marcus

deficiency of about 632 teachers in the new staffing ratio.
Obviously, this is a very serious situation. My colleagues from Lanarkshire constituencies and I have received repeated and increasing complaints from concerned parents, teachers and councillors. I am concerned, with my colleagues, principally about the situation in Lanarkshire, but what I have to say has application to the West of Scotland as a whole because there is a genera] shortage of secondary teachers in the whole area of the West of Scotland. Again, the survey brings that out clearly, and allows that there is a serious problem in the city of Glasgow and the county of Renfrew as well as in the county of Lanarkshire.
In my constituency there is an acute shortage in Calderhead High School, in Shotts, and a serious problem in Chryston High School. The problem also exists in many other parts of the county.
When considering this matter we should pay tribute to the devoted work of many of the teachers who are keeping schools going in very difficult conditions. Without their dedication and the extra effort which they unstintingly make, the problem would be indescribably worse. The community owes a great debt to them. They are working with a shortage of colleagues, and sometimes in difficult conditions. I often wonder whether the community realises just how difficult life is for them, and that when they do make; complaints they are often speaking in a non-exaggerated sense about their problems. The whole of Scotland is fortunate in the services it receives from the teaching profession.
I do not believe that teachers receive adequate financial rewards for their work. I want to make particular points, in a constructive effort to find a solution to the present problem. I do not believe that we shall get a general solution to the problem unless teaching becomes a much more attractive profession from the financial point of view. We have to bear in mind the salaries paid to other people who serve local authorities, and on any comparison with some of the other professions working in the local authority service, teachers come out fairly badly.
I do not think it is enough to say that the staffing position for the whole of Scotland is not too bad. I do not think that we shall solve the problem of mal-distribution until we have more teachers in total, as well as having better distribution. I hope that the community finds a way as soon as possible of adequately rewarding teachers and giving them a good career structure, because teaching is a well deserving profession.
1 understand that today the Under-Secretary of State had a meeting with the Lanarkshire education authority on the question of both staffing and the school building programme. I know that the local authority was looking forward to the meeting, in the hope that between the Government and the local authority some solution to the problems of the teacher shortage and school building would be found. I hope that the hon.
154
Gentleman will be able to give us a full report on the conclusions reached at the meeting. A lot was expected of it, and I hope that a lot has come from it.
In dealing with the problem of Lanarkshire—and as I have said, this may have some implication for other areas as well—I want to put forward certain suggestions for consideration by the Government. I hope that they will be taken as a constructive attempt to try to get to the root of the problem.
First, is it not time that the payment for teaching in a designated school should be raised from the present level of £200 a year to about £400 a year? The hon. Gentleman has kindly provided me with the latest information on designated posts in Lanarkshire. I understand that there are 1,427 secondary posts of a designated character and that the annual cost of providing these extra payments is £285,400. To double the payment, therefore, would cost roughly another £250.
I believe that the scheme of designated payments, although it has some drawbacks and might not be a good long-term solution to the problem, has in the past helped to solve the problem to some extent, but I doubt whether the present payment is high enough, and I do not think that £250,000 is very much in the context of the total education bill for the county. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow those local education authorities which wish to increase the payment to attract teachers both to the county generally and to certain areas within it to do so. As I understand it, local authorities cannot do so at the moment. I hope that the Government will consider releasing the restrictions upon them so that they may, by their own expenditure, offer more incentives to teachers coming to their areas.
Secondly, I hope that the Minister will consider making more provision for secondary school teacher training in the West of Scotland and the county of Lanark. At present, Lanarkshire has only one teacher training college, which is at Hamilton. It trains only primary teachers. Most teachers go to Jordan-hill or to Notre Dame Training College for secondary training. If facilities were extended in the West of Scotland it might be possible to attract more secondary

155
teachers. There appears to be some correlation between the existence of teacher training colleges and the attraction of teachers to an area. There is some hope that teachers might be attracted to schools where they are trained, particularly if they see the better side of the school from the teaching point of view. That is something which I know the county of Lanark is keen to pursue. I hope that the Government will follow up that constructive suggestion and will consider whether anything can be done in that regard. I hope that it will be possible for the Minister to consider introducing secondary teacher training facilities at Hamilton at a limited level during the next session. I do not know whether that is a practical possibility. I hope that he will consider that as a short-term measure to try to attract teachers to Lanarkshire.
I hope that on a long-term basis he will be willing to consider setting up an additional training college in the West of Scotland. We should not be complacent in thinking that we will produce a surplus of secondary teachers. As I have said before, we shall never solve the problem of distribution until we have a greater number of teachers.
I hope that the Minister will consider the possibility of an undermanning allowance for teachers who teach in areas where there is an acute shortage. I put that forward as an alternative or an addition to the designated scheme. The idea is to give some recompense to overworked and overstrained staffs in some schools. If their work was recognised in that way it might improve the general morale of the teaching profession, and particularly of those working in difficult conditions.
I hope that the Minister will consider setting up a special unit in his Department to liaise with the local authorities in obtaining a better geographical distribution of secondary teachers within Scotland. Edinburgh, Fife and Aberdeen, for example, are in a surplus situation, while Glasgow, Lanarkshire and Renfrewshire face a serious deficit situation. I hope that such a unit will be able to put more pressure on the well-staffed authorities not to recruit new teachers at the expense of other areas. I hope that
156
such a unit will encourage schemes to attract teachers, such as the provision of housing, where possible.
I know that a voluntary limitation is supposed to be imposed, but that needs to be strengthened as far as possible. I hope that the Minister will have something constructive to say about that. Some authorities, including Lanarkshire, have been constructive in being willing to provide housing for teachers. That is not possible for all authorities. I understand the difficulties facing Glasgow Corporation. That is a matter which might be developed.
Special recruitment schemes for mature students will, I hope, be reintroduced. There was a general theory at one time that while we had an acute shortage of teachers there was no need to continue the scheme. There is good reason for having such a scheme, as it provides another ladder of educational opportunity. If we get only a few extra teachers in that way, valuable teachers might be produced for some of the areas which are in need of extra staff. I hope that the Government will give further consideration to reintroducing such a scheme.
My concern has been to try to find some constructive solution to the problem as soon as possible, so that the new Strathclyde authority, which will include all the areas of serious shortage, will not begin life with an impossible burden. Everyone in the West of Scotland is anxious that the problem should be tackled as soon as possible, so that there is a real chance of obtaining educational opportunity in future.
Fortunately, the staffing situation is not as bad in primary schools. I understand from an answer which the Minister recently gave me that Lanarkshire is about 37 teachers short. None the less, there are still difficulties in this sector. For example, Gartcosh primary school, which has about 100 pupils and which is in my constituency, has, I understand, only one teacher—the headmaster—available at present. I hope that this problem, which has arisen particularly because of staff illness, will soon be resolved, but it serves to remind us in a dramatic way that it is too early to be complacent about primary teacher supply. Problems still arise in this sector of education.
When criticism is made of the shortage of teachers, the Scottish Education Department sometimes takes refuge in the staffing figures for Scotland as a whole But it is clear that there is a particular problem for certain areas which persists in the general pattern, and it requires; special attention. Basically, it will be solved only by treating those areas as educational priority areas and giving the local authorities new resources to tackle the problem. This means increasing their building allocation, giving them all sorts of new methods to attract teachers and a clear Government commitment that, so far as they can allocate expenditure, priority will be given to these educational areas. It is a denial of educational opportunity if we denude certain areas of the most important resource in education—the teachers who teach in the schools.
I am glad to know that Lanarkshire is about to start an ambitious new recruiting scheme, to which I am sure everyone will wish success. My concern is that the Government will back them to the hilt and will be receptive to new ideas and new measures, because they are urgently needed if the present very difficult situation is to be overcome. I hope that the Government will give some indication that their mind is open to any practical and constructive suggestion which will help to solve the very serious problem which affects my constituents and those of many of my hon. Friends.
9.43 p.m.
Mr. Richard Buchanan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. John Smith) for raising this important subject and I support his appeal to the Secretary of State to do the utmost in his power to increase the number of teachers coming into the profession. The constituency of my hon. Friend and my constituency are neighbouring ones. The problems in North Lanarkshire are similar to those in my constituency.
I wrote to the Director of Education for Glasgow about a particular school in my constituency and the reply which I received today states that
"It is undoubtedly true that Albert Secondary School is suffering from a shortage of teachers. … Because of the increase in secondary rolls resulting directly from the
158
raising of the school leaving age … Glasgow alone required over 400 secondary teachers…."
A calamitous shortage of 400 teachers, if it were evenly spread, could be borne. But the burden is not evenly spread. Some schools have a shortage of 26 teachers, but many schools have a shortage of 15 to 25 teachers.
There are areas of acute educational deprivation. Springburn is one of them. The redevelopment of Springburn has occasioned the knocking down of buildings and the shifting of people. Teachers, like everyone else, do not like working in a builder's yard. However, the pupil-teacher ratio which the Minister has given takes no account of the non-teaching posts in secondary schools or of teachers who are teaching minority subjects in the upper part of the secondary school and who may have very small classes. In 1964, the ratio was 16·4 to 1.
But even more important is the shortages in subjects. With the school I have in mind, parents are complaining that their children are getting between seven and 10 periods of French a week because in Glasgow they are short of technical, maths and science teachers. Regardless of whether a teacher may be qualified to teach a particular subject if he or she is in a school the headmaster has no alternative but to make use of him. We cannot blame the headmaster in that situation. But our progress as a nation can be no swifter than our progress in education. Any hope we might have for our nation to participate in world leadership, and any hope for real economic growth and the demands of citizenship in an era such as we now live in require the maximum development of every young man and woman.
The human mind is a fundamental resource. My criticism of the Government is that they have constantly minimised the problem facing us. It is only six months since I asked the Minister a Question on the teaching shortage, and accused him of complacency. All our accusations are bearing fruit. I added that on no previous occasion had the general indiscipline of society been such as to demand that we should not endanger the standard of education and conduct which teachers were trying to foster, by placing on them a burden which was completely intolerable.

159
As my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North said, that burden is becoming completely intolerable. The teachers' organisations are not among the most militant of organisations, but already they are talking about strikes. They are being organised for militant action—and who can blame the teachers? Many of them work in "blackboard jungles".
The raising of the school leaving age was an excellent idea, but the time was not right until we had adequate accommodation and enough teachers to carry out the job. What can we do? My hon. Friend proposed many ideas, which I shall not repeat, but one thing should be seriously considered, particularly in Glasgow and Lanarkshire, namely—as the teachers' organisations requested—that pupils should be allowed to leave school as soon as they reach their 16th birthday. These are the frustrated pupils who are causing trouble in the schools. They display a burning resentment and a desire for revenge on authority. Certain schools find it almost impossible to keep them in check. We hear of pupils being expelled and police brought in to certain schools—not in Springburn, I hasten to add—because of resentment that exists among some of these pupils.
I have written to the Minister about this problem. When I was a manager of a list D school it was possible to license a boy who had been sent to such a school if he behaved himself and could find a job. He came back to the school at night. I realise this is an impossible arrangement for a day school. But it should be possible, as an incentive to good behaviour, for pupils to be licensed at 16 or younger if they can find employment and can be taken into a junior college for further education or evening classes. But for the teachers there is only one solution—pay them decent salaries and provide good conditions of service. I called for that in my first speech in 1964. They are one of the most exploited professions in the kingdom.
There should be a parliamentary inquiry into the teaching profession. We need to take a close look at non-teaching jobs. I am all in favour of promotion—of having a lot of chiefs and few Indians. The promotional structure for teachers
160
was abysmal. The creation of these posts has given the teachers incentives and a career structure. We are now appointing advisers in education. The benefit of an adviser is that he sees the whole picture. But when we hear about education authorities appointing assistant advisers it is time that we took notice. It has to be a very important post to justify taking a teacher away from the classroom.
I ask the Minister to set up a committee of inquiry to look at the teaching profession in Scotland. My hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North has said that we should give teachers the rewards they deserve. I agree. If we do so we shall see a tremendous increase in recruitment and dedication, in a truly dedicated profession.
9.52 p.m.
Mr. James Hamilton: I associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. John Smith). We both represent Lanarkshire constituencies and with that in mind I intend to follow his lead.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Buchanan) has introduced the Glasgow situation. It is not dissimilar from that prevailing in Lanarkshire. He rightly mentioned that teachers desire promotion. This is not something new, because there are ambitious people in all professions. The only way they can further their careers is through promotion. In some cases there are inter-changes between Glasgow and Lanarkshire for promotion purposes. This means that when a teacher leaves Lanarkshire for promotion in Glasgow and vice versa there is a diminution in the number of teachers in one of these areas.
I do not subscribe to the view that we do not have a shortage of primary teachers. The other week I visited four primary schools in my constituency. I did not select them for any particular reason. I found that two were short of teachers. This is partly because many young people are entering the profession, but the women then get married and leave the profession, often permanently. There is therefore a constant wastage. The teachers' organisations

161
have consistently said that there should be classes of 30. In many instances in Lanarkshire we have classes of 37 and in one instance, at New Stevenston in my constituency, there is a class of 38.
If we are to encourage people into the profession it is of paramount importance that we take careful note of the salaries paid. We have to consider the sacrifices made by these young people. When they enter the profession they get £1,300. That seems a handsome figure but after taxation it can come down to less than £20 a week to take home. I can talk with some authority on this because two of my daughters are in the profession. How can we expect young teachers to begin married life in a proper fashion and to build up a home of their own on this wage? It is impossible for a person earning that salary to get together the deposit required for purchasing a home, let alone to pay the mortgage.
Local authorities have power to provide houses for young married teachers, and Lanarkshire does a remarkable job here. I ask the Government to encourage local authorities to provide a selection of houses for teachers instead of just in the areas in which they work.
We in opposition have had much to say about the Strathclyde region. With the serious shortage of secondary teachers in Lanarkshire, Glasgow and Renfrewshire, I do not know how the new Strathclyde authority will solve the problem.
The Minister will, no doubt, refer to the raising of the school leaving age. My hon. Friend the Member for Springburn is consistent in his criticism, but I remind him that the raising of the school leaving age was first suggested in 1946 and the Labour Government said that they would implement it. To be fair to the present Government, it is they who have introduced it. We had difficulties in schools before the raising of the school leaving age and we should not allow ourselves to be side-tracked by that.
In my constituency there are three junior secondary schools and money has been allocated for a new comprehensive school. Unfortunately, possibly because of the brake that has been put on public expenditure by the Government, no conclusion has yet been reached. We are having to wait a long time for the decision. We have three schools for part-
162
time education and in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) the high school is bursting at the seams and many children are not getting an adequate education.
We have a serious shortage of technical teachers and of mathematics and science teachers. There is also a shortage of physical education teachers. There has been a cut-back in the number of students admitted to Cramond College. Many primary school teachers are transferring to Cramond College to take an extra year's training to become secondary and physical education teachers. If we could take such a step in Lanarkshire, there is a possibility that our problem could be solved in a short time. This is a serious point and I hope that the Minister will take due note of it.
It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Gray.]
Mr. James Hamilton: The Educational Institute of Scotland, a leading organisation representing teachers, put forward a reasonable suggestion that there should be a working party on teachers' conditions. Many of these matters have been set out in a memorandum and I do not agree with some of the points which it contains. We have some good schools in Lanarkshire, some of which are newly built, but because of Government policy many of these newly-constructed schools have proved to be far too small. Within a matter of months, additions to these school premises have proved to be necessary. This is another aspect of the matter which I hope the Minister will consider.
I wish also to mention the fact that the Senior Secondary Teachers' Association is to carry out a strike ballot. If that ballot goes in the direction the association thinks, there will be a teachers' strike in Scotland. This will raise a very serious situation.
The Scottish Schoolmasters' Association suggested that a Royal Commission should be set up to consider this whole matter. I am all in favour of such a commission, but such bodies take a long time to arrive at their conclusions. It

163
takes even longer for those conclusions to bear fruit and to be implemented. A Royal Commission is more a matter for the long term. Many of my hon. Friends and I are most concerned that this problem should be resolved as quickly as possible.
I appreciate that the Minister today met colleagues from the Lanarkshire County Council on two matters—the serious shortage of teachers and the question of school building. The local authorities are now producing a brochure on the delights of Lanarkshire, which is a wonderful county. We must project Lanarkshire's image because many people want to visit the county. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will be able to say that his meeting with the local authorities was fruitful. My constituency covers a wide catchment area, but I hope that in regard to Bellshill School the Minister will be able to give me news which will bring a great deal of relief to the people in my constituency and in the catchment area to which I have referred.
10.4 p.m.
Mr. Neil Carmichael: I hope that the Minister will allow me to say just a few words on this subject, and I promise him that I shall be brief. Because of the curtailment of the last debate the Minister has been given an opportunity to take a little more time to answer some of our points than perhaps is usually the case.
It is reasonable that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Buchanan) and I should take part in this debate since this subject is common to Glasgow, Lanarkshire, Renfrewshire and Dunbartonshire. I have already pointed out in the Scottish Grand Committee that a number of buses leave my constituency every morning to take teachers to Dumbarton. Therefore, when I speak about the general teacher shortage, I am speaking of the shortage in the whole of the area of western Scotland. It is not an exaggeration to say that the situation is fairly desperate and we hope that the Minister will have much more up-to-date information than we have and will be able to allay some of our worries.
As a result of talking to the teaching bodies and those who have approached us on the matter, we gather that the
164
whole situation is ready to boil over. The SSTA is holding a ballot on the possibility of a strike, and the EIS is accepting the fact that there will probably be a strike in Glasgow on, I think, 22nd January. Whether we agree with what they are doing, the fact remains that these are responsible people who have reached the point of exasperation.
The EIS has published, as a separate page in its journal, the five points which it considers should be dealt with, and staffs have been asked to display this on notice boards. The list covers such things as conditions for staff, the number of pupils per teacher, working conditions generally, and so on. The EIS has said that if any of these conditions is not met the staff will have its full backing in refusing to continue working. The situation is serious, and I am sure that the Minister is aware of it. That being so, I hope that he will tonight give us some helpful answers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North made a point about the special recruitment scheme. We should like to know how many are being recruited through this scheme. The need is to gain more teachers and to provide another means of obtaining professional and academic qualifications. I hope that the Minister will tell us how many people have been recruited, and for how long the scheme is likely to run.
Reference was made to young people leaving school on their sixteenth birthday. I should like to hear both points of view. This is not something that can be ignored. Whether pupils can in some way be licensed when they reach the age of 16 to enable them to go to work is an important matter.
Almost every authority in the West of Scotland, and in other parts, too, is concerned about the inadequacy of school buildings, and I know that the architects are unhappy about the amount of money that they are allowed to spend per square foot in these days of rapidly escalating prices.
I was appalled when visiting an almost brand new school in my constituency—it is probably only a year old—to see the staff conditions for teachers. I found that about 80 teachers are required to share one large room. We must consider the whole question of the status of teachers and give them something that we

165
have only now begun to enjoy in the House of Commons, and that is a little individuality. We must provide for two or perhaps three teachers to share a room. That is perhaps asking for the moon, but we should consider giving teachers the minimum professional equipment to enable them to carry out their work.
I ask the Minister to study carefully what all the teachers' organisations in Scotland are saying, namely, that it is necessary to take a completely fresh look at things. A committee of inquiry, a parliamentary inquiry, a working party, or even a Royal Commission on teachers' conditions should be put in hand. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton) that a Royal Commission should be considering the matter, but I believe that something more fundamental should be done. Even if the Government think that a Royal Commission is necessary, they should provide for an interim inquiry.
I am sure that we are all indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North for raising this debate. I hope that the Minister will seriously consider the various matters that have been raised. When we come back after the recess there may be a case not just for an adjournment debate but for a full day's discussion of the various issues involved. Unless we receive some reasonable and helpful answers from the Minister tonight the situation may develop in such a way that it will be necessary to debate the whole question of a teacher shortage in an atmosphere of genuine crisis.
10.10 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office (Mr. Hector Monro): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. John Smith), to his hon. Friends the Members for Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton) and Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Buchanan) and to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Wood-side (Mr. Carmichael) from the Opposition Front Bench for speaking on this very important topic. Before discussing the main points which the hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North made about secondary staffing I want briefly to refer to the primary situation and, although the hon. Member for Springburn spoke basically about Glasgow, most of the weight in my replies will of course relate to Lanarkshire, which is the basis of the debate.
166
Nationally the supply of primary teachers went up by about 900 last year and nearly all education authorities are well on the way to the improved standards set for 1975–76. These are a pupil-teacher ratio of 25:1 and a maximum class average of 30. Next summer we estimate that there will be a further net addition of 1,000 teachers for primary schools. Lanarkshire shows a steady improvement and shortages are not widespread. The existing staff is 2,935 and reported shortages are 37. That is about 1 per cent. of the complement of primary teachers
The prospects for the Lanarkshire education authority are good If we look at the graph of the pupil-teacher ratio in recent years we see that in 1969 it was 36·5, in 1971, 32·6, and in 1973, 28·6. It shows a steady improvement in primary education and it is significant. This has to be compared with the neighbouring authorities of Glasgow with 29·5, Renfrew with 26·8 and, significantly, Dumbarton with 21. That shows what can be achieved with the real determination that the Dumbarton education authority have shown. The overall average in Scotland was 24·6. Lanarkshire is likely to get a reasonable share of the additional supply next summer.
Dealing still with primary education, the hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North asked about Gartcosh primary school. I was awakened at 7.30 this morning to hear it mentioned on BBC radio. The position is not quite so serious as the hon. Gentleman suggests. This is perhaps welcome news. The latest information about the position which I received this morning from the education authority indicates that the head teacher has always had the assistance of one full-time teacher and that from today another teacher will be working in the mornings. A further appointment has been made and the teacher will take up the post in the New Year. After Christmas the situation should be substantially better than it is today. In addition the authority has hopes of getting temporary relief from another school. These changes should materially improve the position, which was serious when it was down to the head teacher and one assistant. I hope that the measure of part-time education which the education authority introduced recently will soon be discontinued.

167
There are two other primary schools in Lanarkshire on part-time education. They are St. Michael's at Moodiesburn and Chapelside at Airdrie. At each school two classes are losing about half a day a week. We must keep part-time education in perspective. Some parents may feel that there is a massive discontinuance of education, but frequently it is just a matter of hours or a half day a week.
Mr. John Smith: Has the hon. Gentleman similar good news about St. Michael's at Moodiesburn as he has just been able to give about Gartcosh primary school?
Mr. Monro: I have not today got encouraging information about Moodiesburn, but I hope that the situation will improve after Christmas. There are staff shortages in primary schools, but the real problem in at least one school is due to illness among teachers.
I want to turn to the secondary school situation which is the major burden of the debate tonight. I should like first to describe the national position, because it is right to put the Lanarkshire situation in the national context.
In the first place, there are more secondary teachers than ever before. In recent years the increase has been startling—from 20,900 in 1971 to 24,200 in September 1973. That is an increase of 3,300 teachers or 15·7 per cent. This figure has to be set against an increase in secondary school pupils of 14·7 per cent. In short, the teacher position has more than matched the effects of RSLA growth, and on a national basis the schools are better supplied than they were two years ago.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Spring-burn brought out the point about the RSLA. We must keep in mind the point he raised about its introduction; namely, that by and large—I say "by and large" in a broad sense—"roofs over heads" for the RSLA are well on the way to completion, if not already completed. The great pressure for secondary school building is more for improvement than "roofs over heads". I shall deal more with school building in Lanarkshire, if there is time, because that was a subject about which we talked earlier. That is the general national indication.
In Lanarkshire for the last two years the number of pupils has increased by
168
17·1 per cent. against an increase of 13·5 per cent. in its teaching force. The disparity is more marked in the Roman Catholic schools, where the number of pupils has increased by 17·6 per cent., but staff by only 10·7 per cent. This is the great concern of maldistribution. As I said, the overall Scottish picture in national figures is not unreasonable, but in areas of Lanarkshire, Glasgow and Renfrewshire the situation is more difficult in numbers, subjects and denominations, because the Catholic situation is so serious. All three authorities that I have mentioned have increased their staffs considerably, but they started from a much lower base. That is why the net position in Lanarkshire is so serious. The current pupil-teacher ratio in Lanarkshire is 19·8 to 1, which I accept is the worst in Scotland. This compares with a ratio of 19·2 to 1 in 1971. I should make it clear that the present position is better than it was previously when, as recently as 1969, the pupil-teacher ratio was 20·9 to 1.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn suggested that I might take refuge in the figures. I shall not. But we must have some form of yardstick. That is why it is necessary to explain what "shortage" means. There are at present no objective commonly accepted standards by which to measure the staffing position in any authority, each at the moment having its own standard. My Department published in March a report, "Secondary School Staffing", which sets out standards which could be used by all authorities. We are still consulting interested bodies, but the proposals have generally received a favourable welcome. They offer a means of determining objectively the staffing complement appropriate for this or that type of school, according to its size. These standards are not proposed to be general for some years yet, but applying them today to the Lanarkshire schools, the shortage in the county is 630 teachers, as the hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North said. This is a very high figure, and I should emphasise that it is related to standards not yet adopted and not yet due for achievement. Indeed, on Lanarkshire's own standards the current deficiency is about 350.
There will be a marginal improvement in January when, following Christmas,

169
about 2,000 pupils leave the schools in Lanarkshire. This will help, but there will still be difficulties. At the same time, it is a notable fact that only four secondary schools in the county are having to provide part-time education and the pupils affected are losing not more than three hours per week.
I join in paying tribute to the teachers who are coping so well in these difficult circumstances. I should like to give my share of praise to them. I hope, following what I still have to say, that they will think very carefully before they take any damaging action towards the end of next month.
This morning I was very willing to meet the authority to discuss its problems and ways of reducing them. It was a pure coincidence that it occurred this morning. It was arranged a long time ago, long before this debate was announced. Today I met Mr. Bell, chairman of the education committee, two of his colleagues, the Director of Education and other officials. I should say that just before the meeting I had handed to me a petition about staff shortages signed by a large number of parents of pupils at St. Aidan's School, Wishaw. We had a very constructive talk. Some of the points which were raised were similar to those raised by hon. Members tonight, and I should like to run over them and give my indications as quickly as I can.
First, they raised unanimously the question of salaries. A good point can be made that the higher the salary the more atractive the job. This is an issue which begins on 18th December when the Scottish Teachers Salaries Committee begins its discussions and negotiations for the awards to be made next year. It would be inappropriate for me' to comment on what is entirely then-decision at this stage.
I want to deal with the question of designation. This is important. Under the present scheme Lanarkshire has nearly 1,600 posts, 135 of them primary, available to them for designation. I was very glad earlier this year to be able to obtain a few extra posts that had previously been allocated to the east of Scotland and are now doing useful work in the west. Fully a third of all the posts available under the scheme in Scotland are in Lanarkshire.
170
The authority, like the hon. Member, has pressed for an increase in the allowances. My Department has already started consultations about the review of the scheme, and I believe that it is of absolutely first importance that it be revised to make it attractive in the schools where it is most needed. I hope that before long I shall be able to put proposals to the Scottish Teachers Salaries Committee which, as salaries are involved, has to decide the final form. I give a very high number of marks to the designation scheme and I look forward to seeing it continue in the future. In a way, the designation scheme is an under-manning payment in reverse, and I do not think that we should lose sight of that fact.
I should like to put firmly on the record the misconception about the recruitment scheme. It has not been discontinued. I have spoken and written about it continually for the last year. It continues to help graduates and those who hold diplomas in other fields to become teachers. At the moment there are about 400 awards for this year, nearly all in secondary work.
Coming to quotas, which is another important issue, the best way to look at it is to consider how important it is for the staffing scheme which we have put forward to be accepted. I think this will be the most important way of bringing home to authorities what the staffing ratios ought to be so that those authorities which have an excess of teachers will see it before them on paper. This tailor-made scheme which applies to every school will show the authorities where they are in surplus. Where teachers are in surplus, the authorities will not be eligible for rate support grant, and the ratepayers will rightly criticise the council for employing more teachers than it should. Directly, I think, this will have an effect in encouraging teachers to apply for posts in, say, Lanarkshire, Glasgow and Renfrewshire, where they are required and where there is room for them.
I am reluctant to think in terms of, so to speak, ordering teachers by a quota system to go to other authorities, since we are at this moment trying to encourage authorities to have the greatest amount of power possible, and to do that would be to take away from them a duty which

171
they should be able to look after themselves.
The Hamilton College of Education has been the subject of comment. It is a first-class college of education for primary teachers. The case for secondary involvement was pressed strongly this morning by Doctor McEwan, and again tonight by hon. Members. I accept the point that it has had an effect on primary teachers in Lanarkshire, and we shall, because it was argued so cogently this morning, look at that case. I think it only right to say, however, that at present we have sufficient college of education places for secondary teachers in Scotland and it would be wrong to start building more places. We have to accept that the geographical decision, as it were, to put them where they are was taken some years ago, and they are not necessarily ideally placed in the circumstances of Lanarkshire today.
Mr. James Hamilton: I know that time is against the Minister, but I must put this to him. He speaks of sufficient places for secondary teachers to take their final year at the college, but will he not agree that, for physical education, especially in the Catholic schools, many people have the necessary qualifications but there is no room for them?
Mr. Monro: I certainly take that point. I wish to put on record the pleasure I had in hearing from the authority, and hearing how well the county and burghs in Lanarkshire are doing in making houses available. I hope that other authorities will bear this in mind, including, perhaps, the provision of flats for younger teachers, and I noted the point made by the hon. Member for Bothwell in this connection.
This morning, we discussed school building in fair detail, and what I have to add now I shall say as quickly as I can lest I get stopped in mid-stream by the clock. As hon. Members know, we have a small amount of money still available for the main programme. I was
172
impressed by what Lanarkshire said this morning. We shall be discussing urgently with the authority what additional help we can give, and we hope to announce this in a few weeks' time.
In relation to school building, I should say that Lanarkshire had £12,854,000 in its main programme in 1972–73, and this year, 1974–75, the year we are talking about, the figure is just under £6 million. So it has had a reasonable allocation. I appreciate how much there is to be done in Lanarkshire, particularly in the light of present developments which the county council put to me today, including the growth of population and the large number of new private houses being built in the area.
Overall, I feel that the situation—
Mr. James Hamilton: What about Bellshill?
Mr. Monro: The hon. Gentleman made an important point about Bellshill. The Scottish Development Department will be putting its recommendations to the Secretary of State in the very near future, and we shall then be able to give a decision on the planning application which is now before the local authority. I take on board the importance which the hon. Gentleman has attached not only tonight but frequently in the last year to a Roman Catholic school in Bellshill. There is no question but that the hon. Gentleman has done a great deal to represent the interests of his constituents as ably as possible in this matter.
Although there are difficulties in Lanarkshire, I hope that the situation will improve—
The Question having been proposed at Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Norton Villiers Triumph
  Norton Villiers Triumph
  Steel Exports
  Steel Exports
  Departmental Publications
  Departmental Publications
  English Channel (Air Space)
  English Channel (Air Space)
  Fuel Supplies
  Fuel Supplies
  Light Aircraft (Accidents)
  Light Aircraft (Accidents)
  British Gas Corporation (Chairman)
  British Gas Corporation (Chairman)
  Nuclear Energy
  Nuclear Energy
  Balance of Trade
  Balance of Trade
  IMEG Report
  IMEG Report
  Company Law Reform
  Company Law Reform
  Petrol
  Petrol
  Regional Employment Premium
  Regional Employment Premium
  British Steel Corporation
  British Steel Corporation
  Imports
  Imports
  Bishop Auckland
  Bishop Auckland
  Oil Refining
  Oil Refining
  Marathon Company (Grants)
  Marathon Company (Grants)
  Concorde
  Concorde
  Northern Region
  Northern Region
  Motor Vehicles (Imports)
  Motor Vehicles (Imports)
  Bankruptcy Law
  Bankruptcy Law
  Offshore Oil and Gas (Northern Ireland)
  Offshore Oil and Gas (Northern Ireland)
  Internal Combustion Engines
  Internal Combustion Engines
  Companies House
  Companies House
  Ryton Marine Company
  Ryton Marine Company
  Fuel Stocks
  Fuel Stocks
  Sheepskin Trade
  Sheepskin Trade
  Road Haulage Firms (Fuel Allocations)
  Road Haulage Firms (Fuel Allocations)
  Offshore Oil
  Offshore Oil
  Electricity Output
  Electricity Output
  Computers
  Computers
  Mineral Exploration
  Mineral Exploration
  Aircraft Movements (Heathrow)
  Aircraft Movements (Heathrow)
  Short Bros. and Harland
  Short Bros. and Harland
  Northern Region
  Northern Region
  EEC Tariffs
  EEC Tariffs
  National Coal Board
  National Coal Board
  Caravans
  Caravans
  Oil Consumption (Aviation)
  Oil Consumption (Aviation)
  Wales and Scotland
  Wales and Scotland
  Hire Purchase
  Hire Purchase
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Food Prices
  Food Prices
  Animals (Export)
  Animals (Export)
  Land Prices
  Land Prices
  Farm and Horticulture Development Scheme
  Farm and Horticulture Development Scheme
  Pig Production
  Pig Production
  Wheat (American Prices)
  Wheat (American Prices)
  Veterinary Medicines
  Veterinary Medicines
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Fire Risks (Television Sets)
  Fire Risks (Television Sets)
  Toys (Safety)
  Toys (Safety)
  Citizenship Applications
  Citizenship Applications
  Metropolitan Police (Tape Recording)
  Metropolitan Police (Tape Recording)
  Urban Aid (Immigrant Areas)
  Urban Aid (Immigrant Areas)
  Water Safety
  Water Safety
  Homeless Persons
  Homeless Persons
  Electoral Register
  Electoral Register
  Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Storage)
  Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Storage)
  Planning Applications (Frauds)
  Planning Applications (Frauds)
  Haldon Camp
  Haldon Camp
  Taxi Trade
  Taxi Trade
EMPLOYMENT
  London
  London
  Sidcup and Orpington
  Sidcup and Orpington
  Caravans
  Caravans
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Human Rights
  Human Rights
  Nagaland
  Nagaland
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
  EEC Regional Aid Programme
  EEC Regional Aid Programme
  Arab Pilots (Training)
  Arab Pilots (Training)
  Helicopter Deliveries (South Africa)
  Helicopter Deliveries (South Africa)
  COUNTY COURTS
  COUNTY COURTS
DEFENCE
  Leading Writer P. F. Bryant
  Leading Writer P. F. Bryant
  Road Accidents (Service Establishments)
  Road Accidents (Service Establishments)
  Low Flying
  Low Flying
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  School Building Programme (West Riding)
  School Building Programme (West Riding)
  Teachers (London)
  Teachers (London)
  School Meals (East Midlands)
  School Meals (East Midlands)
  Adult Education
  Adult Education
  Ministerial Duties
  Ministerial Duties
ENVIRONMENT
  Industrial Pollution (Residential Areas)
  Industrial Pollution (Residential Areas)
  Archaeological Investigation
  Archaeological Investigation
  Ringway 3
  Ringway 3
  Derelict Land (Yorkshire and Humberside)
  Derelict Land (Yorkshire and Humberside)
  Compulsory Purchase Orders (Wandsworth)
  Compulsory Purchase Orders (Wandsworth)
  Council Housing (Cost)
  Council Housing (Cost)
  Substandard Houses
  Substandard Houses
  Green Belt Houses
  Green Belt Houses
  Local Government Reorganisation
  Local Government Reorganisation
  Smokeless Zones (Wood Fuel)
  Smokeless Zones (Wood Fuel)
  Housing Associations
  Housing Associations
  A1 (London)
  A1 (London)
  Buildings (Vibration Damage)
  Buildings (Vibration Damage)
  Lorries
  Lorries
  Pollution (Vehicle Exhausts)
  Pollution (Vehicle Exhausts)
  Goods Vehicles (Town Centres)
  Goods Vehicles (Town Centres)
  Furnished Tenancies
  Furnished Tenancies
  Brake Linings
  Brake Linings
  Cars (British Standards)
  Cars (British Standards)
  Road Traffic Bill
  Road Traffic Bill
  Driving Tests
  Driving Tests
  Alston-Haltwhistle Railway
  Alston-Haltwhistle Railway
  Allotments
  Allotments
  Mersey Docks and Harbour Board
  Mersey Docks and Harbour Board
  Robertsbridge Bypass
  Robertsbridge Bypass
  Planning Applications
  Planning Applications
  Planning Inquiries (Inspectors)
  Planning Inquiries (Inspectors)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Coal and Steel Community
  Coal and Steel Community
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Personal Incomes
  Personal Incomes
  Income Tax Concessions
  Income Tax Concessions
  Public Sector Borrowing (Foreign Currencies)
  Public Sector Borrowing (Foreign Currencies)
  Channel Tunnel
  Channel Tunnel
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Credit Unions
  Credit Unions
  Power Stations (Fuelling)
  Power Stations (Fuelling)
  Special Assistance Grant
  Special Assistance Grant
  Censuses
  Censuses
  Prisoners (Family Visits)
  Prisoners (Family Visits)
POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
  Cable Television
  Cable Television
SCOTLAND
  Houses (Modernisation)
  Houses (Modernisation)
  Housing (Disabled Persons)
  Housing (Disabled Persons)
  Local Authority Projects
  Local Authority Projects
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Home Helps
  Home Helps
  Chiropodists
  Chiropodists
  Abortion
  Abortion
  Maintenance Orders
  Maintenance Orders
  Pneumoconiosis Panels
  Pneumoconiosis Panels
  Retirement Pensioners
  Retirement Pensioners
  Supplementary Benefits (Coatbridge)
  Supplementary Benefits (Coatbridge)
  Graduated Pension Scheme
  Graduated Pension Scheme
  Teaching Hospitals (Private Beds)
  Teaching Hospitals (Private Beds)
  Detoxification Centres
  Detoxification Centres
  Homeless Persons
  Homeless Persons
  Community Homes
  Community Homes
  Reception Centres Regulations (Convictions)
  Reception Centres Regulations (Convictions)
  Invalid Vehicles (Accidents)
  Invalid Vehicles (Accidents)
  Rowntree Family Trust
  Rowntree Family Trust
  Speech Therapy Services
  Speech Therapy Services
  Kidney Patients (Attendance Allowance)
  Kidney Patients (Attendance Allowance)
WALES
  Meals on Wheels
  Meals on Wheels
  Hospitals (Newport and East Monmouthshire)
  Hospitals (Newport and East Monmouthshire)
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  Bilingual Nursery Education
  Bilingual Nursery Education
  School Building Programme
  School Building Programme
  North Cardiganshire (Development)
  North Cardiganshire (Development)
  Planning Appeals
  Planning Appeals

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Ely.

MIDDLE EAST: ISRAELI PRISONERS IN SYRIA
2.36 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 whether they have approached the Government of Syria or the United Nations on the return of war prisoners who were captured in the recent conflict and the 1967 war.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, we have been in touch with the Syrian Government on a number of occasions, and have made known our view that all parties to the conflict should honour their obligations under the Geneva Conventions unconditionally. However, the Syrian authorities have insisted on certain conditions, including action by Israel in connection with the Fourth Geneva Convention. We have asked the Israelis to clarify their attitude to this Convention.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that according to Press reports the only occasion on which our Ambassador asked the Syrian Government a question about the repatriation of prisoners was on November 12, and that since then, so far as I am aware, there has been no further consultation? Have Her Majesty's Government made representations to the United Nations and to the International Red Cross about this subject?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, we feel that the best method of approaching this matter is for Governments to deal with Governments direct or through the International Red Cross. Her Majesty's Government take the view that it would be
864
inappropriate to raise this question in the United Nations and to have public debate on it because this would merely harden people's attitudes.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, can the noble Earl say whether, when our Ambassador consulted the Syrian Government, any reference was made to the allegation that the Syrians had murdered or maltreated some of the Israeli prisoners, and that in fact they no longer hold prisoners—they have been disposed of?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I know that there have been reports of ill-treatment but as yet we have no evidence to corroborate the allegations. If we received such corroboration we should certainly make representations to the authorities concerned. Her Majesty's Government are very concerned that the Geneva Conventions should be upheld.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl the Minister whether he has seen photographs in the Press relating to what my noble friend has just said? And, in the light of the disquieting information which we read from day to day about Syria's treatment of Israeli prisoners, may I ask the Government whether they would now make a further representation direct to Syria?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, we are concerned that both sides in this conflict should honour both the Third and the Fourth Geneva Conventions. As I explained in my original reply, we have been in contact with both sides about this, and we hope that these contacts will bear fruit.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, while we are well aware of the "even handed" nature of the present Government in regard to this matter, may I ask whether the noble Earl is aware that, though we appreciate that the Government find it difficult to express clear-cut opinions, it is the feeling of, I am sure, all noble Lords that the treatment of Israeli prisoners on the Syrian front fills us with horror?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I will certainly see that the views of the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition are drawn to the attention of my right honourable friend.
LORD BERNSTEIN: My Lords, is it not possible for your Lordships, through the Foreign Office and Her Majesty's Government, who I am quite sure have done their best, to send an all-Party Committee from this House to see whether the prisoners are in existence or not? Because that is what is worrying a great number of people.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, while I respect the view of the noble Lord, Lord Bernstein, I do not think that that would really be the best way to set about this problem. Fundamentally, with regard to the Fourth Convention, this is a matter which pre-eminently refers to the International Red Cross. We believe that that is the best agency for dealing with the problem, and that a Government-to-Government basis is the best way to deal with the problem of negotiations. We wish to see this come about, but I do not believe that sending an all-Party delegation from this House would produce the ends which the noble Lord wishes.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, am I right to assume that the International Red Cross, among its multifarious and beneficent functions, has the responsibility and duty to make inquiries about the condition of all prisoners, and may I ask whether Her Majesty's Government have consulted the International Red Cross in this matter?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, under the Third Convention a list of prisoners must be supplied to the International Red Cross, the Red Cross must be allowed to visit the prisoners and the countries involved must repatriate their prisoners after the cessation of hostilities. Under the Fourth Convention, which deals with the protection of civilians, if they are evacuated during a conflict they must be returned without delay at the end, and the Red Cross must be allowed to visit the occupied areas; and it is my understanding that this has not been allowed.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, will the noble Lord clarify what he means by
866
his reference to "Government-to-Government"? Do we understand that Her Majesty's Government have made representations to the Syrian Government; and if not, why not?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, as I explained in my original reply, we have been in touch with the Syrian Government.
LORD BERNSTEIN: My Lords, may I ask whether the noble Earl would consider the suggestion which I put forward? It is an easy answer to say, "We have done everything." Many Governments have said that they have done everything and, later on, when we read the diaries and biographies of people, we find that they have not done everything. Would the noble Earl reconsider this suggestion that Members of the other place, if not Members of your Lordships' House, might form an all-Party delegation to inspect the prisoners and see whether they are still alive?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, there are international agencies to do precisely what the noble Lord has suggested. I suspect that if they do not have access, it would be extremely unlikely that an all-Party delegation from either House or both would have access.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, would the noble Earl consider approaching his right honourable friend to ask whether he would call the Syrian Ambassador to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and express to him the concern of your Lordships' House and, I believe, the concern of people throughout the country, at the treatment of the prisoners of war? If the noble Earl would give that undertaking, some of the concern expressed in your Lordships' House might be mitigated.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I understand entirely the concern which has been expressed this afternoon. I shall be more than happy to accede to Lord Shepherd's request and draw the attention of my right honourable friend to what has been said in your Lordships' House.

COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they propose to renew the right of individuals to petition the European Commission of Human Rights when the present two-year period of acceptance of Article 25 ends in January, 1974.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government will renew their acceptance of Article 25 of the European Convention on Human Rights for a further period of two years from January 14, 1974. It is also the Government's intention to renew for a similar period their declaration under Article 46 of the Convention which provides for the acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that on this unique occasion I have no supplementary question to ask?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am glad that we are breaking new ground.

BRUCELLOSIS ERADICATION SCHEME
2.45 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the slow progress of the brucellosis eradication scheme is attributable to the undermanned state of the Veterinary Service; and what action is being taken to improve the position.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, while good progress continues to be made in the eradication of brucellosis, the rate of future progress must depend largely on the availability of whole-time veterinary staff and the other demands made upon their time. The Ministry of Agriculture,
868
Fisheries and Food is continuing its efforts to increase the strength of the State Veterinary Service.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, in view of the fact that the noble Lord has said that progress depends on the State Veterinary Service, may I ask whether he is aware that quite recently the President of the British Veterinary Association said that the position was so grave that if an epidemic of any cattle disease occurred in this country—I hope that it will not—the present Service would probably be unable to deal with it? What are the Government doing about increasing the Service? Is the noble Earl aware that the President also stated that the position has been worsening for years; that the Government have been approached by the Service time after time and that the Government have shown complete indifference?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I would not accept the last part of the noble Baroness's supplementary question. I do not think that the Government have been indifferent over this matter. As I explained in my Answer, we are concerned to strengthen the State Veterinary Service. Action has been and is being taken to do this and to encourage new recruits into the Service. The noble Baroness says that there is a likelihood of the Service breaking down because there are not enough people in it. I accept that there are problems when an unexpected outbreak of a disease occurs, but I would remind the noble Baroness that a Committee is sitting under Professor Swann which is looking into the position with regard to the Veterinary Service as a whole.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that I am not quoting my own opinion, and that I would not presume to know enough about the agriculture industry to do so? I was quoting the President of the British Veterinary Association who made this statement on the radio last week. May I ask the noble Earl whether he is aware that the President said that the great majority of men in the Veterinary Service are over 45? I should like to know what the Government have done in the last few years—the President said that they had done nothing—to recruit young men and women into the Veterinary Service.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, it was the allegation that I was refuting. I was not suggesting that it had been made by the noble Baroness and not the President of the British Veterinary Association. As the noble Baroness may know, there have been difficulties about the ability to advertise for new recruits. We are concerned about this matter and we do advertise for new recruits into the Service. That is producting results, albeit not as quickly as we should wish.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I am sorry to have to put another supplementary question, but may I ask this in order to help the Government? Is the noble Earl aware that it is no use advertising in newspapers. One should go to the schools. We want students, boys and girls who are wondering what their future career should be. That is where the Department should be tackling the problem, not waiting until these young people have other jobs.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I accept the point made by the noble Baroness. My noble friend Lord Balerno has an Unstarred Question down for debate on Wednesday of this week, and possibly we can then go into the matter in more detail. I accept the noble Baroness's concern. We equally are concerned. But I do not think that one should infer from this that the State Veterinary Service is likely to break down or that the brucellosis scheme is not going ahead as quickly as it should, because in fact it is.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, if the Minister is telling the House that the Government are doing all they can to improve and widen the Veterinary Service, and as their proposals include cutting down the six existing veterinary schools to four and curtaining the number of students entering the schools, would he tell the House what the Government would be doing if they were not in favour of improving the Service?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, if the Government were not in favour of improving the Veterinary Service, they would not be doing all they can to strengthen the Service, which is what they are doing.
LORD SLATER: My Lords the noble Earl referred to a Committee that had been set up. May I ask when the Com
870
mittee was set up and whether the noble Earl could inform the House when it is expected that the Committee will be able to give its Report?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, a Committee of Inquiry was set up under Sir Michael Swann. It is expected that its Report will be published during the summer of 1974.
THE EARL OF MAR: My Lords, can the noble Earl say how many vets have had brucellosis, or have it now?—because I think a considerable number of them have.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, if the noble Earl will be good enough to put down a specific Question on that point, I will find out the specific Answer.
LORD ROWALLAN: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that for six years now we have been stressing the importance of keeping the veterinary medical services at a high level? Is he also aware that during those six years practically nothing has been done, and that the Government are not making themselves very popular with farmers, who, frankly, are disgusted with the way in which they have been treated? Is the noble Earl futher aware that there are many ways in which the veterinary services could be better used than they are now? For instance, one is—I hope your Lordships will excuse me for going on—that animals—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Question!
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I did not think this question would go by without the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, making an interjection on the position of the State Veterinary Service. The fact is that there have been increasing demands over the last ten years on the veterinary profession, whether State or private. Of course this has caused problems. With respect to the noble Lord, I would not agree that farmers are disgusted with the way that they have been treated by the State Veterinary Service, because the State Veterinary Service has done an extremely good job in all fields of health control. I would say only this to the noble Lord—that the conclusion of the brucellosis scheme is likely to be within the next decade, which is in line with the forecast that we made originally when the scheme started.
LORD BERNSTEIN: My Lords, can the noble Earl say whether he thinks Professor Swann, now that he is the Chairman of the B.B.C. Governors, has too much to do to enable this Report to be issued before the middle of 1974?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I do not think Professor Swann has too much on his plate to cope with this Report. In fact, they are going into the whole position in detail. I suggest that we should wait for their Report to find out exactly what the situation is.

PETROL SUPPLIES IN INNER LONDON
2.53 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, although the actual wording of the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper is very slightly out of date, I still beg leave to ask it.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why, if Ministers say that at the present time there are adequate supplies of petrol, it is almost impossible to obtain petrol in the Inner London Area.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, petrol supplies to garages in the period November 19 to December 12 are based on the total amounts delivered in the corresponding period in 1972 less 10 per cent., apportioned on the basis of deliveries made to particular garages in September, 1973. This should suffice if motorists observe the requests for economies that have been made. Demand has been artificially increased because many motorists have been topping up their tanks at every available opportunity. It now appears that motorists are heeding the Government's appeals, and the situation seems to be improving.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, if Her Majesty's Government have evidence that topping-up has been one of the principal troubles, would they not consider adopting the policy which many weeks ago was suggested in The Times, of asking garages not to sell petrol in amounts of less than four gallons for a small car and six gallons for a large car, which would go a long way towards stopping this topping-up nonsense?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am aware that some garages are already doing this; but it is of course up to them to allocate as they see fit.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I am sorry to say that my noble friend has not answered my question. The suggestion in The Times was that Her Majesty's Government should ask garages to do this. Is there anything against their asking them to do it?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, not at all, except that it would go through the Oil Industry Emergency Committee. I will draw this point to the attention of my right honourable friend.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether any export is taking place at the moment by the oil companies, particularly Shell, to another country?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, that seems to be rather a different question from the one on the Order Paper.
LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND: My Lords, may I ask whether the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Derwent —which has great merit—that no car should be able to get less than, say, four gallons, would not impinge on those smaller garages whose supplies seem to be restricted and who are trying to share it out by allowing a maximum of two gallons per customer?
LORD DRUMALBYN: Yes, my Lords; I think it must depend on the individual circumstances of the garages. I thought my noble friend was indicating that this was a suggestion that might be made; it certainly would not be mandatory.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, would the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, take serious objection to my repeating a question which I put to him when we were debating the Emergency Powers? He will recall the occasion when I asked him about the assurances Her Majesty's Government had obtained from the Arab States for a plentiful supply of petrol and oil products. Does he recall that on that occasion he said he was unable either to give me an assurance or to deny that there were assurances? Could he qualify the situation now?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I do not think I ought to do so now, because it is a question that is quite outside what I have been asked. I think the House is fully aware of the general situation, and I need not repeat what has been said elsewhere.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, in the light of the noble Lord's reference to garages using their expertise in this matter, can the noble Lord say anything in regard to those garages which are now charging 50p for a gallon of petrol? What is the view of Her Majesty's Government about this? Does not the noble Lord recognise that garages with a much lower turnover can clearly now charge 50p per gallon and still be within the Prices Code? In the light of what could be a major inflationary consequence, can the noble Lord say whether the Government will take steps to bring prices back to their original level?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that there are two controls here. One is the margin control, and the other is the overall profit control. If they are charging 50p they are certainly not within the margin control. If the noble Lord, or any other noble Lord, can bring to my attention cases of this, I shall be glad to hear of them.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Lord may be aware that a member of the Price Commission has said that it was lawful to charge 50p a gallon so long as it was within the overall profit limit. That is the point that I was seeking to make and as to which I was asking whether the noble Lord could express a view.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I do not think I ought to express a view on what the Price Commission have said. I was not aware that they had said this, but, in any case, I do not think I ought to express an opinion upon it. Of course if it is lawful to be done just now, the question then is whether it is expedient that it should be done, and that is another question that we should have to examine.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, but is it right that garages should be making these increased profits as a consequence of the hardship to the public?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I understood the noble Lord was saying that the Price Commission had said that it was lawful because they were not making very much increased profit. If it is on the profit control, that is a different matter which would have to be looked at in a wider context.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, in the light of the comments which have just been made, may I ask whether or not the Government or the Price Commission can exercise any control at all over the individual prices charged for the individual gallon of petrol?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the Government could exercise such a control under the Act that we have just passed, namely, the Fuel and Electricity (Control) Act, if they thought it necessary.
LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTON: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether it is the Government's opinion that this situation which has hit us over the last week or two is going to continue or not, or is it getting better? There are people, such as car hire firms, whose livelihood have been very hard hit in the last ten days, and I think they would like to know.
LORD DRUMALBYN: What I said was that the situation at the pumps was getting better. I was not making a general statement about the oil situation.
LORD THOMAS: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that if the motorists in the Inner London area exercised more patience and less greed in this matter of topping up their tanks, the situation would be self-resolving?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am bound to agree with my noble friend, but I think that is already happening. It was not so much that they were greedy, but they were frightened that they would not get supplies. Now they have much less need to be frightened.
LORD ARWYN: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the price of £1, which was charged by one garage for 2½ gallons, represents a price of 40p a gallon. Yet other garages are charging nearer 35p for the same quality of petrol. Who authorises these prices? That is what happened to me yesterday on the M4.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I think noble Lords will know the situation under the counter-inflation system, and if they have reason to believe that in individual cases the regulations here are being infringed, then they should bring the matter to the attention of the Government.

COUNCIL OF IRELAND
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my noble friend the Leader of the House will be making a statement on Northern Ireland at a convenient moment after 3.30.
My Lords, may I inform your Lordships that in view of the very large number of speakers on both the Bills this afternoon, dinners will be available.

PROTECTION OF MINORS BILL [H.L.]
3.2 p.m.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Its primary purpose is to put an end to the practice of corporal punishment of children in schools and similar institutions, or indeed anywhere, by anybody, except their parents. The Bill does not interfere in any way with the existing rights of parents to administer reasonable chastisement to their own children. And I think that in the present circumstances I ought perhaps to emphasise the word "reasonable", in view of certain tragic happenings that sometimes occur. Punishments which amount to cruelty or aggravated assaults, by parents or anyone else, are of course subject to serious charges under other Statutes and are not the concern of this particular Bill. I would commend this Bill to your Lordships on grounds of principle and expediency. I hope to show that it has been demonstrated sporadically in this country, and more widely elsewhere, that corporal punishment is both unnecessary and ineffective in the training of children. I hope also to convince your Lordships that the introduction of this Bill at the present moment is timely.
In principle, I regard the use of corporal punishment on children in school as wholly out of keeping with modern educational methods. It can hardly foster a love of learning, and if it induces respect
876
for the teacher, it is respect of might and not of right. I find it also anonialaus that the law which forbids adults to assault one another should give less, rather than more, protection to children. I find it even more anomalous that in this respect the penal system is ahead of the educational system. Corporal punishment in all types of penal institutions—and this includes borstals—was abolished after it had been demonstrated that it was ineffective in the light of the subsequent records of those who had been subjected to it. It follows, that, whereas an unruly boy of 15 or 16 may be caned in school, if he gets himself into more serious trouble and ends up in borstal, no such treatment is permitted. Strangest of all, my Lords, do I find the implication for our social values, in that apparently in this country at the present time the only people who can wield a cane with impunity, in the exercise of their professional activities, are teachers and prostitutes.
I am well aware that public opinion, both among teachers and in the community at large, is divided on this issue. I have had a fair amount of correspondence from members of the public and from teachers. I have had 176 letters, of which 155 were in favour and 21 were against this Bill. Some come from parents, a few come from schoolchildren, but the overwhelming majority come from teachers. Among those that come from teachers the proportion in favour of this Bill is 20 to one. I am very well aware that this is not a representative sample, but I have quoted these figures because, as one who has often taken up causes before they were popular, I find that generally the community is more disposed to take up its pen to protest than to commend. Such a favourable balance is, at least in my experience, entirely unique.
Those who oppose the Bill mostly do so because they take the view that the use of physical force is the only argument that a certain proportion of young people can be made to understand. I find this thesis not supported among my correspondents by very much concrete evidence, though it is often well flavoured with personal abuse. The validity of the thesis is open to challenge inasmuch as indiscipline, and occasional violence, persist in schools where corporal punishment is used habitually. A very common

877
experience is that the same children are over and over again punished by cane.
Those who support the Bill mostly do so on grounds of moral principle and educational method. They regard the finding of the Plowden Committee in relation to primary schools as applicable to all ages: I mean the finding that the right relationship between child and teacher cannot be build up in an atmosphere in which the infliction of physical pain is regarded as a normal sanction. Teachers also write to me about the frequency, in some schools, of physical punishment for trivial offences: small children being caned for coming to school with dirty knees, girls for giggling, or boys for snowballing or not wearing the school cap. Others quote examples of excessive severity: I have some recent eye-witness records of these, but I prefer not to quote from them. I do not think this Bill needs to be supported by horror stories or by exceptional occurrences; and I am quite certain that such incidents are exceptional. Nevertheless, I would say that, so long as any kind of physical punishment is permitted in schools, somebody, some time, will carry this practice to excess. Also disturbing are the reports of not infrequent unrecorded, and unsanctioned, punishments by way of slap-pings and beatings, and sometimes quite serious assaults. Also, it is disturbing to learn of the survival of the practice in some schools of caning children who have truanted, improbable though it seems that this will have the effect of inducing the truant to return to school.
My Lords, I turn now from the comments that I have received from various sources to a rather broader view of the situation as it is to-day, in so far as one can ascertain the facts. First as to the law, this can hardly be said to be a model of clarity. From the 1860s onwards, sporadic judicial decisions have formulated the doctrine that when the parent sends his child to school he, by implication, transfer his parental rights so that the teacher is for the time being in loco parentis. This doctrine, however, dates from before the introduction of compulsory education to the time when a parent, if he disliked what went on in a school, could withdraw his child. In present circumstances, where schooling is compulsory and the parent often has but limited freedom to send his child to the
878
school of his choice, it might be more realistic to say that he is deprived of his rights rather than that he voluntarily transfers them. The parent to-day who does not wish to delegate his right to punish may find that he can avoid doing so only by withdrawing the child from school and thus breaking the compulsory attendance law and depriving his child of education altogether.
Some authorities hold that in the case of a conflict between the parent and school, the parent's wishes must prevail. Yet the teacher enjoys further statutory protection under Section 1(7) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, which expressly provides that nothing in that Act shall affect the teacher's right to administer punishment (incidentally of an unspecified nature) to any child in his care. This Bill would repeal that provision and would also override any assumed or explicit transfer of the parent's right to the teacher or to anybody else.
To turn from law to practice, I find that a surprising number of well-informed people regard the Bill as unnecessary because they believe that corporal punishment has already been abolished, at any rate in the State schools. Unfortunately, statistics from the punishment books are not published: I do not think they are even nationally recorded. If they were, they would undoubtedly be incomplete, but I have equally no doubt that they would be sufficient to dispel any illusion of that kind. So far as I know, only one local education authority has imposed a total ban on corporal punishment which is effective at the present time, and that is Great Yarmouth. That ban took effect only last October, so that to date there is not much experience of its working. Recently the Oxford City Education Committee proposed a similar total ban, to take effect from the beginning of next year. But as from April, 1974, the Oxford City Council will be swallowed up in the larger county authority and it is likely that the matter will have to be reviewed at that stage. Some months ago, Liverpool took courage and proposed a total ban, but second thoughts presently prevailed —largely, I think, because the council were already meeting opposition to their policy on comprehensive education, and they decided that it might be more prudent to proceed gradually. Finally, as many of your Lordships

879
will know, the Inner London Education Authority have prohibited corporal punishment altogether, but only in their primary schools, as from the beginning of this current year. After only one term of this experience, the Inner London Teachers' Association, through their Education Committee, passed a resolution calling for the extension of this to schools of all ages. Meanwhile, three or four other smaller authorities have also banned corporal punishment in their primary schools.
Apart from these exceptions, education authorities generally either make precise rules or leave the matter to the discretion of individual staffs. The rules make very macabre reading, laying down the circumstances in which and by whom corporal punishment may be administered, and the precise degree of permissible severity. The policy of leaving it to the staffs is often welcomed by teachers, on the ground that this is a matter within their professional competence and they are specially qualified, as professionals, to determine when it is and when it is not proper to employ the cane. I find this a very odd conception of professionalism, and I should very much like to know what instruction on this matter is given to prospective teachers in the course of their training. I should have thought that the question of when it is legitimate to hit another person was essentially a moral issue and one that could be described as professional only in the sense that some professional bodies do lay down ethical codes to which they require all their members to conform. To allow that a teacher is professionally qualified to decide when a cane should be used seems to me to be analogous to substituting for the rule that doctors must not indulge in sexual intercourse with their patients a provision that their professional training would allow them to determine in what circumstances it would be right and proper to do so.
However, whether rules are prescribed or not, there is a great diversity of practice in this country. At one end of the scale stands the City of Edinburgh, where I am officially informed that in the spring term of this year 9,326 instances of corporal punishment occurred in regard to boys, and 1,663 instances in regard to girls, making a total of just short of 11,000 cases of corporal punishment in the
880
Corporations's 20-odd secondary and 90-odd primary schools in a single term. It is fair to add that, perhaps on account of these facts having come to light. I understand that some phasing-out of corporal punishment is now on the Corporation's agenda. At the other end of the scale, up and down the country there are schools in which corporal punishment has been totally abolished. I have records of a number of these. Typically, the initiative comes from a headmaster, very often newly appointed, who manages to persuade a sometimes reluctant staff. Typically also, I have subsequent reports of greatly improved relationships between staff and students after abolition has been in force for some time. In one comprehensive school in a somewhat depressed area in the North of the country this was referred to as "an inestimable gain", and from areas where there are tough children and deprived-area environments one gets the same story.
I should like to refer to one London comprehensive which proceeded rather differently. It was agreed by the staff that they would not abolish the cane immediately but that every time an occasion arose when it might be used they would consider what alternative could be substituted. The result was that alternatives were found and caning gradually disappeared. After a term had gone by with no cases at all, the practice of corporal punishment was totally abandoned. This confirms the view that I have received from two other headmasters, one of whom says that:
"…until such time as the cane disappears we shall go on 'kidding' ourselves that it is effective";
and the other of whom asks for abolition by law of corporal punishment because it would accelerate the rethinking of educational methods. Independent schools, of course, are a law unto themselves, or have been until now. Recently, the author of The Times Diary conducted a survey of seven named major public schools. He found—and I quote his own words—that parents no longer
"spend fortunes sending their sons to schools where, as recently as the 'sixties they were savagely beaten".
While all these establishments have reduced what he elegantly calls the practice of "beating their privileged bottoms", in only one case has the practice been abandoned altogether—yet in no case was

881
it reported that sparing the "privileged bottom" had spoiled the discipline.
I will not weary your Lordships with more individual examples. I will only say that, alike in independent schools and in the State system, I find the same story over and over again. Where corporal punishment has been abolished or greatly reduced, the improvement in relations between the child and the teacher is constantly emphasised. This in turn, in the words of one head teacher,
"strengthens the child's ability to learn, and consequently reduces violence."
Again and again it is demonstrated that there are no enemies of indiscipline comparable with mutual understanding and the awakening of pupil interest. The unruly child is the frustrated and bored child.
I said just now that the Bill was timely. Opponents will argue, on the contrary, that the moment when a minority of young people take too freely to violence is quite the wrong moment at which to abolish corporal punishment. This implies of course, what I have already disputed, that the method is effective. But I would rather turn the argument upside down. I would submit that the greater the prevalence of undisciplined behaviour, the less is it opportune to give implicit official endorsement to the doctrine that in the last resort the way to enforce your will is by physical assault. As one head teacher has put it,
"children often learn from us a lesson we are not intending to teach."
But the Bill is timely for other reasons. Britain is rapidly getting to be out on a limb in this matter. In Europe outside the E.E.C. corporal punishment is forbidden in the schools of Iceland, Norway, Finland and Sweden, as it is also in a great many non-European countries and I am not sure that the list is complete. Of our partners within the Community, France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Denmark and Italy have all prohibited it. Italy have denied they have ever abolished it because they say it never existed. I am officially told that in Holland it is generally unknown and that any teacher who resorts to it is liable to be, and sometimes is, reprimanded. In Germany it is allowed only in primary schools, but there is an element of provincial discretion and I
882
understand that in some areas further steps have been taken towards abolition. Within the Community only in Ireland and the United Kingdom is corporal punishment both legal and frequently used. Now that movements towards uniformity are afoot in so many matters of the European Community, such as, for example, the qualifications required for various professions or the control of juggernauts, may it not be only a question of time before we are required to abandon a practice which has been discarded by so many of our partners—indeed the great majority of them—as archaic, if not barbaric? Would it not be more dignified to fall into line of our own volition without waiting to he told?
I turn now to summarise shortly the text of the Bill. It applies throughout to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Clause 1 creates a new offence of wilful assault on a minor by any person (including any teacher) who has the custody, care or charge of him, while expressly safeguarding the parents or legal guardians and their spouses against being found guilty of an offence under the Bill, parental liability at common law and under other enactments being, of course, unaffected. This clause also declares that "reasonable chastisement" shall not be an acceptable defence to a prosecution for the offence created by the Bill. Clause 1 further prescribes the penalties that may be imposed for the new offence. Here I must apologise to your Lordships for an oversight in the printing of the Bill, as a result of which the penalties appear to be fixed fines or terms of imprisonment. Actually, as is usual in our Statutes, they should be maxima, and should in every case be preceded by the words "not exceeding". If your Lordships give this Bill a Second Reading, undertake to move an Amendment in Committee to put this right.
The penalties proposed for summary conviction are well below those that may be imposed by magistrates for many other offences. In so fixing them I have had in mind that very serious assaults by teachers or anybody else are dealt with under existing legislation, and that this Bill applies only to the kinds of assault which may at present be inflicted upon the children by their teachers with impunity. The

883
maximum sentence of imprisonment on summary conviction of four months has been deliberately inserted so that an accused person may have the opportunity of trial in the Crown Court by jury.
Clause 2 gives protection against double jeopardy by providing that no one can be charged both with the new offence and with an offence of aggravated assault under previous legislation. It does, however, allow a person charged with such an aggravated assault to be alternatively found guilty of the less serious offence created by the Bill, just as a person charged with dangerous driving may be convicted of the lesser offence of driving without due care. Clause 3 abolishes the defence of "reasonable chastisement" (except for parents and legal guardians and their spouses) in civil actions or prosecutions for aggravated assault.
Clause 4 repeals the section of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, to which I have already referred, which expressly allows any teacher to administer unspecified punishment to a child. This clause also prohibits the use of corporal punishment in any institution in which children may reside by order of a court or local authority, including those cases in which a local authority has by resolution assumed parental rights under the Children Act 1948. Clause 5 is interpretive but contains also a provision binding the Crown. The remaining clauses provide that the Bill may, by Order in Council, be extended to the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands, and that it should come into force on January 1, 1975.
Britain prides itself upon a reputation for sportsmanship, and I have always understood that the first rule of sportsmanship is that a person may not hit someone who is not of his own size, and least of all hit someone who cannot hit back. Is it not therefore strange that the law which forbids us to strike our equals should make one exception—those who by definition, are not, at any rate in status, our own size and who have no right or opportunity of retaliation? Is it really credible that British children are so much more unruly than French, Italian, Norwegian, Danish, Dutch, Belgian or Swedish children, or literally millions of others throughout the world, that our children, and our children alone, can only be
884
educated with the assistance of punitive assaults? I myself have no doubt at all that the day will come when some of the scenes enacted in our schools today will be looked upon as we now look upon tales from Dickens. If in fact that is what those scenes are, why do we not recognise the reality immediately and act accordingly? I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Baroness Wootton of Abinger.)
3.28 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I should like briefly to support the noble Baroness in the Second Reading of this Bill, which she has moved so cogently and well. I shall be extremely brief in view of the large number of speakers who have put down their names to speak. I do not think a great deal of harm is done to children who are caned, and I do not think a great deal of harm can be suffered by the person who canes. I think the tale of the sadistic schoolmaster has been rather overdone. There are some forms of corporal punishment which are dangerous. There is a nasty thing called the "tawse" which was common in Scotland at one time. I think it is used in some parts of the country whereby you are beaten on the palm of your hand by a leather thong which is unattractive and uncomfortable and not very good for the person being beaten.
There are two things I dislike: first, the solemn ritual of the corporal punishment which occurs in many places; and, secondly—and if this occurs at all now it is mainly in the independent schools—I do not like the idea of little boys being beaten by bigger boys; and, in the same way, I do not like the idea of masters beating little boys. As the noble Baroness has explained, it does not seem logical. If we give the Bill a Second Reading. we shall certainly be following the example of a large number of European countries. So far as I am aware, no country in Eastern Europe now has corporal punishment. They may have other things which are equally unattractive, but they do not have that form of punishment. I think that Poland, for example, abolished physical punishment in the year 1783, which is going back quite a long time. Admittedly, it did not do the poor Poles much good, because they were absorbed with the Russians fairly shortly after. But I am

885
pleased to see that in the one country in the Western Economic Union which retains it—West Germany—the practice is becoming more uncommon and many administrative areas have banned it entirely.
I think it is in the decline in this country and is largely confined now to beating boys of middle age groups; but that does not put it in any better state. One has read that one day in the 1950s a master in a school in Durham beat 200 boys in one day. I do not think that that kind of thing would occur now but it is a possibility. I was shocked to be told what the Edinburgh education authority found in their schools; I think that what the noble Baroness told us in that connection was a shocking and horrifying tale. It would be very good if we were to follow the example of our European colleagues and not wait until it is forced upon us. I am sure it is something that Her Majesty's Government are keen to do, as the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, could bear witness to, when one thinks of the attempts she has made to resist the enforcing of the practice they have in many European countries with regard to buses at the London Air Terrninal. My Lords, I am quite aware that a large number of teachers in Great Britain object to the removal of corporal punishment, but I am bound to say that I share the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton. I cannot really think that the children of Great Britain are so much more wicked, so much more evil, so much more requiring punishment, than the children in most of the countries of Europe. If this Bill goes to a vote, I shall certainly support it.

COUNCIL OF IRELAND
3.32 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD WINDLESHAM): My Lords, this may be a convenient moment for me to repeat the Prime Minister's Statement on Northern Ireland and the agreement to set up a Council of Ireland. The Statement reads as follows:
"Mr. Speaker, I will with permission make a Statement about the tripartite Conference at Sunningdale between the British and Irish Governments and the parties involved in the Northern Ireland Executive. The House will know that the Conference was brought to a successful conclusion and that an agreed Communiqué was issued last night. Copies of it have been made available in the Vote Office, and it will be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
"The House will not wish me to repeat the details which are recorded in the Communiqué. The outcome of the Conference has shown that the existence of apparently incompatible political aspirations has not prevented Her Majesty's Government, the Irish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive designate from working together for the benefit of both parts of Ireland.
"The Communiqué sets out for the first time parallel declarations by the British and Irish Governments that the status of Northern Ireland cannot be changed until a majority of the people of Northern Ireland so desire. These declarations will be incorporated in a formal agreement which will be registered at the United Nations.
"The Conference agreed on the establishment of a Council of Ireland which will have both executive and harmonising functions and a consultative role. The Council will have equal representation from both North and South with safeguards for the British Government's interests and will act on the basis of unanimity. There will also be a consultative Assembly, with equal representation from the Dail and the Northern Ireland Assembly. The Communiqué also sets out fresh proposals for dealing with politically motivated violence throughout Ireland.

887
"The way is now open for the appointment of the Northern Ireland Executive, and, subject to the approval of Parliament, for the devolution of powers to the Northern Ireland Executive and the Northern Ireland Assembly. The necessary legislation and instruments will be brought before Parliament later this week.
"It was agreed that a formal Conference should be held early in the New Year in which the British and Irish Governments and the Northern Ireland Executive can meet together to consider reports on the studies which are being commissioned and to sign the agreement reached.
"The agreement has immense significance for the future of Ireland. The fact that such an agreement has been reached is due to the constructive and realistic attitude taken in the talks both by the Irish Government and by those parties in Northern Ireland who will now come together in a Northern Ireland Executive. It now remains for us all to implement the agreement for the benefit of the people of Ireland as a whole."
My Lords, that concludes the Prime Minister's Statement.
Following is the Communiqué referred to:

AGREED COMMUNIQUE
1. The Conference between the British and Irish Governments and the parties involved in the Northern Ireland Executive (designate) met at Sunningdale on 6, 7, 8 and 9 December, 1973.
2. During the Conference, each delegation stated their position on the status of Northern Ireland.
3. The Taoiseach said that the basic principle of the Conference was that the participants had tried to see what measure of agreement of benefit to all the people concerned could be secured. In doing so, all had reached accommodation with one another on practical arrangements. But none had compromised, and none had asked others to compromise, in relation to basic aspirations. The people of the Republic, together with a minority in Northern Ireland as represented by the S.D.L.P. delegation, continued to uphold the aspiration towards a united Ireland. The only unity they wanted to see was a unity established by consent.
4. Mr. Brian Faulkner said that delegates from Northern Ireland came to the Conference as representatives of apparently incompatible sets of political aspirations who had found it possible to reach agreement to join together
888
in government because each accepted that in doing so they were not sacrificing principles or aspirations. The desire of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom, as represented by the Unionist and Alliance delegations, remained firm.

5. The Irish Government fully accepted and solemnly declared that there could be no change in the status of Northern Ireland until a majority of the people of Northern Ireland desired a change in that status.

The British Government solemnly declared that it was, and would remain, their policy to support the wishes of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland. The present status of Northern Ireland is that it is part of the United Kingdom. If in the future the majority of the people of Northern Ireland should indicate a wish to become part of a united Ireland, the British Government would support that wish.

6. The Conference agreed that a formal agreement incorporating the declarations of the British and Irish Governments would be signed at the formal stage of the Conference and registered at the United Nations.
7. The Conference agreed that a Council of Ireland would be set up. It would be confined to representatives of the two parts of Ireland, with appropriate safeguards for the British Government's financial and other interests. It would comprise a Council of Ministers with executive and harmonising functions and a consultative role, and a Consultative Assembly with advisory and review functions. The Council of Ministers would act by unanimity, and would comprise a core of seven members of the Irish Government and an equal number of members of the Northern Ireland Executive with provision for the participation of other non-voting members of the Irish Government and the Northern Ireland) Executive or Administration when matters within their departmental competence were discussed. The Council of Ministers would control the functions of the Council. The Chairmanship would rotate on an agreed basis between representatives of the Irish Government and of the Northern Ireland Executive. Arrangements would be made for the location of the first meeting, and the location of subsequent meetings would be determined by the Council of Ministers. The Consultative Assembly would consist of 60 members, 30 members from Dail Eireann chosen by the Dail on the basis of proportional representation by the single transferable vote, and 30 members from the Northern Ireland Assembly chosen by that Assembly and also on that basis. The members of the Consultative Assembly would be paid allowances. There would be a Secretariat to the Council, which would be kept as small as might be commensurate with efficiency in the operation of the Council. The Secretariat would service the institutions on the Council and would, under the Council

889
of Ministers, supervise the carrying out of the executive and harmonising functions and the consultative role of the Council. The Secretariat would be headed by a Secretary-General. Following the appointment of a Northern Ireland Executive, the Irish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive would nominate their representatives to a Council of Ministers. The Council of Ministers would then appoint a Secretary-General and decide upon the location of its permanent headquarters. The Secretary-General would be directed to proceed with the drawing up of plans for such headquarters. The Council of Ministers would also make arrangements for the recruitment of the staff of the Secretariat in a manner and on conditions which would, as far as is practicable, be consistent with those applying to public servants in the two administrations.
8. In the context of its harmonising functions and consultative role, the Council of Ireland would undertake important work relating, for instance, to the impact of EEC membership. As for executive functions, the first step would be to define and agree these in detail. The Conference therefore decided that, in view of the administrative complexities involved, studies would at once be set in hand to identify and, prior to the formal stage of the conference, report on areas of common interest in relation to which a Council of Ireland would take executive decisions, and, in appropriate cases, be responsible for carrying those decisions into effect. In carrying out these studies, and also in determining what should be done by the Council in terms of harmonisation, the objectives to be borne in mind would include the following:

(1) to achieve the best utilisation of scarce skills, expertise and resources;

(2) to avoid, in the interests of economy and efficiency, unnecessary duplication of effort; and

(3) to ensure complementary rather than competitive effort where this is to the advantage of agriculture, commerce and industry.

In particular, these studies would be directed to identifying, for the purposes of executive action by the Council of Ireland, suitable aspects of activities in the following broad fields.

(a) exploitation, conservation and develop-of natural resources and the environment;

(b) agricultural matters (including agricultural research, animal health and operational aspects of the Common Agriculture Policy), forestry and fisheries;

(c) co-operative ventures in the fields of trade and industry;

(d) electricity generation;

(e) tourism;

(f) roads and transport;

(g) advisory services in the field of public health;

(h) sport, culture and the arts.

It would be for the Oireachtas and the Northern Ireland Assembly to legislate from
890
time to time as to the extent of functions to be devolved to the Council of Ireland. Where necessary, the British Government will co-operate in this devolution of functions. Initially, the functions to be vested would be those identified in accordance with the procedures set out above and decided, at the formal stage of the Conference, to be transferred.
9. (i) During the initial period following the establishment of the Council, the revenue of the Council would be provided by means of grants from the two administrations in Ireland towards agreed projects and budgets, according to the nature of the service involved.

(ii) It was also agreed that further studies would be put in hand forthwith and completed as soon as possible of methods of financing the Council after the initial period which would be consonant with the responsibilities and functions assigned to it.

(iii) It was agreed that the cost of the Secretariat of the Council of Ireland would be shared equally, and other services would be financed broadly in proportion to where expenditure or benefit accrues.

(iv) The amount of money required to finance the Council's activities will depend upon the functions assigned to it from time to time.

(v) While Britain continues to pay subsidies to Northern Ireland, such payments would not involve Britain participating in the Council, it being accepted nevertheless that it would be legitimate for Britain to safeguard in an appropriate way her financial involvement in Northern Ireland.

10. It was agreed by all parties that persons committing crimes of violence, however motivated, in any part of Ireland should be brought to trial irrespective of the part of Ireland in which they are located. The concern which large sections of the people of Northern Ireland felt about this problem was in particular forcefully expressed by the representatives of the Unionist and Alliance parties. The representatives of the Irish Government stated that they understood and fully shared this concern. Different ways of solving this problem were discussed; among them were the amendment of legislation operating in the two jurisdictions on extradition, the creation of a common law enforcement area in which an all-Ireland court would have jurisdiction, and the extension of the jurisdiction of domestic courts so as to enable them to try offences committed outside the jurisdiction. It was agreed that problems of considerable legal complexity were involved, and that the British and Irish Governments would jointly set up a commission to consider all the proposals put forward at the Conference and to recommend as a matter of extreme urgency the most effective means of dealing with those who commit these crimes. The Irish Government undertook to take immediate and effective legal steps so that persons coming within their jurisdiction and accused of murder, however motivated, committed in Northern Ireland will be brought to trial, and it was agreed that any similar reciprocal action that may be needed in Northern Ireland be taken by the appropriate authorities.
11. It was agreed that the Council would be invited to consider in what way the principles of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms would be expressed in domestic legislation in each part of Ireland. It would recommend whether further legislation or the creation of other institutions, administrative or judicial, is required in either part or embracing the whole island to provide additional protection in the field of human rights. Such recommendations could include the functions of an Ombudsman or Commissioner for Complaints, or other arrangements of a similar nature which the Council of Ireland might think appropriate.
12. The Conference also discussed the question of policing and the need to ensure public support for and identification with the police service throughout the whole community. It was agreed that no single set of proposals would achieve these aims overnight, and that time would be necessary. The Conference expressed the hope that the wide range of agreement that had been reached, and the consequent formation of a power-sharing Executive, would make a major contribution to the creation of an atmosphere throughout the community where there would be widespread support for and identification with all the institutions of Northern Ireland.
13. It was broadly accepted that the two parts of Ireland are to a considerable extent interdependent in the whole field of law and order, and that the problems of political violence and identification with the police service cannot be solved without taking account of that fact.
14. Accordingly, the British Government stated that, as soon as the security problems were resolved and the new institutions were seen to be working effectively, they would wish to discuss the devolution of responsibility for normal policing and how this might be achieved with the Northern Ireland Executive and the Police.
15. With a view to improving policing throughout the island and developing community identification with and support for the police services, the governments concerned will co-operate under the auspices of a Council of Ireland through their respective police authorities. To this end, the Irish Government would set up a Police Authority, appointments to which would be made after consultation with the Council of Ministers of the Council of Ireland. In the case of the Northern Ireland Police Authority, appointments would be made after consultation with the Northern Ireland Executive, which would consult with the Council of Ministers of the Council of Ireland. When the two Police Authorities are constituted, they will make their own arrangements to achieve the objectives set out above.
16. An independent complaints procedure for dealing with complaints against the police will be set up.
17. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will set up an all-party committee from the Assembly to examine how best to introduce effective policing throughout Northern Ireland with particular reference to the need to achieve public identification with the police.
18. The Conference took note of a reaffirmation by the British Government of their firm commitment to bring detention to an end in Northern Ireland for all sections of the community as soon as the security situation permits, and noted also that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland hopes to be able to bring into use his statutory powers of selective release in time for a number of detainees to be released before Christmas.
19. The British Government stated that, in the light of the decisions reached at the Conference, they would now seek the authority of Parliament to devolve full powers to the Northern Ireland Executive and Northern Ireland Assembly as soon as possible. The formal appointment of the Northern Ireland Executive would then be made.
20. The Conference agreed that a formal conference would be held early in the New Year at which the British and Irish Governments and the Northern Ireland Executive would meet together to consider reports on the studies which have been commissioned and to sign the agreement reached.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House unreservedly welcomes the Communiqué and the agreement which has been achieved, which is very remarkable in all the circumstances. It reflects the greatest credit on everybody, including members of Her Majesty's Government who took part in this Conference and those both from the Republic and from Northern Ireland. With 37 speakers to-day, it would be wrong if I were to start asking detailed questions. There are, obviously, a number of very difficult questions which have been raised in the Communiqué on which one would wish to know how Her Majesty's Government see matters working out. But I think we shall have an opportunity to deal with them (perhaps the noble Lord can tell us) probably on Tuesday of next week when both the Act and the Bill to amend the Constitution in relation to the size of the Executive, and the devolution Order, will come forward. Perhaps the noble Lord can say something as to whether legislation will be necessary in regard to the common law enforcement area, which is a complex and difficult matter. If so, this would be helpful. But, beyond that, all I can say is that I am sure everybody in this country, and the overwhelming majority of people in Ireland, North and South, now hope that both the subversive elements and the extremist Protestants will not wreck the best chance in centuries of peace for Northern Ireland.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I would briefly associate noble Lords on these Benches very warmly with the words of the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition. It is no time for making long speeches or for asking questions. I merely hope, like him, that the people in Ireland will be able to take this chance, which is the best chance that has arisen in front of them for a very long time.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their very generous comments. I will be as brief in my reply as they were in their comments, in view of the very long list of speakers we have for the two debates to-day. I can say to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition that we shall have an opportunity to discuss Northern Ireland on Tuesday week, December 18, when we shall have three Orders before us implementing the provisions of the Northern Ireland (Constitution) Act. Noble Lords will remember that these are needed to devolve powers to the Northern Ireland Executive. Also, there will be one amending Bill, amending the Northern Ireland (Constitution) Act in one respect: that is, the size of the Executive.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow one who has been concerned with this issue for so many years to add to what has been so finely said by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, and express heartfelt tribute to all concerned?

PROTECTION OF MINORS BILL [H.L.]
3.39 p.m.
Debate resumed.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, it might be convenient and helpful if I were to intervene at this early juncture to give your Lordships some broad indication of the views of the Government up to now on the general question of corporal punishment, particularly in schools, and a brief account of the developments relevant to it which have taken place in recent years. At the end of the debate I will respond to the points that your Lordships make—or to some of the points
894
that some of your Lordships make—in the course of the debate, and perhaps proffer some advice on the attitude that we might adopt to the Bill.
I think it is as well to recall the powers that my right honourable Friend the Secretary of State has in respect of corporal punishment in schools. The only stipulation which she makes which relates to corporal punishment is that a punishment book must be kept in schools by head teachers in which details of all cases of corporal punishment must be entered. The legal basis on which this provision rests is the right of the Secretary of State to call for returns and reports on this matter from local education authorities. While it is true that the Secretary of State does have powers to abolish corporal punishment by Regulation in special schools and direct grant schools, such powers do not extend to county or to voluntary maintained schools, which represent, as your Lordships know, the great majority of schools in this country; nor does it extend to independent schools. The attitude of the Government towards corporal punishment is quite simply and succinctly expressed in a reply given by my right honourable friend in another place on May 11, 1972, when she said:
"In my view this, like other questions of discipline in individual schools, is best left within the discretion of local education authorities, the managers of the schools and the teachers."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 836. c. 1539.]
She and I are, of course, aware of the view of many, not least the bodies representative of the teachers themselves, that corporal punishment is not a particularly effective agent of education, and we welcome the fact that its use is on the decline.
Our impression—and I would remind your Lordships that we are, through Her Majesty's Inspectors, in close touch with what is going on in schools—is that teachers are nowadays using the cane less and less. There is good reason to expect that this trend will continue and that in due time we shall indeed see what the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, and her friends want to see; that is, the total disappearance of corporal punishment from schools. Certainly I would confirm what the noble Baroness has already said; that developments in

895
teaching methods, in the social organisation of schools and in the design of school buildings are all contributing to encourage the emergence of warmer, more personal and more natural relationships between teachers and pupils. Furthermore, specific developments in remedial teaching and a significant growth in the schools' psychological service in many authorities are having a beneficial influence on the ways in which difficult children are handled.
In 1967 Lady Plowden, in her Report on Primary Education, recommended that while decisions on punishment should generally be left to the professional judgment of teachers, the infliction of pain as a method of punishment in primary schools should be forbidden. But (and this is a point I would like your Lordships to note in particular) she was by no means in favour of making caning a criminal offence—which is what this Bill does—nor was she in favour of proceeding by legislation, which of course is what the noble Baroness proposes to do. At the same time, as a result of a particular case attention was being focused on the possibility of abolishing corporal punishment in schools for handicapped children. There was also at this time considerable interest in the use of corporal punishment in approved schools and remand homes—and I shall say more about that later in the debate.
The then Secretary of State, Mr. Gordon Walker, issued a circular in January, 1968, in which he expressed the view —and presumably the view of the Government in which he served—that the practice of corporal punishment should disappear from schools, but he felt that the responsibility for achieving this was best left in the hands of local education authorities, governing bodies of schools and teachers, and I shall be interested to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, who is shortly to follow me, whether in fact his Party still take that view or, if they have changed it, why they have changed it. A draft circular was discussed with local authority associations, in connection with the issue of that circular to which I have just referred, in the early months of 1968. In the discussions leading up to the issue of that circular, it became very clear that further action to restrict or abolish corporal punishment would not command general
896
support in the educational world and no steps have been taken, either by this Government or by their predecessor, to change the law further in any wholesale way, and none is in contemplation.
However, as the noble Baroness has said, in the last year or so a number of local education authorities have taken steps, as they are quite entitled to do and have been encouraged to do by the two statements of policy which I have just discussed, to restrict the use of corporal punishment in various ways. One authority, to which the noble Baroness has already alluded, earlier this year banned its use altogether in all its schools. Another—namely, ILEA—has, again as she said, from the beginning of this year prohibited its use in its primary schools. The important point to note, of course, is the extensive consultation which they had with their teachers and those concerned with primary schools before bringing that prohibition into force. Many authorities, in regulations governing corporal punishment, make its use contingent on the express permission of the head teacher or actually restrict its use to head teachers or to senior staff. It is very common for such regulations to forbid the canning of girls by male teachers.
I now turn briefly to the legal position, which is important as the Bill is proposing to introduce a criminal offence. So far as the administration of punishment to pupils is concerned, the position in law at present is that the teacher stands in loco parentis, as the noble Baroness has said. He owes to the children entrusted to his care the same degree of supervision as the law requires of a good and reasonable parent, and in dealing with a badly behaved child he is allowed the same powers of "reasonable chastisement" as the law grants to such a parent. This common law review of the right of punishment of a minor has been strengthened by statute, first in the Prevention of Cruelty to Children Act 1904, and again in the Children and Young Persons Act 1933.
Still continuing with the legal position, your Lordships will have noticed that the Bill is intended to be applied to Northern Ireland; and it also provides for its extension by Order in Council to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. I want at this early stage, before advising the House about the Bill in general, to make it

897
quite clear to your Lordships that the Government could not accept either of these particular provisions. So far as Northern Ireland is concerned, this is a matter which it is expected will be the responsibility of the new Assembly and Executive, once power has been devolved upon them. It will be for them to consider what legislation, if any, is desirable in this field in Northern Ireland. The wishes of the Island Governments in this matter are not yet known, but it is virtually certain that they will regard the inclusion of such a provision of a Bill of this nature as being contrary to normal constitutional practice, as indeed it is. Corporal punishment is essentially a matter domestic to the Islands and one which is fully within the competence of their own Legislatures. There is a principle that Parliament does not legislate for the Islands on such matters, and I draw the attention of your Lordships to the fact that this principle was recently endorsed by the Royal Commission on the Constitution in their recently published Report.
BARONESS WOOTTON or ABINGER: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that subject would he clarify the position about Scotland, which he did not mention?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, what I have been saying about Northern Ireland and the Islands does not apply with the same force to Scotland or to Wales. I say "with the same force", but I do not want to develop that part extensively now because if possible I want to reflect upon what your Lordships have to say. It is the sweeping nature of these changes, their application to the entire United Kingdom, without in our view sufficient attention to local variations and to local attitudes and conditions, that is one of the reasons for our objection to the Bill—as I hope I have already have made clear by reference to my right honourable friend's remarks in another place a year ago.
On the face of it, the Bill under discussion would seem to me to amount to a radical change not only in tile law as it stands but also in our whole approach to this matter. Not only does it create a new criminal offence of wilful assault on a minor, but where the parent and guardian are concerned it explicitly
898
abolishes the common law defence in such criminal proceedings of "reasonable chastisement" upon which teachers have hitherto relied. It proceeds in an entirely different way to bring about what many people, I think on both sides of your Lordships' House, as well as outside, would regard as a desirable trend, a decline in the use of corporal punishment in education. Nevertheless the Government will listen with interest to your Lordships' deliberations on the Bill. What I am particularly looking forward to hearing is what, in the view of your Lordships, are the changes in the schools and the changes in society that have occurred, for instance, since the Labour Party were last in office which lead us to want to adapt such a radically different approach to the abolition of corporal punishment in our schools.
3.52 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, claimed that this Bill was timely; and I think that she was quite right. I think that the speech to which we have just listened indicates that there is a great need for us to look in depth into this matter of corporal punishment. There are those who still claim that to spare the rod is to spoil the child; there are others who say that caning is the only tiling that some children can understand; and there are others who say that it is a means of achieving discipline that ought to be kept in reserve. Frankly, that would appear to be the attitude of one of the largest professional organisations catering for teachers, the National Union of Teachers who gave evidence to the Plowden Committee in 1964 to that effect.
I think we ought not to overlook the fact that it was their view that it was advisable not to concentrate of this single issue of corporal punishment as a means of achieving discipline but that more attention ought to be paid to supportive measures—and the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, touched on some of them—that would provide more interesting curricula and far greater opportunities for pupils to undertake interesting studies while at school. I am quite sure that we on this side of the House will say that many of our schools lack the resources they ought to have in order to make school as interesting and rewarding as it might be and that we cannot too soon

899
achieve a state of affairs where we can say that all our schools are getting a fair share of the resources to such an extent as we would enable them to give far greater consideration to the needs of individual pupils than has been possible up to the present time.
The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, quoted from Plowden. Plowden was in 1967. We have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, and from the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, of what has been done during these last few years and of what is promised for the immediate future. It is precious little when we look at it. It is true that ILEA, the greatest education authority in the country, last year decided that corporal punishment was to be abolished in primary schools. They made it quite clear that they hoped that there would be an improvement in the secondary schools in London. It has taken nearly six years to achieve that point. The progress that has been made in London has been achieved in precisely the kind of way that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, suggested that progress should be made: by discussion and negotiation with the teachers. The discussions have been very lengthy indeed and one wonders whether in fact this rate of progress is anything like good enough. The way forward that many teachers would choose is discussion and agreement; and I have no doubt they feel that they have a very strong case.
I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, with interest. He started by saying that he did not think that corporal punishment, that caning children, did a very great deal of harm. I would be interesting to know what good it does. Does it do any good at all? Has anybody been able to prove what it does? I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford himself went out of his way to denigrate the use of corporal punishment. He said that it was a practice that was not particularly effective and he welcomed the fact that it was on the decline. If he welcomes the fact that it is on the decline, then there is very little to be said for it. One wonders who is going to make a case for its retention, since the Government welcome the fact that it is on the decline and greatly look forward to the day when there will be none of it. Of course we welcome all the progress that
900
can be effected by discussion and negotiation; but it has shown itself to be a very slow and uncertain procedure.
My Lords, I hope that the House will give a Second Reading to the Bill. I have noted the large number of speakers on the list and I do not wish to take up too much of your Lordships' May I say that I hope that the House will look at this matter dispassionately and will not be over concerned with making Party points. I had the feeling that the noble Lord was being a little political in his speech in the way he touched on matters concerning Party attitudes. Let me say that he well knows that the Party for which I am speaking to-day have not laid down a hard line on this; but I would remind him that Mr. Edward Short—who followed Mr. Crosland, who followed Mr. Gordon Walker; and it was interesting that the noble Lord went back to Mr. Gordon Walker—in his book, Education in a Changing World, which was published in 1971, said:
"Sanctions and punishment are utterly unacceptable to-day. A free society cannot be sustained by an authoritarian system of education. Perhaps the freedom of our society would possess more reality if our children were nurtured in freedom and given the chance to acquire the self discipline that it requires in order to survive."
Therefore, I say as frankly as I can to the noble Lord that that is the attitude which has been developing within the Labour movement towards the use of corporal punishment for minors.
I think we have no reason to feel that we are on the wrong road. A survey was undertaken in the West Riding of Yorkshire in 1961 and published in 1968 in a book by Sir Alec Clegg and Barbara Megson, called Children in Distress. It is quite clear from reading that report that there is no case to be made out for the retention of corporal punishment. As the report said:
"There is no support for the view that schools which cane rigorously produce the best behaviour. There is no support whatever for the view that schools in which the cane is most used produce fewest delinquents. There is no support for the view that the school environment does not affect the rate of delinquency amongst children of school age. There is no support for the view that the best behaved school in the West Riding drew pupils from socially favoured areas. In so far as schools in this inquiry are concerned behaviour was best and delinquency least in those schools where corporal punishment is used sparingly."

901
If any Member of your Lordships' House is in doubt about the matter we are discussing to-day, I would urge him to read The Last Resort; Corporal Punishment in Schools, edited by Peter Newell.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, gave a number of instances of what has happened in schools where corporal punishment has been abolished. I think that if noble Lords read the book whose title I have just given, they will feel that the case the noble Baroness made to the House this afternoon is there supported by additional facts, and there will be others like it. I shall be surprised if we do not get more reasons and more argument from this side of the House before the debate is over. I have come to the conclusion that as far as this Bill is concerned, this House would be doing a good thing if it agreed to allow it to go to the Committee stage.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would allow me to intervene before he goes on from that point. May I ask him to deal a little more fully with the view that his Party now takes in this matter? I think he would agree there are two issues. First of all, there is the general attitude adopted by the noble Lord and his friends and by myself and my friends to the continuing use of corporal punishment in schools. I detect there is little between us on that point. I have thought also there was not much between us regarding the way in which the decline of corporal punishment is furthered and carried on. The noble Lord's right honourable friend said in 1968 that this is best left in the hands of local education authorities, governing bodies of schools, and teachers. He quoted others besides his right honourable friend Mr. Gordon Walker on their general attitude to corporal punishment, but he did not tell the House, and it would be helpful for the House to know, whether the view of his Party has changed on the way in which further change is brought about.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I must say I am very surprised at the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. I do not know whether he was talking or listening to something said by his noble friend Lord Aberdare, but in point of fact I thought I had dealt with this subject. I did not quote at length from what a number of people in
902
my Party said. I quoted specifically from what Mr. Edward Short wrote in 1971. That was the only quotation I gave, and I said that this was indicative of the developing attitude within the Labour movement. I do not think any of your Lordships believe that this is—and again I will repeat what I said before—a keen Party issue. I regret it if I did not make myself clear, and in case I did not, I hope the House will allow me to repeat myself. In view of what the noble Lord said, I very much regret that he appeared to be making this matter a strong Party issue. I do not think we shall do the cause of education any good if we tackle a subject like this in that kind of way. I am surprised he should intervene at the point where I was merely emphasising that I thought this Bill ought to go to Committee for consideration of what it proposes in detail. I have reason to think that there is movement of opinion with regard to this matter. I have discussed it with a number of people who are professionals in the service of education. I am impressed by the fact that more and more of them are feeling that corporal punishment serves no really useful purpose, and that the challenge which exists to-day in regard to the maintenance of discipline requires other methods. It requires the kind of supportive help that the noble Lord himself indicated.
My Lords, I said I was not going to speak for long, and I shall conclude by trying to justify what I said just now about the movement of thought in this matter. I have been privileged—and I enjoyed it—to work for a great number of years with the old London County Council and with the Inner London Education Authority. I thought it would be useful to know what their attitude might be with regard to this Bill. Because it would be quite wrong, I cannot pretend that they thought this Bill was perfect in all that it offers, but I think I can say that the chairman of the Schools Sub-committee of the Inner London Education Authority has considered representations relating to this Bill from officers, and has expressed the view that he agrees with the broad aims of the Bill—that is, without accepting all its details. My only point there is that there is an excellent case for this Bill to go to Committee stage and for the House to have an opportunity of examining its provisions in detail and reporting back.

903
For myself, may I make it clear that I support the general principles of this Bill. I believe it is very timely that we should look at the matter in the kind of way that consideration at Committee stage would permit.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, before the noble Lord resumes his seat, would he clear up a matter for me? The noble Lord made reference to authoritarian education, which he went on to condemn. Do I assume from his comments that he thinks chastisement in school is in itself indicative of authoritarian education?
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I think my noble friend Lord Peddie did not take the point. I was quoting the words of Mr. Edward Short.
LORD PEDDLE: And supporting it?
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I think in point of fact it would be as well if the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, replied to the questions. But may I say with regard to the use of corporal punishment in schools that it is indicative in many cases of far too great a strain on the teacher. There are far too many teachers who have learnt to rely on it. There can be no question that a great many teachers are able to live their lives and do their work without resorting to the cane. In my opinion, there is no case for the continuing use of corporal punishment in our schools; the need is for the introduction of supportive resources so that the teachers who now have to resort to corporal punishment can achieve better results without it.
4.10 p.m.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, in view of the number of speakers I will try to be brief and admit from the beginning that I really put my name down, not because I claim to be an expert on the subject but because I strongly support the Bill which the noble Baroness has proposed to us this afternoon. I was brought up in a family of educationists. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, referred to the Government's being kept informed of the situation in schools by the inspectors of schools. My mother was the first woman ever to be an inspector of schools, and that was in the 1880s, or perhaps 1891, and when I was a boy in my family, which I am afraid was some 60 years
904
ago, it was always assumed that corporal punishment was a degrading anachronism, and I have never felt that I needed to take any other view. My real amazement—and I am sure it would be to my mother's amazement—is that this subject is being seriously debated in 1973.
However, that being said, I really was rather amazed at what the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said. He welcomed the fact that corporal punishment is gradually —very gradually— being "phased out", as I think the present expression would have it. The noble Lord looked forward to the day (whether he will live to see it I do not know) when it may have been completely phased out. He favours the end of corporal punishment. At this stage he does not tell us what the attitude of the Government is towards it but he did enumerate some of the Government's objections to it. I can fully understand a Government in the fourth year of its office not wanting to get too far ahead of public opinion, and I am quite sure that that would refer to any Government. It is not merely a habit of the Government in power at the present time. But I think there are times when we in this House, at any rate, independently of who is governing at the present time, should express a strong opinion, and if we feel, as I think the majority of us do feel, that it really is time that we came face to face with this problem, we should say so in no uncertain terms. In other words, we should, if necessary, put this matter to the vote and give a resounding majority in favour of the Bill, after which it will be for the Government and the rest of us in Committee to see whether, on balance, it is the right time and the right way to introduce this measure. But if we feel what the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said he feels about corporal punishment, let us be in no uncertain mood and say what we feel.
The only other points that I might have made have, not at all to my surprise, already been made by the noble Baroness, who has marshalled all the evidence to show that there is little or no evidence in favour of corporal punishment. The two arguments we tend to hear are, first, "Well, I was brought up with it, and it never did me any harm". I think that is about the most egotistic statement that any person could make. My answer to

905
it is, "My dear old fellow, you don't realise what harm it did! "The development of the stiff upper lip is liable to be accompanied by the development of a similarly rigid mind. The other argument, which I consider to be much more serious, is this: "All right, if you were a schoolmaster and you had to deal with some of the boys that we have in our schools in the East End of London" —or wherever you like—"who are really almost vicious bullies and so on, what would you do?" I find that a much more cogent argument and I can easily see people being led into the view that corporal punishment is the right thing. In that connection I can only say that the evidence is against them. If that boy went just so much further and got himself into the hands of the police and then into the juvenile courts, into a borstal, and so on, he would find himself at once in a situation in which corporal punishment has already been abolished. So why it should be allowed for the school teachers, I do not know.
I have been reading a very interesting book on the medical treatment of prisoners and I came across something which I ought already to have known (but I am always doing that): the minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners, a resolution adopted in 1955 by the first United Nations Congress on the prevention of crime and treatment of prisoners:
"corporal punishment and all cruel, inhuman or degrading punishments shall be completely prohibited as punishments for disciplinary offences".
Those are minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners. It seems to me that corporal punishment is a degrading punishment, and if that resolution is good enough for prisoners it should be good enough for children. Therefore corporal punishment should be ruled out.
4.16 p.m.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I find the noble Lord, Lord Platt, easy to follow because he has made many of the points that I had proposed to make. This is a very short Bill and a clear one, and it demands short speeches. So far it has had them, and I shall try to conform. There is a long list of speakers, most of whom I think are here to express solidarity with the noble Baroness, and that really is the only
906
reason why I am on my feet. It never occurred to me that she would leave out any argument, nor do I think she has done. I should like to repeat two of the arguments in a rather different form and to make one severe and one mild criticism.
To deal with the two arguments first, there are only two arguments in favour of corporal punishment as a part of education. One is that you cannot maintain discipline without it—and that is untrue. I think there is enough evidence in what the noble Baroness said to make it perfectly clear that it is untrue; that although there were (I think she said) in one term over 8,000 cases of boy caning in Edinburgh, there is none in many other parts of the country. It is perfectly clear that many institutions can run with total discipline if they have proper leadership. So I absolutely reject the first reason. The other argument advanced in favour of corporal punishment is that it is a tough world and it is much better for children to be brought up tough. This, of course, does not hold water at all because it does not involve penal action. If beating is an essential part of the toughening of children, then all children should be beaten as a regular thing. That was Dr. Johnson's view, I think; and, if I remember correctly, it also appeared in Gulliver's Travels. But it is not now the general view, and in spite of the suggestions made by the noble Lord, Lord Platt, that this might in the long run be what the Secretary of State thinks, I do not really believe it is. So neither of the two arguments in favour of corporal punishment in schools holds up.
I have one severe criticism to make of the Bill as it stands. My noble friend—I am sure absent-mindedly—has included imprisonment as a possible punishment. If I may say so, this is ridiculous. I know she has done it in order to give people who are charged the opportunity of going to a higher court, but it will not do. The one thing we must not do is that. We are dealing with the teacher who, faced with an hysterical class takes the natural action, which is to strike the child. We are trying to make the teachers behave in a way which is less than purely animal, and I think if they do behave in that way the sanction of public arraignment before a court and punishment by a fine is quite enough. So I shall certainly move an

907
Amendment to that provision, and I am certain that my noble friend will accept it.
This brings me to the only serious argument and one which the noble Lord, Lord Platt, has already raised. When I was in the Army abroad I remember hearing from my wife of a party of children coming down to be evacuated and of absolute hysterical bedlam. A friend of ours who was with my wife went in and stopped the thing in two minutes. When she came out of the room my wife said, "What did you do?" and her friend said, "I took the two noisiest ones and slapped them." I think we have got to do without this sort of action, but it is absurd to pretend that it does not sometimes work. Torture was a very effective way of making some unwilling people reveal facts. Yet we manage very well without it, and I think we must be prepared to manage very well without this particular form of punishment. My final point is that I think the noble Baroness's analogy between sport and teaching will not hold water, and I wish she had not used it. Having said that, I would say that there is no doubt whatever that this Bill must be given a Second Reading. There may be small points to alter within it, but I hope very much that we shall criticise it, improve it and end by making it work.
4.21 p.m.
LORD MORRIS OF GRASMERE: My Lords, I am speaking in this debate in order to give my support to this Bill. This is more a matter of standing up to be counted than of contributing to arguments. Arguments have been very well put by other people and will be very well put by other people. I have taken a very long time to come round to the view that the use of corporal punishment in schools should be forbidden. The world has changed, social conditions have changed, and I shall say a brief word about that in a moment. I think the time has come when it should be forbidden. Most people seem to be assuming that it is all a question of the time, whether the time has yet come, and I think that is the important point. I also want to say that it seems to me to be one of the very few questions that ought to be decided at one blow in Westminster. I know that the teaching profession is not yet ready for the abolition of corporal punishment. I
908
think we have a very great secret in this country in our educational efforts, in using the powers of the teaching profession to make the schools as good as they are, which in many respects, almost all respects, is very good indeed.
The noble Baroness said a word about the professional aspects of this matter. I should be most reluctant to feel that we were in any way going back on our general attitude, where we rely to a tremendous extent on the good sense and imagination, the resource and the humanity of the profession. But I do not think this is a matter for local option. If the world is so changed and we have reached a stage when society just will not have corporal punishment for children in schools and similar institutions, it is a matter for society through its own central institutions to decide this and to decide it once and for all.
May I make one or two very brief reflections. I was for a time, and a critical time, a headmaster of a large State school. I never acquired the status, the skill or the character of a very professional headmaster, because I had spent all my life as a university teacher. But I had to face up to many of the questions facing a headmaster. It was at the time when fathers had not yet returned from the war, when there was a great deal of very strange behaviour by the young in schools, in the streets, on the buses, in the trains, everywhere, and where schools were expected still to play a great part in improving this behaviour. I remember that when I was a child my father was a village schoolmaster, and in those days, of course, he was part of the law and order system of society of the village; he was expected to be able to control the way in which the young people behaved all over the village, in the town and, of course, in the school playground, and he was supported almost without question in using rough justice to do this. The rough justice method in his case did not involve very much corporal punishment —indeed, so far as I remember, very little indeed. But he was able, if necessary, to face up physically to boys much larger than himself because he was regarded by the whole social system as part of the law and order and discipline of the place, and everybody was behind him.

909
One must remember that in those days schools were expected to be able to deal with large numbers of things which the courts and police were more than happy to leave to them. Also with the universities, notably the residential universities in the small towns, with very large numbers of young people, the courts and the police were more than happy to leave a great many of the disciplinary problems to the university, to the college, the agricultural college, the school and so on. Nobody questioned that this rough justice method did not do a great deal of harm and was of enormous help to law and order.
But now, of course, this is quite impossible nobody can use this method at all. Some universities were very slow to see this coming. It has come in my lifetime. It came at a tremendous pace during the period when I was working in the administration of a university and its discipline and its education. Rough justice was out. Nobody was willing to accept anything except what was called natural justice, which meant that a thing had to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt against any individual person. The universities or the schools that went on trying to play their part in this disciplinary matter soon found that they got bitten. Public opinion was no longer behind them.
Similarly, in loco parentis is out. Everybody who is a university teacher, anybody who is a schoolmaster, knows that. It is out from the point of view of the children; they do not think there is anything in it at all. It is out from the point of view of the parents. One of the most impressive things, if one gets parents together and asks them, is that they will tell you that this sort of thing is no longer possible. Anyway, parental discipline is very different from what it was, and to have other people guessing what parental discipline is and trying to be in loco parentis is just not possible.
I have one other reflection. I quickly came to a conclusion, so fat as corporal punishment was concerned, that nothing important could be achieved by corporal punishment in any circumstances. I think this is accepted by the vast majority of teachers—and probably all teachers. In these days, the big things, whether for the individual or whether for a group or
910
the mass, cannot be achieved by corporal punishment, and the world is a better place for that fact. Similarly, no school teacher would any longer think that corporal punishment is required or that they should use corporal punishment, or even be allowed to use it as a positive weapon in education.
Schoolmasters used to think that you could make children try harder by rapping them over the knuckles with the cane. They used to think that you could make them attend by a little painful corporal punishment—as the noble Lord said, not doing a great deal of harm, but painful and drawing the attention of the pupil and making the pupil try harder, and so on. Nobody any longer believes that. That has all gone. Teachers have other ways of doing these things and they know perfectly well that the old way had no effect. Therefore, inside the classroom corporal punishment is not necessary.
One is very reluctant to dream of moving faster than the opinion of teachers as a body, and there are without doubt very difficult circumstances in some schools where there is a good deal of violence in the neighbourhood, in the streets, perhaps in the homes, and where life is very difficult indeed for teachers and the public feel immense sympathy for them. The public think it absolutely marvellous that a young woman or young man can control a classroom of 50 children without going off her or his head from time to time. They have all the sympathy in the world with teachers, and when teachers say that it is very difficult to do without this punishment they are apt to sympathise with them. Similarly, if children gang up against a teacher, or a large boy or a large girl uses his or her weight against a small teacher, the "old Adam" in all of us as a public sympathises with the teacher and says that somebody ought to be hit over the head, or smacked on the bottom. But we all know that corporal punishment does not solve the problem and will not protect the teacher. It is out of line with the whole approach that we now have for dealing with such misconduct. Nobody believes that corporal punishment will do any of these things.
Corporal punishment—and this weighed with me for a very long time—is a simple punishment; it is over quickly, it does not

911
last very long and it does have a certain effect. It has the certain effect without needing to be really painful, because the vast majority of people do not like pain, even if it is not very great and is sharp and soon over. So it does have a certain effect for small things in small ways. But that, too, has gone. Clearly, we no longer feel that that is an acceptable punishment. I have not tried to marshal the arguments; they were much better marshalled by the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger. I have tried to offer one or two reflections from a little experience which makes me feel, first, that the time has come to banish corporal punishment and, secondly, that this should be done by a central piece of legislation.
4.34 p.m.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, my own experience of corporal punishment was not only painful but unpleasant. I went to one of the schools that I think the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, mentioned, where larger boys beat smaller boys. Whether this did me any good or harm I am not in a position to say, but I found it extremely painful at the time. What I found more unpleasant was when I became a bigger boy and had to beat a smaller boy. I did it once and found it so distasteful that I never did it again. I believe in the theory that it must be right to end corporal punishment. In an ideal situation there would be no need for it at all.
Here I should like to quote from an interesting circular which was rooted out for me and which was sent out by the Board of Education over seventy years ago. It was on punishment generally:
"If discipline were perfectly efficient, punishment would be unknown, for the result of efficient discipline is to engender the good habits which render punishment unnecessary. Order, diligence and obedience, which are only maintained by frequent punishment or the dread of it, do not constitute discipline. Indeed, the infliction of punishment is, to some extent, a confession of defeat by the authority that inflicts it; for the object of discipline is to prevent commission of faults. No punishment which excites the emotion of terror in a child should ever be employed. In an infants' school, no punishment should be permitted which causes bodily pain. In schools for older children, corporal punishment should be discouraged as an ordinary expedient in boys' schools, and altogether in girls' schools."
That, as I say, went out some seventy years ago.
912
I am afraid that I must disagree about the practice of corporal punishment. Here I would refer to what the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, said about practical points. I am afraid that in true life things are different, and I can think of cases where it may be both expedient and necessary to use corporal punishment—for instance, where a teenage boy assaults a female member of staff, or there is excessive violence and aggression. The noble Lord, Lord Platt, mentioned bullying, and this is another case where it may be necessary. You may well have an older child bullying a younger one. I feel most strongly that this bully may well have problems at home and in the environment that he comes from which are the root cause of this bullying. It must be absolutely right that the first priority is to concentrate on a long-term cure for these problems. In order to do this one must concentrate all the professional skills available. There is the child guidance clinic, the child psychiatrist, and the educational psychologist.
But surely if it is right to do this, may it not also be right, for the sake of the victim of that bully or the protection of another small child, that that bully should receive at the time a short, sharp shock, not so much as a punishment but as a deterrent to stop him from doing it again? Who must make that decision at the time? Surely it must be the teacher or teachers involved. They know the circumstances, and they know the children involved. My own educational authority has always left the question of corporal punishment to the heads of the staff. They are one of the people the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, mentioned. I am sure that this is the right thing to do. After all, the teacher is a professional and has the skill and knowledge to know when corporal punishment is necessary and desirable. In my opinion to pass an Act of Parliament is not the right way to go about ending corporal punishment in schools. As a comparative newcomer to your Lordships' House, I feel that it is somewhat unfortunate for me that I should be the first to get up and oppose this Bill, and I hope that your Lordships will bear with me. I am against the Bill very reluctantly, because I should like to see an ideal state where corporal punishment was no longer necessary. But that ideal state is not here yet, and it

913
cannot be induced by an Act of Parliament.
4.38 p.m.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I listened with interest to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. First there was a crescendo of hope as he spoke of his sympathy and his support for the decline in caning that was taking place, but that dwindled away into a diminuendo of disappointment when he stood on the brink and refused to take the plunge and back the Bill. I am sorry also that he tried to introduce Party politics, even though in a gentle way. This is not Party politics. I am not making a Party political speech; I am standing here to-day virtually as a political eunuch. I support the Bill. Even though it deals with many other kinds of institutions and establishments I shall confine what I have to say to the ordinary schools that boys and girls attend. I shall not deal with prisons because obviously they are not covered by the Bill, and anyhow I have never been in one. I shall not deal with borstals because there is not now any corporal punishment in borstal institutions. I shall not deal with remand homes, where there actually is corporal punishment today. Perhaps I ought to say that I spent the first few years of my life at a reformatory school. That was not because of any juvenile misdeeds on my part but simply because my father was the music master and bandmaster there, and we lived in a house in the grounds. I expect that the attitude of that reformatory school to corporal punishment has changed in the intervening years, just as it has changed in the community as a whole.
Now, my Lords, what are the questions to which we have to address ourselves? The first, I think, is whether it is possible to abolish corporal punishment. My noble friend Lady Wootton has given instances of countries in West Europe which have done that. I will go a hit further eastward and add Poland and Soviet Russia, and a bit further Eastward, for what the argument is worth, and add Egypt and Israel as well. Of course, there is an increasing number of individual schools in this country, both primary and secondary, which are abolishing corporal punishment, sometimes because of influence brought to bear by the
914
authority, sometimes because of the personal will of the headmaster, and in none of these cases has there been any ill effect. On the contrary, the effects have been good; and it is generally recognised that there is a decline—a steady decline, but a growing decline—in the use of canes in the schools of this country.
The second point to which we have to direct ourselves is whether corporal punishment is cruel. I do not want to exaggerate. I would not suggest that a single, moderate stroke on the hand with a cane involves grave physical cruelty, but it does considerable psychological harm to both the boy and the teacher, and it does much to destroy human relationships between the two classes. We also have to bear in mind that from time to time we hear of cases where punishment has been inflicted in a very sadistic manner, and we cannot afford to take the risk of that kind of thing happening in our schools.
The third question which we have to ask is whether corporal punishment is effective. I do not think it is. First of all, it causes a boy to regard his teacher as an enemy; secondly, it does not cure his misconduct, but often makes it worse; thirdly, it sets the boy out to try to defeat the teacher at every turn, and that is why we find that it is the same boy or the same group of boys who are frequently punished time after time. My Lords, it would be futile to deny that in some of our schools there are boys who are defiant and who are violent, but to try to cure that by using violence against them is only to make matters worse; and the tougher the boy the tougher will be his reaction.
On this question about the effectiveness of corporal punishment, I have a few recollections from my own school days, which began just over seventy years ago. In the top class of the school, because our teacher was a member of the senior staff he was frequently called out of the room. As soon as he left there would be hubbub, and in the midst of that he would return. "Hands up", he would say, "all those boys who have been talking". Not a single hand would be held up. "All right", he would say, "come out Leatherland". I ask your Lordships to testify to the fact that the caning of me did not cure me of being talkative. There was in that same class another boy who was nearly as talkative

915
as I was. He was Stanley Evans, who later became the Member of Parliament for Wednesbury. It did not cure him, either. Perhaps that was a pity, because if he had not been quite so talkative about featherbedding farmers he might have risen to one of the highest positions in this State.
It would be wrong to think that the opponents of corporal punishment are people of a soft, namby-pamby disposition. There must be discipline in schools. I am a fervent upholder of discipline. I suppose that dates from the time when I was a 20-year-old company sergeant major in France in the First World War. But discipline has to come from the mind: it cannot be imposed physically. Any attempt at physical punishment leads to the child losing his respect for the teacher. There are many alternative forms of sanction which can be used, and these are used by teachers in our schools every day. There is detention; there is the deprivation of privileges; there is banning from school outings, the imposition of extra work and the imposition of additional responsibility on some of these children—because the old theory of the poacher turned gamekeeper still has some merit in it. There can also be a note to the boy's parents.
My Lords, if I may digress for a moment from the school to the home, I remember that I was only very rarely accorded corporal punishment at home. Other sanctions were employed. I was made to practise on the euphonium for an extra half hour a night nearly every day of the week, but whether that was more of a punishment to the neighbours than it was to me I do not know—and before any noble Lord says it let me say that that is how I learned to blow my own trumpet.
There are still further methods of remedial treatment. There are the school psychologists, who can do much to help a boy who is really unruly. There is the school welfare officer, who can make inquiries at home and find whether the cause of the trouble resides there, as it so very frequently does. And if we have a boy whose bad conduct at school is due to the fact that he is treated harshly at home, then that boy, more than any of the others, needs to be able to find a friend in his teacher at school. Then
916
again, the transfer from one school to another, with new companions, a new atmosphere and a new environment, often works wonders with an unruly boy. There is also the kind of treatment that young offenders get from their probation officers. More and more of these remedial treatments are needed. More and more teachers and smaller classes are needed, and I am quite sure that they would make a very great difference to the conduct of children in the schools. We hear from time to time about what are called "blackboard jungles". I think the newspapers and television sometimes do more harm than good by the undue publicity that they give to these schools. They convert these young hooligans into public martyrs and heroes. We have to remember that this jungledom, where it exists, does so in schools where caning has been the custom for years and years past. I am not convinced that corporal punishment is the remedy. It does not cure youngsters; it only makes them worse. It sometimes represses inclinations which later burst out in another way—in the streets, or even at the universities—to the detriment of society generally.
I do not want to detail in any elaborate way what has happened in the primary schools of the Inner London Education Authority. That experiment has been a success. So also has there been success in secondary schools throughout the country where the headmaster and the governors, on their own initiative, have decided to ban the cane. But I will give one quotation from a report of the Inner London Education Authority, which says this:
"Various sanctions other than corporal punishment are in use in secondary schools, and a number of heads claim that they are every bit as effective".
The head of one of the London comprehensive schools says:
"Since abolishing corporal punishment we have had a more peaceful and friendly place".
My Lords, I do not want to speak about the Borough of Cardiff, which abolished corporal punishment and then restored it; nor about the fact that large numbers of teachers still want to retain the cane, although that number is markedly reducing. All I want to say is that a wind of change is blowing through our society on this question of punishment. We need to give more attention in all

917
sections of our society to the need for cultivating more self-discipline, and the schools in which our rising generation are being trained should be in the lead and not lagging behind.
4.50 p.m.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, since your Lordships are used to hearing me speak on education as a spokesman of the Liberal Party, I think I should say that, like the other two Parties, the Liberal Party nave not a definite policy on this matter. We have declared ourselves definitely against corporal punishment in primary schools and schools for the handicapped, but we have not gone further than that. I should like, as a personal reservation, to say that I am not one of those who rules out the use of physical force in all circumstances. I am not, for instance, a pacifist. I think that sometimes the intellectuals in our part of the world tend to rule out the physical and to rely too much on the intellectual. But I am a member of the Bernard Shaw School. "If you strike a child", he said, "take care that you strike it in anger. A blow in cold blood neither can nor should be forgiven."
A parent may well spank a child when he or she is annoyed and irritated beyond endurance. But it is very important that this is seen to have nothing to do with education. Beating has nothing to do with education. Here I would say that I reject entirely the doctrine of in loco parentis. It is not just that I think it inapt as applied to this question; I think it is entirely wrong. Teachers are not substitutes for parents, and they should not be. This doctrine may have had some force when many people who were concerned with the forming of our laws sent their children to boarding schools and maybe thought of the boarding school as a natural place for that doctrine to be exercised. In a boarding school it is possible that this doctrine has some place; I do not believe it has otherwise. For most of us who send our children to day schools teachers are people whom we respect, and whom we engage, or whom the State engages on our behalf, to teach our children; to educate them. And, as I have already said, beating has nothing to do with education.
We are told that in respect of some
918
schools if the power to administer corporal punishment were taken away the educational system would break down. Where that is true, my Lords, if it is true (I do not necessarily accept that it is, particularly bearing in mind the view of the London teachers), the educational system has broken down already, and this fact should be recognised. There is nothing to be said for using a cane to prop up a system which has already collapsed, and which already is not educationally worth while. That merely conceals the problem. We are told that beating is disappearing. I am delighted to hear it. But this has one particular result which I think we ought to consider and to which I would draw the attention of the noble Earl, Lord Swinton.
The beating that still continues should be offending us because a greater pro- portion will be beating by sadists. There are a few sadists in the teaching profession, just as there are in your Lordships' House and in any gathering of people, or any profession you like to mention. However good is the educational profession—and it is good—it cannot be denied that a greater proportion of beating by teachers will be done by a few sadists that are left; and the greater proportion will be applied to the children who most need some other kind of treatment. The occasional slap, the occasional beating, may not do most children much harm. I am sure that it did not do the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, any harm. The people to whom it does harm are the really sad cases, the bad cases, and this is exactly where it should be abolished so that we may help those people and those cases in the best possible way. My Lords, I repeat that beating has nothing to do with education, and I have great pleasure in supporting this Bill.
4.55 p.m.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I will not promise to be brief because I find that those who do generally make the longest speeches. So much has been said against corporal punishment, that I feel I should make one or two remarks in its defence; not from any desire to ill-use the defenceless young, but merely from the viewpoint of keeping discipline. For some years I taught in a school where corporal punishment was used regularly. It was used only by the headmaster or by the

919
housemasters and it was used only for really serious offences. I think that is what should be, and what generally is, the case to-day.
A great deal has been said about what harm corporal punishment does both to the boy and to the master. I cannot say what harm it does to the master, because I never actually beat a boy myself, not being a housemaster. But once I was responsible for having a boy beaten. If the provisions in the Bill had been law at that time I should have been fined a very lage amount of money, but fortunately they were not. The boy and I remained the greatest of friends for the rest of his time at school. The punishment ran off him like water off a duck s back, and he did not turn a hair. That was the case with most of the boys. Corporal punishment was there as a possible extreme punishment. Every boy—I speak only of boys' schools because those are the ones of which I have had experience—goes through a period when, out of a spirit of adventure, or of wanting to get the better of his teacher, he will try to see how far he can go. He knows perfectly well that if he goes too far he will eventually probably suffer two or three strokes of the cane. But that does not stop him and he does not resent the punishment when it is administered because that is the standing rule.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, has just said—he said it three times—that beating has nothing to do with teaching. Of course it has not. But on the other hand one has to maintain discipline, and that is becoming more and more difficult in schools nowadays. Children are becoming more unruly and less willing to listen to older people and accept their guidance. It is becoming very difficult for the schoolteachers. I think that if corporal punishment were to be abolished, there would be a grave danger of even worse punishments coming in. I am referring to things like mental cruelty. For instance, there is nothing that can hurt a young boy, particularly if he happens to be a rather sensitive type, more than biting sarcasm. Such sarcasm may well be the only weapon the schoolmaster has. I should be sorry to see a wide use made of it, and much more sorry than I am to see the very reserved use, as at the moment, of the cane, which I think is now in a position
920
much like that of the nuclear weapon, in that it is there purely as a deterrent, and nobody wants to use it except in extreme cases.
Therefore, my Lords, I am afraid I cannot support this Bill. To ban the use of the cane would lower the standards of discipline. I have spoken to innumerable people who have achieved great eminence in their various professions and asked them whether they were beaten at school, and they have said, "Yes" I have then asked, "Do you feel that it did you any harm?", and invariably the answer has been, "No, not in the least." So I cannot see that the holders of the view that the use of the cane does permanent harm to the boy have any evidence whatever on their side. Granted the sparing use of the cane and the confining of it to only the headmaster or the housemaster, I sincerely hope that it will still be retained.
5.2 p.m.
LORD GOODMAN: My Lords, I hope to follow the admirable practice of making an exceptionally brief speech. I have not a great deal to say, as almost everything that can be said on this subject has already been said. But I, like a number of others, am here to demonstrate solidarity with the noble Baroness in our total agreement as to the desirable nature of this short Bill. May I express one word of disappointment, in that the noble Baroness has not been able to marshall a single one of her sister Peeresses to speak on the Bill. There must be a very profound psychological reason for this.
A NOBLE LORD: Lady Loudoun is on the list.
LORD GOODMAN: My Lords, I apologise. I should say one of them. I expected them to be here in large numbers to support the Bill, but no doubt there is some explanation which the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, may provide when she comes to reply. The only things I want to say about the Bill are these. First, the major argument used in its favour is that it is a necessary instrument to protect teachers against the more extreme form of juvenile ruffianism. This of course is an attractive argument and there may be an element of truth in it. But I think the way to look at it is: Is this a sufficient benefit to compensate for the undoubted detriments and dangers which are involved in the retention of

921
corporal punishment? It is really a question of weighing on the scale on one side the fact that there may be some danger in relation to the exceptionally depraved, violent, agile, vigorous youths, as against the physically weak and inadequate teacher in terms of being able to resist violence, and that therefore it may be necessary to resort to this expedient to deal with that situation. I should have thought that in those circumstances there were many other expedients that could be used, and that in any event, on balance, the very undesirable psychological, sexual and moral features involved in its retention overwhelmingly outweigh this particular argument. I cannot think of any other argument in favour of its retention.
My Lords, there can be few of us who are not extremely uneasy about the retention of corporal punishment. I think there can be few of us who will not he extremely gratified—and, in their hearts, even those who have expressed a contrary view—if we do sweep away this thoroughly degrading and disagreeable practice. There would have to be very strong arguments indeed in order to retain it. My own view is that if to-day we give this Bill a Second Reading, we can have a look at some of the obvious deficiencies in drafting, which, if I may venture to say so, can be quite easily repaired in the Committee stage. I should like to add a word in favour of what my noble friend Lord Donaldson of Kings-bridge has said. I, too, hope that the noble Baroness will agree to remove the sanction of imprisonment. This seems to me to be quite unnecessary, because if you have an extreme case where a child is badly injured by an assault, then the rest of the criminal law is perfectly adequate to enhance the penalties that have to be imposed. But it seems to me that to give the notion of martyrdom to schoolteachers in relation to a controversial subject such as this is undesirable at the moment the change is being made.
My next comment is in relation to the Government's argument when they were solicitously and rather ingeniously inquiring what change had occurred in the social climate since it was last decided not to make this particular improvement. I can only say that that is an argument which would abort every
922
progressive measure that one can think of. There is never a change in the social climate. The world remains sad, mad and bad. But the fact remains that we can make it a little better by seeking to ostracise practices that we regard as sad, mad and bad. One could reduce this particular argument to total absurdity by saying that you would not increase the penalties or the precautions against larceny until there was clear evidence that that practice was abated. There are so many absurdities demonstrated by that argument, if I may venture to say so, that it ought not to be persisted in.
I would invite the House to give this Bill a Second Reading, and let us perhaps attain an ultimate end when we have removed a practice about which many parents are uneasy, which affects parents' choices of school and which in relation to maladjusted children, and where the schoolteacher has no apparatus for determining whether the child is maladjusted or not, is an absolute monstrosity. My final observation is this. One of the worst arguments in relation to observing this particular practice is that it is a hideous social alibi. The other day I had the misfortune to go and look at the slums of Glasgow. If you would consider adding to the deprivation of children brought up in those slums the fact that the consequences of those slums are brought down on them by way of physical punishment, I do not think you would need to think twice about a Second Reading of this Bill.
5.8 p.m.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, I wish to preface my comments on this Bill by paying tribute to my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger, whom the whole House knows as one who possesses a deep sense of humanity, sincerity, and infinite courage in her willingness to challenge established conventions. However, I would not go beyond that, and I certainly would not pay tribute to her judgment in sponsoring this Bill. I have listened carefully to the debate, and in a number of the speeches there has seemed to be an indication that this Bill is presented as a means to curb sadistic corporal punishment of innocent children. That is a most misleading concept, because there is

923
little, if any, evidence that vicious maltreatment of children in schools is universal. This is no more true than the recent case (which I believe is before the courts) of a teenage scholar accused of breaking the jaw of his teacher indicates a universal desire on the part of scholars to break the jaws of their teachers. But of one thing I am certain: if that young man arraigned before the court is found guilty, he will not be punished by a fine of £250 or a year's imprisonment, or both, which is the penalty indicated in this Bill.
Let me make it quite clear that all of us here would join in condemning brutality of any kind, and the law as it exists now can fall heavily upon the shoulders of any teacher who is guilty of vicious maltreatment of the children under his care. I join with every Member of your Lordships' House in condemning the wanton infliction of pain upon children. But this Bill does not seek to eliminate the wanton infliction of pain upon children; indeed, it goes out of its way to recognise the right of parents and guardians to inflict chastisement upon their children or upon those who may be in their care. This House will remember the many recent cases of appalling cruelty inflicted upon children. In particular, there was one dreadful case where a subhuman individual battered a child to death in the home.
There is just as much justification for dealing with the prevention of chastisement in the home as there is in the schools. I would ask your Lordships to examine precisely what this Bill seeks to do It seeks to end reasonable chastisement in schools, but recognises the rights of parents, guardians and their spouses to inflict pain. I repeat what I said a few moments ago: that there are just as many cases of cruelty in homes as there are in schools. Of course there have been in the east, and there will be in the future, isolated cases where sadistic individuals—teachers or not—inflict pain on others. We all know of the psychosexual relationship that may exist between the beaten and the beater, but such cases can be dealt with under the law as it stands at the moment. I myself regard as most unfortunate the implication behind the gibe that only teachers and prostitutes can wield the cane with impunity. I think that comment was, to say the least, most unfortunate.
924
As to the absence of chastisement, what could it mean? Do we believe that the only penalty, or indeed cruelty, that can be inflicted by a teacher is contained within the employment of a stick? If there is any teacher with sadistic intentions, believe me, my Lords, he could, if he so wished, inflict far more pain upon a youngster by psychological means than ever he could by the employment of a cane: the sarcasm, the humiliation, the gibe, can inflict torture upon a youngster which is far greater than any pain caused by a cane across his hands. Therefore I consider this Bill nonsense, to say the least, because it makes no contribution at all to the idea of eliminating what might be considered to be torture or cruelty within the schools.
One or two of my noble friends have asked: has reasonable chastisement done harm? The noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, asked: has it ever done good? Other noble Lords have referred to their own schooldays and I will make reference to mine. I went to a council school in the City of Hull; it was a tough school, in a working class area, where the stick was frequently applied. I remember the teachers in the school vividly. There was old John Pullan, the head master: a strict disciplinarian, a gentleman and a man whom every single scholar admired; Dicky Bainbridge: a young sportsman who played for the local rugby club, who was always willing and ready to apply the cane if need be. So I ask the question, did he create fear? No, my Lords; he created respect. There was young Mr. De Lacy; another young sportsman, also ready with the stick—but to suggest that everyone of the kids at that school was fearful of those teachers would be unadulterated nonsense—I repeat, nonsense. Every one of us respected those teachers. There was no cruelty whatsoever in that school. But I will tell you what it did not do: it did not demoralise or brutalise. It did create a healthy recognition of the relationship between misdemeanour and punishment.
I happen to have here—though I shall spare my blushes; I am not going to read it—a letter on the cheap notepaper provided by the Hull Education Committee and headed "St. Paul's Boys' School", written by the headmaster,

925
John Pullan. I may say that I am very proud of that document. I have received many documents in my scholastic career, but none of them has given me greater pleasure or pride than that letter. It makes reference to me—and, as I said before, I shall not read it—in glowing terms. I should have been one of the good boys. I can assure all your Lordships that I had my full ration of stick when I was at school, but the discipline also earned me a testimonial of which I am proud. To think that the boys of St. Paul's School went in fear and trembling or were terrorised is nonsense. I could quote the names of some of those old boys from that school in a working class area. They have been not only a credit to that school, but to the City and to the nation as a whole. Therefore I suggest that the Bill is totally unnecessary. There is adequate protection in schools, because it is not possible for a teacher to inflict wanton pain without the rest of the staff knowing about it, without the scholars knowing about it, and, very quickly in these days, without the local Press knowing about it.
If I wanted a final argument to condemn the Bill, I would quote from the brief that has been handed out by the National Council of Civil Liberties. These words appear in their final paragraph and is the argument they advance in support of the Bill:
"Hopefully, abolition will encourage teachers to demand, and Government and local authorities to provide, better facilities for difficult children and the reduction of class boundaries."
Now we all agree with that, I am sure; but are we suggesting that we should put this sort of pressure on school teachers as a whole, who—goodness knows!— work under enough difficulties as it is, merely to obtain some other objective that is not indicated in this Bill? That is not an honest way of going about it. Certainly we want smaller classes; certainly we want better facilities; but the implication here, in my opinion, is a slur upon the teaching profession—an absolute slur upon the profession itself. In consequence, on that ground alone, I would ask this House to reject this Bill entirely and completely.
5.20 p.m.
THE COUNTESS OF LOUDOUN: My Lords, as we progress towards the perfect State, which we all strive for, however ineffectively, so rules multiply. There are things you can do, things you cannot do: so we multiply rules. Laws: this is our business, and here is a new law: no more stick, and even a smack on the bottom will become a criminal assault. At one time beating was for anything and everything. I am sure not that many of us could say that we have never received corporal punishment—not just the stick, but punches from older brothers or dear friends, pinches from sisters, and even scratches from cats. We have accepted those as part of growing up. That is not only so in regards to the past; it applies also to-day. People seem naturally to beat their children and to punch each other. This is regrettable, but it is a natural reaction, whether it arises from anger, fear, or even joie de vivre.
The respect for authority, based on fear, which has kept people in order since time began, has diminished in recent years. A change has taken place which we welcome. When the Beveridge Report was first published we knew that it was going to change society, but we never realised how much. With the arrival of the Welfare State, including, of course, the National Health Service and other back-up services, the character of society started to change; and, in theory anyway, one is supported and protected from wanton harm from the cradle to the grave. We have now that changed society, and the problems of to-day's society cannot be solved by yesterday's solutions.
Corporal punishment—that is, the stick, administered by the teacher—has already gone from the classroom but not the guiding smack of the teachers or the punches and kicks of classmates. Authority in the classroom is based on mutual respect and common interest. Rules are found out, rather than enforced. Surely today's child learns through the experience of give and take, in contact with others, by making mistakes, being a nuisance, misbehaving, even by being rude to adults. He learns that rules and standards of behaviour enable him to live in harmony and at ease with others. All authority in

927
the school, as in society, is questioned, and if it does not come from respect it does not exist. Here the Mace is carried into the Chamber in front of the Lord Chancellor as a sign of his authority, not because he is going to hit anyone on the head with it: in the same way I feel that a headmaster must be allowed to keep the authority of the cane.
A policeman cannot control a riot with a stern eye or the air of authority; he carries a stick and has the right to use it. A stroke of the stick may bring misbehaviour, especially anti-social behaviour, to a halt, if only in the classroom, enabling the child to continue in school and the classmates to continue to study uninterrupted. The alternative is the streets. A child, unwanted at home and at school, a life that might have been saved, is lost. The final deterrent in a school is the headmaster's wrath: do not defuse him. This is a negative Bill; it takes away the headmaster's right to deal in the way he thinks best, and puts nothing in its place to help him, or the child.
5.24 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I was beginning to think that I might have been in a minority in my views until I heard my noble friend Lord Swinton and the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, and now the noble Countess who has just sat down. It gives me heart to go on with what I have got to say. My qualifications are simple. I was an extrovert, bumptious, naughty, rebellious boy, and suffered accordingly, from my parents and at school, in the old-fashioned way. I do not know whether it did me good or harm. At one stage I think I was so beaten that I think it did me definite harm. I also, of course, at one stage administered punishment to my juniors at school. Looking back, I think I did it very unwisely and sometimes excessively, and I am glad that that practice is now disappearing. But now, as a father and grandfather, inevitably I have a good deal of experience in observing the upbringing of the young, and I am opposed to this Bill, opposed to it for almost every possible reason.
First, as has been shown by many noble Lords who have spoken, as time has gone on the use of formal corporal punishment has largely diminished, and will, of course, continue to do so. Secondly (this
928
is a point which has not been made, although the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, touched upon it), I believe that it is wrong to suggest that parents or guardians are better able than teachers to judge when to strike a child. Emotion is more likely to overlay a parent's judgment, I believe, than it is to overlay that of a teacher. What is more, to box a child over the ear, or give it a jolly good shaking, can actually injure a child, which a cane, or a tawse does not do. Incidentally, I refer to the tawse, which the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, mentioned, because of course I am Scottish, and it is the usual instrument of instruction (if that is the right word) in the schools in Scotland. It is a very much more sensible instrument, incidentally, than the cane. When I speak of parental reaction to naughtiness in a child, I know from my own experience that one can be carried away by emotion. A teacher is not so affected in the same measure. Take, for instance, the way in which a mother or a father slaps or shakes a child that runs across the street. The child is struck, probably, because the parent is so utterly relieved at seeing it safely across. Another cause of trouble is that children sometimes turn up very late for meals or very late for bedtime, and often they are chastised by parents or guardians out of sheer relief at seeing a kid safe again. For that reason, too, I think the Bill is at fault.
Thirdly, my Lords, while I agree that there are ruthless and even cruel teachers —and the same, of course, applies to parents—they are in a very great minority. That minority is decreasing, I believe, as the years go on and the standard of training improves. The majority of teachers are better able than almost any parent to judge whether a crack of a whip is needed; and the fact that treatment for the maladjusted child, to which the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, referred, is now much more readily available saves problems of that sort. One must remember that one of the teachers' troubles is that at the end of the scale there are too many parents who utterly fail to instil any sort of discipline in their children when they send them to school. That is something which must be borne in mind. The problem is much more complex than the tenor of this Bill would suggest. Indeed,

929
when I decided to speak, I sought the advice of a well-known authority who has been the headmaster of three well-known schools. I have a letter from him which expresses views so closely in accord with mine that I propose to quote it to you if only to save time, because his writing in dealing with the matter is so succinct.
He, for instance, grieves for what he calls:
"The abdication of responsibility by parents and teachers, and the cowardice of adults lest they are thought to be 'illiberal'. There are those who, appear to think it the task of parents and teachers to allow young people to run violently down steep places, and then to stand by to pick up the pieces at the bottom (at whatever the social cost)'."
I think the latter point should be borne in mind.
He quotes from another teacher in another place, and he goes on to say:
"Now, as to corporal punishment … may I list sonic points? First, premises. (1) Love and concern are essential whenever sanctions teachers or parents use."—
that was the point which was brought out by the noble Lord, Lord Peddie—
"(2) The conscience grows effectively with the growth of the young, in body as in spirit. (3) As Bridges says in The Testament of Beauty, the job of man is to effect in his young the conscient passage from the "must" to the "ought". An over-dose of "ought", too young gives moral indigestion. Too long prolonged "must" breeds moral insensitivity". Every young person matters desperately, differs widely from others in him/her-self. Nothing calls for greater delicacy and skill in adults concerned with young people than to fumble after the graduation from "you must" to "you ought" at varying ages and stages because they are all different from one another.'"
He turns to corporal punishment and says:
"I am against 'pompous', 'judicial', and delayed use of this. But I know it to be true that while there are some children … for whom in no circumstances would it be appropriate "—
this was the point brought out by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman—
"there are others, especially the jolly extrovert and disobedient, for whom it is kinder than detentions, etc.,".
That is the point which noble Lords have brought out. He goes on:
"People say that it is not 'effective'. What do they mean? You could hang men for poaching—effective no doubt! But? We schoolteachers are not out to achieve total conformity or obedience. Good God! What sort
930
of a school would that be? We aim to contain high spirits in reasonable and kindly bounds, not to quench them. In an ideal world, sanctions would not be necessary. But we do not live in such a world. With many schoolboys, sarcasm, humiliation, the removal of affection by an adult whom they admire, may be far more cruel than three or four with a slipper—and, because they breed hostility, less effective. Of course everything depends on the relationship of the child/adult, and children are very perceptive about motivation. But a vicious or sadistic adult can hurt a young thing in many other ways and much worse than physically. As Sir Henry Sidney wrote to his young son Philip at Shrewsbury, 'Remember, a hurt given by a word goes deeper than one given by a blow'. No one could call Sir Philip Sidney 'a brute'".
The head master went on to say:
"What real reason is there to remove one weapon in the armoury of good teachers and good men? Bad teachers and bad men will find plenty of ways of hurting young people (I suppose because they enjoy it) without beating them, and hurting them worse by sarcasm, removal of affection, public deriding, what you will. None suggests for a moment that corporal punishment for the young is a panacea —only that in some cases it is (a) the wisest; (b) the kindest way of emphasising disapproval without making the young person feel and look either a Charlie' or rejected."
My Lords, I will not continue reading the letter, but those are wise and kind words. This is the important way to approach the Bill of the noble Baroness. I particularly agree that to be effective corporal punishment must not be pompous, judicial or delayed. Physical retribution should be swift and have an aura of inevitability about it. In my view it is utterly cruel—and I repeat "utterly cruel"—to let a young human go out into the world without knowing in his or her heart that to the end of their days life will exact retribution for being sheer bad, crooked, or being just silly.
I have a daughter who, after her third child had started school, decided to take a diploma and now is a card-holding teacher. I have discussed this Bill with her—and I am sorry that the noble Baroness is not in her place at the moment. My daughter's comment was:
"Dear Barbara Wootton! so good, so kind, but so much so that she thinks everybody can be made good and kind because she is."
I wish that were so, my Lords; but it does not work out that way. My daughter brought out the point which has been mentioned in the debate that one has to realise that there are tough schools in tough places. This is quite a problem to the teacher. There are families where

931
violence in almost every form is an everyday part of the children's life. School without a strap in the drawer would be utterly unreal to such children. This is an angle which my daughter knows from her own experience and which I had not appreciated. If you can obtain a copy of to-day's issue of the Scotsman you will find an interesting letter in it describing the problem of violence in the classroom, referring to a father who is a schoolteacher and to his two children, who are both teachers, all suffering violence at the hands of pupils in one week.
What we need is not Bills like this one but concentrated effort and expenditure to improve the position of teachers, to let them know that we trust them, to ensure that parents understand and accept that their duty to civilisation is the upbringing of their children. The letter from which I have quoted brief extracts also emphasised the importance of the association between the parent and the teacher, which I know is a difficult matter in secondary schools with large classes in busy areas.
I should like to pour scorn and obloquy on the monsters in the film world and, to some extent, in the media, who produce films like the Clockwork Orange and Straw Dogs. One university has made compulsory viewing of these things part of one of their courses. Can you believe it? This debate will have been well worth while if it establishes for ever that if we would like to see physical violence eliminated in any form, the first step is to eliminate wickedness. But I oppose the Bill as it stands. I feel that the matter should be left, as my noble friend Lord Sandford pointed out, in the hands of the local authorities to use their judgment. They are the people who have to face the problem of staffing the schools. I should like to see something done to tackle violence on television and on films. I should like to see our education system broadened in one respect. I will quote from an eminent professor of physiology who at one stage was my guardian. I have been reminded by his daughter that he said:
"Man is an animal whose existence depends on his being a member of a community. Education is too concentrated on developing the individual without training the individuals to be responsible members of their community."
That I believe has an important bearing on this right of the teacher which exists
932
to-day of administering punishment to a child—not, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, said (and I agree with her) that a cane is no assistance to learning, but it may well be an assistance to education. My Lords, force still remains the ultimate sanction of all law; and much as we should like to see it abolished it still remains so. But let us hope and pray that the use of it and the necessity to use it will decrease, as it must. At the same time, I do not feel that I can vote for this Bill.
5.41 p.m.
LORD HALE: My Lords, much was said by the last speaker about which I could find an appreciation, and even a limited degree of agreement. He made reference to the absence of my noble friend Lady Wootton, apologising for doing so, and in effect said: "Poor Barbara Wootton. She thinks everyone can be cured by kindness." I hope I quote correctly. I cannot reply for the noble Baroness, but everyone who has heard her speak to-day will know that she can speak very well for herself. Indeed, there are very few subjects under the sun on which she cannot also speak for me. My reply to what was said would be that of course we do not think that everyone can be cured by kindness. Those of us who have for many years taken an interest in matters such as penal reform know that there are insoluble cases. We know that even among young children there are children who seem to be born with the gift of evil. We know that the little blue-eyed girl in the witness box may be a mythomaniac and a pathological liar. We know that we can proceed in such cases only by trial and error, and that some of them are going to finish up in Broadmoor; and some used to finish near the scaffold.
However, I remember that "Nye" Bevan used to say that the first thing to do is to ascertain your principles. Politics does not always permit you to apply in full your principles. There are pragmatic reasons, there are experiences, which limit their immediate or their complete application. In this matter only two principles are involved, one of which I think goes by default. Generally speaking, most people are now in favour of children. This was of course not so in the eighteenth century. Indeed, it was constantly said

933
that Britons were the one people who beat their children.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: It still is said, my Lords.
Loan HALE: My Lords, it may be surprising to hear that among those who said that was a mass-murderer named Stalin; he said it to Lady Astor with contempt when she went over to teach him how to run Russia.
The real principle in this case poses the question: "Are we in favour of violence?" I am not in favour of violence. It is the most dangerous thing in the world to-day. It is infectious and it can become endemic. Although I do not regard this aspect as anything like the gravest aspect, I say that from one point of view it is serious and requires considering. The one point of view is this. If one says: "Well, I am against violence in general but I must make exceptions", where do you make your exceptions? On tiny children? At a school to which they are sent by compulsion? Is this really where one wishes to found one's approval of violence?
I believe I disagreed twice with the noble Baroness in her brilliant opening speech. One case was when she referred to the pain, which I do not think matters quite so much as the fear, the humiliation. The humiliation may be the most serious aspect of all. The noble Lord, Lord Peddie, said that what I would call (I hope it is not offensive) pachydermous children were not greatly hurt by this. That is probably true. It is the sensitive, it is the possible genius, who may be hurt. I lived for a little time on a gun-site where as a lance-bombardier I was actually in charge, contrary to the regulations. We found that men of all classes could gather together there—except the one man who could not mix because he was something of a minor genius. His passion was for music. All his war-time life was almost antagonistic to his own isolation, to his own genius, to his own desire to think for himself. This happens to young children. No one in this debate has said that anyone is going to be cured by corporal punishment. It may deter children. It may of course drive them into concealment. It may drive them to deceit. But nobody has really said that thrashing a child is beneficial. It has merely been said that,
934
on the whole, it is going down, and it will go down, and so on.
In these circumstances, I think the proposals in the Bill are quite unexceptionable, with one exception which has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge. I agree entirely with what he said. I have always constantly disagreed with what I call the "Mrs. Ramsbottom mentality". Those of your Lordships who recall Mrs. Ramsbottom will remember that she was in an agony of emotion; her son had disappeared down the lion's mouth and she felt quite rightly that something had got to be done. The idea that someone has to be summoned is on the whole rather anathema to me. I am not sure that the provisions of this admirable Bill will really need any special sanction; but certainly I think the argument put forward for four months' imprisonment is really unsatisfactory and ought to be reconsidered. Subject to that, my Lords, I found myself in complete agreement with every word the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, had to say, and I see no reason to repeat what he said. Because if I express myself further I might express myself too strongly and drive away support, I will content myself with what I have said and resume my seat at this moment.
5.48 p.m.
LORD ANNAN: My Lords, I must apologise to your Lordships' House for not being present at the beginning of the debate. I was prevented from coming here earlier by having to attend a Statutory Committee. I am sorry for many reasons that I missed part of the debate, particularly because I imagine there has been a great flow of reminiscence from noble Lords who have brought to your Lordships' House memories of their past and of the undoubted beneficence of corporal punishment. In fact, I met a noble Lord who was so stirred on this subject that he was anxious to testify to the efficacy of corporal punishment. He wanted to show us scars he bore honourably of chastisements long ago inflicted upon him. I assured him that your Lordships' House would take those as seen.
May I address myself to the general principle, which is simply this. There is no solution to the problem of discipline in schools which involves in the long run

935
reliance on assault and battery of children. I entirely agree with Mr. Crosland who, when he was Secretary of State of the Department of Education and Science, said, on December 19, 1967, "The practice of corporal punishment should be dropped in our schools"; and he hoped that "the local authorities, the governing bodies of schools, and the teachers themselves, would all use their power and influence to achieve this end."
There is one rider that I would add to that general principle, and I add it because I was a member of the Public Schools Commission. That body had the distinction of producing a report which won monumental disapproval from all the interested parties concerned, and was approved by no one at all. Nevertheless, I think that certain paragraphs in the report were wise; indeed, they may even have had an influence in the public schools during the time they were being gestated and the report was in the process of being written.
The paragraphs to which I refer were the ones which dealt briefly with the question of corporal punishment in boarding schools. There is a particular point to be made here. In day schools corporal punishment can be checked by parental opinion and by public opinion; if there is some abuse going on it very easily and readily comes to light. Whereas in boarding schools the problem is much more difficult. It is not at all easy for boys to complain of corporal punishment being inflicted upon them because, since it is a school convention, to complain against it is a most difficult and dangerous thing for any boy to do. It is important also to remember that in our public schools the local authorities cannot intervene on behalf of a boy; nor indeed, very often, can the parents. The only recourse they have is to take the boy away.
There was one further point that was referred to in the report of the Public Schools Commission. It went on to say that although in general terms the members of the Commission disapproved of corporal punishment they could not declare that the independent schools must abolish it, because it was still extant in the maintained schools in this country. But they did point out there was one practice that should be abolished at once, and that was the beating of boys
936
by boys. It is said to be disappearing in public schools. For years the public schools were criticised for permitting this practice to continue, and the members of the Commission were unconvinced by any of the defences they heard. They asked why, if it was in practice dying out, it should not be abolished. One headmaster made a statement with which the members of the Commission associated themselves. The headmaster said, "It is worse for those who inflict this punishment, and for those who watch it being inflicted, than for the boy who suffers it." I do not think that corporal punishment inflicted by boys on boys is used in the independent schools as it was in the 1950s. It is probable that that practice is diminishing. It is certain that in many schools it has already been abolished. But I think that the Public Schools Commission were right when they said that they could not recommend that any boy be sent from the maintained sector on any kind of grant to an independent school in which that practice was still condoned. I would at this point ask the Minister whether there is not a possibility of the Secretary of State bringing some pressure to bear on independent schools for a declaration of intent on this matter. I think it is a matter which it is perfectly proper to raise with the Headmasters' Conference.
I have spoken of the general principle; and the general principle is all very well. But what are we to do in our maintained schools when the violence of boys —and indeed the violence of some girls —is increasing all the time?—for increasing it is. And let there be no doubt about the matter: it is not increasing because of the number of immigrant children in our schools it is the white children rather than the black who are responsible. Indeed, it is sometimes the middle-class children rather than the working-class children, the nine-year-olds as well as the 14–16-year-olds who are the wreckers and disrupters in our schools. And faced with this rising violence is it any wonder that teachers and the National Union of Teachers are against the abolition of corporal punishment? To them it seems the only effective defence, perhaps their last defence, against this rising tide. And I suggest that we should not this evening pass general principles and leave the teachers in the front tine without any concern for them. It is very important to

937
maintain discipline in schools, and our teachers, just as much as our children, need our support and need our encouragement.
How can we resolve this problem? My Lords, I speak with great diffidence on this subject because one needs a great deal more experience of what life is like in maintained schools than I have, and I do not think that the enunciation of general principles is enough. I think we need to have some new thoughts about schools; and some of these new thoughts may be rather strange. We have to recognise that we face the problem of the ineducable—the ineducable at the age of puberty. We have to recognise that there are totally alienated children; we have to recognise not merely the delinquent child but the fact that he often comes from a delinquent family. The first subversive thought I want to air is about the school-leaving age. I am sure that everybody in this House believes that it was right to raise the school-leaving age, but I ask myself whether it is not necessary to have second thoughts about how the raised school-leaving age is actually enforced.
Is there not a way of releasing from school children who palpably cannot stand it or understand its purpose, shall we say, after the age of 14? Things have changed since the days when the raising of the school-leaving age was an absolute essential in the advancement of the disadvantaged child or the working-class child. Things have changed because to-day we have a number of "second chance" institutions—and I am glad to see the noble Baroness, Lady Lee of Asheridge, in the House because she was the founder of one of the greatest of our" second chance" institutions, the Open University. If there are these institutions which give a second chance to those who have dropped out, in the early stages of their life, then perhaps we should recognise that it is not absolutely necessary in all circumstances to compel children to stay on at school. It should be a question of opting out on the advice of the teachers of the school, instead of, as it was before the school-leaving age was raised opting in. That is the first thought that I put forward.
The second thought is whether we ought not to consider having special schools for children who are deeply and emotionally disturbed. It is not true that
938
the emotionally disturbed child, the tough destroyer of order within the school community, will naturally be converted by the angelic children around him. Therefore I ask myself whether we should not think more of having special places where such children can be helped and possibly adjusted to their environment. Such a policy assumes that the local authority must accept responsibility for all children. The great difference between the independent schools and the maintained sector is that if there is a thoroughly ill-disciplined boy at an independent school the school has the perfectly easy recourse of saying that he can no longer remain a member of the school. But in the maintained schools, it is impossible to sack boys. That is a difference which must always be borne in mind by those who are facing the problem of ill discipline in the schools.
That is why I maintain that we ought to believe in a new kind of school which does take care of the children who really are wrecking the lives and opportunities of the majority of those in the same class at school, who are perfectly prepared to accept the ordinary school rules and regulations. I think that you will need specially-trained teachers who will identify and isolate for special treatment the emotionally disturbed and the violent. I do not doubt that there will be teachers forthcoming who will be willing to teach in such schools. We have had dedicated teachers in the borstal institutions and in those institutions which deal with physically disabled children. I repeat that I do not doubt that teachers will come forward to work in such special schools. What is very hard is to expect the ordinary run of teachers (and at times they are very young teachers) to work in urban environments in which the schools are at the mercy of very violent children.
I hope that we shall not burke this problem; that we shall not fall back on the fact that this country is peculiar and that we need never consider what is happening in other countries. The list of other countries in which no corporal punishment takes place is enormously long. It is we who are peculiar in maintaining it in our schools. At the same time, we have to consider the different social structures of these countries. There is a spectrum of countries to be observed.

939
At one end are the very highly disciplined schools, in the U.S.S.R.—a discipline which is produced by the whole nature of that State but where observers note how tidy and orderly and strictly disciplined are the children in the schools; though at what cost that discipline is achieved is another matter. At the other end of the spectrum is the U.S.A. where often in the schools in large cities all semblance of discipline has gone and all semblance of education has also disappeared. We must recognise where we stand in this spectrum. In certain of our cities we are nearer to the U.S.A. than to the U.S.S.R. Having taken note of that difference, we must ask ourselves what we are doing about it.
As I understand it, the argument behind this Bill is that we should abolish corporal punishment in order to make the teaching profession face the problem of ill discipline. I myself wonder whether this is not a little premature, whether it would not be wise for the Government to investigate this as a matter of urgency —for we cannot go on much longer ignoring this problem. We need not set up a heavily-weighted Commission which will take two years to produce a report. All we need to do is to investigate the large amount of research that has already been done on this problem and finally to come forward with recommendations which would entail in the end the abolition of corporal punishment. I put that to the House because I think it is too much to expect the teaching profession at the moment to accept the abolition now, immediately; but, on the other hand, I think they must accept that a terminus ad quem must be fixed, a terminus ad quem which must depend on their being convinced that certain measures will be taken after the investigation by the Government to meet the problem of growing violence in many of our less-advantaged schools, thereby eliminating the need to retain corporal punishment.
6.5 p.m.
VISCOUNT BARRINGTON: My Lords, I shall try to be brief. Like a noble Lord who spoke earlier, I did not come here intending to make a speech on this subject but, as it were, to stand up and be counted. If I now
940
stand up and am counted out in five minutes I shall try, in those five minutes, to make clear why I find this a difficult subject to explain why, if it comes to a vote, I am inclined to vote in favour of the Bill. I believe that a great deal of what has been said does not really concern the issue here to-day. There are three questions which have arisen. The first is: ought corporal punishment to be discouraged? On that I think that everyone, including the noble Lords, Lord Ferrier and Lord Peddie, would agree that it ought not to be encouraged. But that is not what we are discussing. The next question is whether it should be prohibited by law. The third—and here I am in complete agreement with the noble Lords, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge and Lord Hale—is whether it ought to be prohibited by law with penalties, including imprisonment and very heavy fines. I shall not say anything about either the first or the last of these questions; but will give the reasons why I believe that, on the whole, this Bill, with certain emendations, is timely.
Almost all the arguments produced at the beginning of the debate, arguments influenced by a climate of opinion very different from that prevailing now, were based on the fact that corporal punishment is an anachronism, is outdated, is not in accordance with the feeling of the times and, in fact, is against the stream. In most cases, I do not regard that as a good reason for voting for a Bill; and I often regard it as an excellent reason for voting against it. I believe that the matter we are now discussing differs from some of the other highly emotional subjects that we have debated, in that the whole attitude towards corporal punishment of any kind, be it execution, beating, making somebody walk on tintacks, or what not, is affected by the climate of opinion in a way that certain other issues are not affected. That came out very strongly in Lord Peddie's speech which I found very impressive. He made a devastating defence of a type of headmaster who existed at Eton before any of your Lordships were born. I was at Eton, where corporal punishment was practiced, and I was in a House in Keate's Lane. Doctor Keate was the celebrated headmaster who flogged a whole Confirmation Class which came to him, and

941
when he discovered that they were a Confirmation Class, he flogged them again for not pointing it out. His pupils all respected him enormously and in their old age often went back and called on him in much the same way as Lord Peddie looks back on and honours his own headmaster. It may be that it was right in those times and in those circumstances to believe that this was a good way. Doctor Keate was faced with problems very like those of many teachers in schools now. At one time he and one other master dragged in the whole school to flog them for something—and was admired for it.
The noble Earl, Lord Swinton, made an extremely impressive speech and pointed out—as have many others before him, including the excellent Mr. Joyce who was once a master at borstal—that there are occasions when a short, sharp shock can make all the difference in the right direction. That is so; but I think there are many occasions in which it can, with the best intentions and with no question of sadism and unwanted children, have a bad effect in the wrong direction.
May I give one example which perhaps could not be called corporal punishment and which certainly would not be affected by this Bill because it was the case of a parent, but I think the story is substantially true. It concerns a former Member, now deceased, of your Lordships' House who was taking his son and heir aged eight or nine out shooting with him (as my father took me) with the idea of introducing him to the joys of shooting. The boy had not heard a gun go off in quite such close proximity before, and after jumping an inch or two into the air committed the unforgivable offence of almost putting his hand up to his ear. This action horrified and distressed his father who, after sharply exclaiming in a very audible voice" I'll teach any boy of mine to be gun-shy!" proceeded to discharge both barrels of his gun within two inches of the boy's ear, breaking the ear-drum with the result that the boy was deaf in that ear for the rest of his life. I quote that only because I think it was an example of an experiment in education which failed in its objective. It did not make the boy a keen shot; in fact, something worse happened, in that he developed what one might literally call an ear for music", and later he became a more than com-
942
petent violinist. This outcome so horrified his father that I believe for the rest of their lives they were not on speaking terms—or I suppose one should say "speaking tubes". That is an extreme example of how, with good intentions, things do not always work out as one would like them to.
I see that I have exceeded the five minutes that I set myself and it would be quite inappropriate for me to continue and to make some of the points that I should otherwise have made. I will only say that as well as an Amendment which I believe may be made on the matter of imprisonment and which I shall certainly vote for, I am not very happy about the Title of the Bill. It has been pointed out before that it is not concerned with the full protection of minors. I do not think it was meant to be. I do not think anyone will blame the noble Baroness for not trying to protect minors against damage by fire, hail, Bishops, deacons or any other adversity. The Bill is only a limited attempt to protect them in certain circumstances from being beaten by a limited number of people. But it does not, of course, protect all minors, because there is a limited number of minors—I suppose one should call them "minimuses"—who are too young to be included in the Bill at all. That point might possibly be raised in an Amendment to the Title of the Bill, but now is not the moment to stress it. I apologise to your Lordships for speaking longer than I intended to.
6.13 p.m.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I find myself in complete agreement with the intention of the Bill and I also welcome the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Annan. I hope that whatever happens to this Bill, the Government will take the advice proffered by the noble Lord and will look carefully at this matter of the retention of corporal punishment in schools. When he spoke earlier the Minisler referred to the decision of his right honourable friend in another place that the matter should be left to local education committees and heads of schools, but I want to suggest that this is invariably the sort of formula that is put forward when we in the United Kingdom do not want to face something, when we want to run away from an issue which may be embarrassing or likely to

943
divide the community. I do not think this is an issue that we can run away from; I think it is one that we have to face, although I suspect that the noble Lord, the Minister, when he replies, will not give the Bill a great deal of encouragement.
What surprises me is that we in the United Kingdom can hold fast to the belief that corporal punishment is very desirable when most other countries in the world abolished it a good time ago. As we were told, Poland abolished it something like 190 years ago. But even if we think their way of life is so vastly different from ours, there are numerous countries to-day which share our particular basic philosophy and our particular outlook and they decided tens of years ago to abolish corporal punishment. It surprises me that a nation which considers itself to be enlightened should take this atittude. In fact we are enlightened: we have perhaps done more for our people than a good many other countries. Yet, in spite of our enlightenment and our desire to do what we think is right, there are many people—and quite a number in your Lordships' House—who are prepared to support the continuance of corporal punishment.
The Plowden Report, which has been so much in evidence today, said:
"We believe that the kind of relationship which ought to exist between teacher and child cannot be built up in an atmosphere in which the infliction of physical pain is regarded as normal."
It is really on that passage that I want to base my remarks.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord for one moment, may I say that what he is saying is absolutely in contradiction to my own experience. The boys of the school where I taught were all devoted to their housemasters and to other masters—with a few exceptions, naturally—and it made no difference at all to their feelings for the masters.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, of course I must accept what the noble Lord has said. He is speaking from experience; I have never taught children and young persons. I have only taught much older people and the question has not arisen. But the noble Lord's experience is not the experience of a good many other people in the teaching profession.
944
What I wanted to go on to say is that the retention of corporal punishment in schools means, in my view, that each year we put a large number of academically trained teachers into a cultural setting which is much more in keeping with the Middle Ages. I believe that caning is a middle-class concept of discipline and quite out of place with and far removed from modern thought and modern methods of teaching. Progress in understanding the wants and needs of each child is much more important, and I believe that there are many teachers today who want to understand what the young people are really thinking and feeling but who are seriously hampered by the lack of adequate school buildings and far too few teachers. It is our present educational system, with its classes of unmanageable size, which makes it very difficult for the right kind of relationship to flow from teacher to pupil and back from pupil to teacher. Many teachers today are working in conditions where perhaps they feel they cannot do anything else. I think we must take into account the deprived backgrounds of a large number of our children in schools today which provide the greatest obstacles to learning and present the spearhead of trouble and difficulty. Allowances have to be made for this all too frequent situation. Fortunately for us, we have a growing number of schools in which there is not only a good teacher/headmaster relationship, but a really good and effective teacher/pupil relationship. I believe that this has resulted in the decline of reliance on the use of the cane in recent years.
I was chairman of the board of governors of a school in London for ten years. It was patently clear to me, and to others, that teachers who have a real concern for their pupils acknowledge that caning is not the answer. It can be the easiest way out of a situation; it can be a means of dealing temporarily with that situation. It can also be an excuse for not doing anything really constructive. The real answer is to enable teachers to have the time to go properly into the reasons for the misbehaviour of a pupil. This is being done by a large and growing number of head teachers, who uncover all kinds of difficulties and frustrations. Some schools already have on the staff a teacher who has been specially selected and trained to act as a pupil counsellor. A great deal has been done

945
by such counsellors to help the difficult, wilful and disobedient children.
To look at the problems of the antisocial child objectively is time-consuming, but the schools in which it is being done to-day—and there is a good number—find it worth while in the long run. Where that has been done, the abolition of corporal punishment has not created the disaster that so many people in the community, and perhaps in your Lordships' House, thought it would cause. It was abolished by the head master of Rising Hill, a school in one of London's most difficult districts, proving that the argument for the retention of corporal punishment in tough areas is no longer valid. Many of your Lordships will know the difficulties which occurred in Rising Hill school a few years ago, but that problem has been overcome. This is perhaps the only point at which I join issue with the noble Lord, Lord Annan, who asked, "What are we to do about violence in schools?" I may be doing him an injustice—I hope I am not—but I got the impression that he thought there ought to be effective defence. It is my experience, from the many friends I have in the teaching profession, and from the time when I myself was involved as chairman of a board of governors, that it is the same children who get caned time and time again. Caning holds no fear for them. It is not a deterrent. If this is so—and I believe it to be the experience of a good many people—then I think there is no point whatsoever in retaining a measure that serves no useful purpose.
I would draw your Lordships' attention to the West Riding survey made as far back as 1961. This survey found that behaviour was best and delinquency least in schools where corporal punishment was used very sparingly. I do not claim that by outlawing capital punishment—
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My noble friend means corporal punishment.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I must have made a mistake like that from listening to some of the speeches made this afternoon, from which it seemed that some of your Lordships might even want to introduce capital punishment rather than retain corporal punishment.
946
But I do not claim that by outlawing corporal punishment in schools, antisocial behaviour and violence are going to disappear overnight. Of course they are not. Much more is needed.
Our schools need more money. They need more teachers. They need teachers who in some respects are better trained; and, if I may venture to say so, selected more carefully. There is a need for more sensitive supporting services and changes in attitudes and thinking, plus the overriding requirement to look more closely at the needs of individual pupils. It would be a considerable asset to our educational system if every school could have on its staff someone who was not there merely to teach the subjects taught in that school, but who had been specially selected and trained to deal with the problems of pupils. In that way, one could come to understand why there is so much violence, why there is so much wilfulness, and so much destruction. In the last analysis, this misconduct is very often a form of protest against the kind of environment in which many of the pupils live.
6.26 p.m.
LORD JAMES OF RUSHOLME: My Lords, as someone who was a schoolmaster for 28 years, I feel it would be appropriate for me at any rate to express an opinion on this subject, and I will try to do so very briefly indeed. For 12 years, I taught in a school where assistant masters were not allowed to use corporal punishment. I regret to say that my school persisted in what I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Annan, is a quite indefensible practice of allowing prefects to beat other boys. Assistant masters were not allowed to use corporal punishment. In any case, with the kind of relationship that I had with my pupils, it would have been unthinkable. Then I became head master of a very large grammar school where discipline had become somewhat difficult (shall we say?), partly as a result of the war. Corporal punishment was used, though not a great deal. For my first year or so I used it myself. But I was wrong. I soon came to regard it as unnecessary, undesirable and, most important of all, ineffective. Though there was never a formal prohibition in the school, the general disapproval among my colleagues, and my own disapproval of corporal punishment, made

947
it obsolete. Thus, my experience and my convictions lead me to support this Bill wholeheartedly.
I ventured on my short autobiographical introduction so that it could not be said that my support was simply based on starry-eyed inexperience. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, has gone. It is in the light of that experience, extending over a number of years, that I should like to comment on one or two of the all too familiar arguments we have heard to-day. In the first place, I would affirm as strongly as I can that I do not believe that corporal punishment can do any good to anybody, certainly no good comparable with its potential and actual harm. The fact that the old phrase (how sick one is of hearing it!) "I was beaten repeatedly and it never did me any harm", should have been quoted so often is sufficient evidence, surely, that whatever else corporal punishment is, it is not a deterrent; otherwise the speakers would not have been beaten so repeatedly. The tough boy in a difficult school—he has been quoted to-day—is often thought of as accessible only through a good thrashing. We have even heard the old stuff about violence, that the way to deal with it in school is to retain the cane. The cane we are told, is the only punishment he fears. With respect, I believe that that is nonsense. As often as not the tough boy has been beaten repeatedly and fiercely in his own home and it is part of his self-image to endure such treatment and to laugh.
The boy for whom the thought of physical pain may actually be thought to be a deterrent and may be a deterrent is the nervous, the physically timid boy, and to him there is surely no doubt that corporal punishment can do definite harm. But, of course, the harm of corporal punishment goes a good deal further than its effect on the frightened child. I am referring to the more subtle damage to the atmosphere of an educative community and to the proper development of the individuals in it when authority has to rest on the infliction of physical pain; as the noble Countess said, the headmaster's symbol being a cane. What a conception of my one-time profession! The truth is that the interest aroused by beatings and the rituals so often associated with them are, we must now acknowledge a good
948
deal more unhealthy than our predecessors knew, or at any rate were prepared to admit. I am not, of course, maintaining that every schoolmaster who canes a boy is a sadist, though some are. What I am saying is that in a school where corporal punishment exists there are dangers of introducing fears, attitudes and sometimes pleasures which are inimical to good education and proper maturity.
A common line of defence is to say, "By all means let such punishment diminish, but let us keep it as the ultimate sanction"—I think the phrase was used in this Chamber to-day—like the atomic bomb. That is, I think, with respect, an extremely misguided view. Serious offences such as truancy or stealing are the very last which should be dealt with by the summary expedient of the cane. They are nearly always signs of some trouble that needs diagnosis and sympathy and help and guidance. If caning is ever justified, I think it is for the essentially trivial offence, such as impertinence or practical joking on a big scale, or something similar, and for such offences there are other far less potentially harmful punishments.
There are two other arguments against a positive prohibition of corporal punishment in schools; we have heard both of them to-day. The first, and it seems to be the Government's view in so far as the Government's view is crystallizing, says that since the use of such punishment is diminishing all the time, we can afford to do nothing and let it wither away. That argument does not satisfy me; first, because if something wrong is going on we surely cannot stop it too soon, and secondly, because I am not prepared to tolerate the pockets of fear and sometimes cruelty that anything short of prohibition will leave untouched. The second argument says that methods of punishment should be left to the professional judgment of the practising teacher. This argument also leaves me unmoved. The operations of every profession, as the noble Baroness said in her opening speech—she said practically everything in her opening speech—are quite properly the subject of judgment by the community when moral issues are involved. I am too jealous of the reputation of the profession to which I belong to believe that it needs the liberty to do something that is, after all, prohibited

949
by a great number of civilised countries in order that it may do its work at all.
Finally, I would say this, and I think here my mind is working on the same lines as that of the noble Lord, Lord Annan, although I do not think I should reach the same conclusion of another Committee. If we prohibit corporal punishment in schools, as I think we should and can, we must make every effort to remove the causes which, in the view of its defenders, make it essential. We must ask ourselves whether we are fair to teachers when we create very large schools in difficult areas, with impossibly mixed abilities, leading to boredom, and boredom is the first step to bad behaviour. We must ask whether we give young teachers enough guidance and support over disciplinary problems, and in my experience we do not. Hitherto, we have not given them enough support of practically any kind. We must ensure that difficult schools and disturbed pupils get adequate help through other social agencies. The use of the cane is often, after all, a reaction of teachers lacking in confidence or special talents or experience, their reaction to behaviour which seems intolerable and to problems with which they simply cannot cope. It is the easy way out, and, misguided, ineffectual and sometimes harmful though I believe it to be, it is, nevertheless, comprehensible enough that some people should take that way. If we abolish it by law, as I believe we should, we must at the same time do our best, by the better training of teachers, by more sensible organisation of our schools, and by giving those schools and those teachers ever greater social support, to deal more rationally and more effectively with kinds of behaviour for which beating is now supposed, so erroneously, to be the right answer.
6.37 p.m.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, I intervene, very briefly, not to make any profound remarks; I have come to this debate following on a most profound speech to which we have all listened with great interest. I want to contradict from my own experience what has been said time and again this afternoon. It was said by Lord Morris of Grasmere for the first time, I think, and other speakers have said it—that corporal punishment serves no useful purpose. It was said by Lord James of Rusholme a minute
950
ago, and by Lord Wells-Pestell as well. My experience is somewhat different in my own person. As a small boy I went to one of the great Scottish day schools, and when one was about 10 or 11 one got homework to do. If you did not do your homework, you were told about it, but when it was proved that you obviously went playing games or some other thing instead of doing what you were told, then you received a punishment. I can remember it perfectly well; after the master had questioned you and proved to his own satisfaction that you had not done a single thing about what you had been told to do, he said "Galbraith, come down here and hold out your hand", and you got three or four smacks with what we call the tawse—in other words, strap. It taught you to do your homework, believe me. On another occasion years later, as a midshipman in the Navy, I was told to do a certain duty and I did not do it—not purposely but because I forgot—and I got six over the backside, and it taught me not to forget.
I do not know what kind of schools some of your Lordships were at; I do not know what kind of experience you have had in the world. You may have taught in schools, but, goodness gracious!, you will never maintain discipline, except by men of the greatest character and there are not many of them, without having something to make people know through their own skins that they have to do the right thing or suffer for it. That is my experience in a long lifetime, and I can confirm it further from my own home. I am one of eight children. I have seven children of my own; they have all been spanked; we all love one another, and they have all learned to do what they are jolly well told, and to do it properly.
I will give your Lordships another example in another connection. I was working outside one day when a car drew up and a policeman got out; he was an inspector of police new to me. He came over and had a talk with me, and he deplored several things. One of them was the fact that, going round the countryside and the villages in his area to-day, he would find a boy going wrong. He would try to find the mother and father to warn them, but it was very difficult to find them. The mother was at

951
work, and so was the father, and in the evenings they had a little relaxation, either in the bingo hall or the pub, to use the inspector's words. Then the boy does something really serious, and what happens? He goes to borstal and mixes with all kinds of naughty boys. He probably has his whole character altered for the worse and, as the policeman said to me, "All because you have taken away from us the right to give him a smack on the ear with the back of our hand, or a kick where a kick should be administered." I do not understand this namby-pamby way in which we are going on. We are so soft that I can hardly believe that I live in the same country in which I was brought up. This is to the detriment of the young and of the old as well.
6.41 p.m.
LORD BROCK: My Lords, I hesitate to prolong this debate after so many noble Lords have spoken, but I wish to briefly emphasise one aspect of this problem which has not been made clear from many of the speeches, although it has been well brought out by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, and also by the noble Lord, Lord Somers; that is, that beating has nothing to do with education. This point must be made very clear. I unreservedly support the object of the Bill in trying to stop attempts at teaching by beating, but it is not possible to lump all the cases for caning under this one heading, because this causes confusion.
I am concerned as to the use of caning as a selective disciplinary measure. There are occasions for which the remedy of caning should not be forbidden. We all know examples—bullying and other cases have been mentioned. I suggest, as the noble Countess, Lady Loudoun, has stated, that this is a Bill that takes something from the headmasters. Casual caning, or caning of small boys by older boys, should not be permitted, and I strongly support what the noble Lord, Lord Annan, has already said about this. But we should not deprive a headmaster, or a housemaster, acting in concert with the board of governors or council of management, of the right to administer appropriate punishment for certain offences, but not as a so-called means of education. In some circumstances the
952
alternative would be expulsion, which could be a permanent setback to a career, when the matter could be dealt with by a short, sharp lesson, which causes no resentment. I find this Bill by no means clear about this important aspect of the problem of total abolition of corporal punishment, and for this reason I cannot unreservedly support it.
6.44 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, before turning to the issues raised solely by the Bill, I should like to say that I am grateful to the noble Baroness for stimulating a valuable debate, and to assure noble Lords that if I do not mention all the points now—there were many raised in the course of the debate—for instance by the noble Lords. Lord Annan and Lord James of Rusholme—my right honourable friend and I will be taking them up and considering them with care in due course. When I asked noble Lords who put down their names to speak in this debate what line they were proposing to take, many of the supporters of the Bill said, in effect, that they thought, "The time had come". This was the phrase that the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Grasmere, actually used. Therefore, I was looking forward to-day to hearing what it was that had happened, what changes had occurred that, in their view, call for the sudden, sweeping, dramatic change of approach in the use of corporal punishment that is embodied in this Bill. I must say that after this debate, although I now know more of how many noble Lords' minds have been working, I am still very short of firm data and practical evidence of the need for such a sudden, sweeping and dramatic change in our approach to this problem at this particular moment.
Perhaps I should now turn aside to justify the expression, "sudden, sweeping and dramatic". It is a sweeping change. I have already set out, and other noble Lords have mentioned, particular instances where the use of corporal punishment has been forbidden or withdrawn: for example, throughout the whole of Inner London in respect of primary schools; fifteen or more other authorities in respect of infants' schools; and in Northumberland in respect of all their special schools. All the evidence (and there is plenty of it) and indications are

953
that where there has been local consultation about such a proposal, especially with the teachers, this formal change of policy has gone well, caused no trouble, and the use of corporal punishment has ended. But such is not the way of this Bill. The aim of this Bill is to make one comprehensive, sweeping change apply to secondary as well as primary schools, State schools as well as Church schools, independent schools as well as direct grant schools, schools in England, schools in Scotland, schools in Wales, schools in Northern Ireland, and possibly to be imposed on the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. There is no scope left in the Bill for any exceptions to allow for the different attitudes and different conditions prevailing in different areas and different types of schools. I do not think that there is any doubt at all that this is a wholesale change in our approach.
It is also a sudden change. I have already outlined the sequence of some of the main events that have led, and are leading, to the decline in the use of the cane in schools. There is the process of formal prohibition by local education authorities over the whole of their areas—the ILEA is a case in point, and the noble Baroness mentioned others. There is the process of formal prohibition by governors and managers; there is the process of prohibition by individual head teachers. The combination of all those processes seems apparently to some of the noble Baroness's supporters to be too slow and too haphazard. But there is plenty of scope for those who feel concerned about the pace of change to seek to influence it and expedite the process. Again this is not the way of this Bill. The aim of the Bill being recommended to us is to abandon this sensible, gradual, flexible process, the one adopted by the noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme, in the case of Manchester Grammar School, and instead to arrange matters so that, without any further consultation with the teachers, no further consultation with the local education authorities, no further consultation with managers and governors, this legislation should come into force a little over a year from now on January 1, 1975, which will be much less than a year after any date on which it might conceivably become law. So it is a sudden change.
954
It is a dramatic change. At present if a teacher finds occasion to cane a pupil he has, against any action for assault, the defence that he was inflicting no more than a reasonable chastisement. As I have said, there are already several classes of establishment, several categories of school, several education authorities, several boards of governors and several headmasters who forbid their teachers to use the cane or physical force upon their pupils, and there are many of us who believe, with the supporters of the Bill, that this prohibition in the use of corporal punishment will become more widespread. But the aim of this Bill is quite different. It does not proceed on these lines. In one move it takes away the defence of reasonable chastisement which teachers have had for so long, and substitutes in its place, for any teacher who raps or canes a pupil, the liability of being convicted of a criminal offence, and being faced on conviction with the heavy penalties set out in Clause 1(4) of £50 or four month's imprisonment on summary conviction, or £250 and one year's imprisonment on indictment. The point which the noble Baroness made about these being maxima and not fixed penalties of course does not remove the liability to receive the maximum if convicted. That, I am sure your Lordships will agree, is a dramatic change, and I have listened in vain for any assurance from the supporters of the Bill that the teaching professions are in any way content with it.
My Lords, I had anticipated that there could be three possible arguments in justification of such a sudden, sweeping and dramatic change of approach. One I had expected, and which we have had, is the argument that caning does positive harm. We have not had any particular instances of it. We have had mention of sadism and brutality; but, my Lords, displays of sadism and brutality would already be caught, because that would be going beyond reasonable chastisement, and the defence that the law already provides would not hold. So there is no need for this change—
LORD GOODMAN: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord for a moment. Is the Minister seriously suggesting that if a teacher is animated by a sadistic motive and carries out a

955
moderate chastisement that would in any way be discovered?
LORD SANDFORD: How it would be discovered and whether it would be discovered would depend on the local circumstances in each particular school and on the particular form of regulation and prohibition which headmasters and governors are applying. The other point which has been made in the case about caning doing harm is that there are other approaches and methods which teachers do, alas!, sometimes use which can do much greater harm than caning—and this is undoubtedly true. Harsh and sustained sarcasm can do much more harm than caning. The Bill does nothing whatever to curb them; and in fact the removal of the possibility of corporal punishment may well induce some weak teachers to use more of these equally cruel and undesirable approaches.
Another argument which I expected to be used, and which has indeed been used, is that there is now such widespread acceptance of the case for the formal abolition of corporal punishment in this country and in other countries, in these institutions and in other institutions, that this Bill would do little more than set the seal on a process which is almost complete. It is certainly true that corporal punishment is already virtually abolished in penal establishments, and I should like to deal with that point. This certainly demonstrates—and the noble Baroness was perfectly right to bring it forward in support of her case—that difficult and indeed wicked people can be managed without recourse to corporal punishment. But, my Lords, prisons are not schools, and schools are not prisons. Prison staff have at their disposal an entirely different régime and a far wider range of controlling sanctions than the teacher in a school. The other difference is that prisons and the like are part of a centrally administered system in which policy decisions are formulated in Whitehall and, after such consultation as is proper for good management, are then applied throughout the system. No part of the British education service—
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, does the noble Lord have in mind that the abolition of corporal punishment applies also to
956
borstals, and that there are boys of 15 and 16 in borstal institutions?
LORD SANDFORD: I was indeed bearing that in mind, my Lords, and what I said about corporal punishment having been abandoned in penal institutions was intended to cover that. I am fully aware of that fact. What I am saying is that those establishments have quite different regimes from those in schools, and the staff have a quite different range of controlling sanctions available to them.
I was going on to say that no part of the British education service—the word "British" is important, and I will come back to it in a moment—or, for that matter, the network of local authority community homes; are in the least like the prison service and the system of penal establishments. Both the British education service and the local authority community homes are composed of a very wide variety of sectors, the only common characteristic of which is that not one school and not one home is run from Whitehall; and in many important fields, not least the teaching that goes on in the school from day to day, the direct interference and influence of Whitehall, of central Government, is expressly excluded. So there are a whole lot of highly relevant differences between these two sets of establishments.
The point was also made—in fact it was made by many noble Lords—that we are almost alone among Western European countries in retaining the right to administer corporal punishment in our schools. While this, by and large, is true—and I would not want to question that—I think your Lordships would do well to remember the fundamental differences which exist between our country and our European neighbours, not only in the administrative organisation of our educational system, which is far more decentralised than any in Europe, and certainly than most in Europe, but, more generally, in the whole structure of the social fabric that has shaped our system. I have therefore been at some pains to convince your Lordships how inappropriate it would be for such a change to be effected in the courts by means of one sweeping act of central Government. The Government firmly believe that it is a matter for local and professional resolution.
Now, my Lords, I come to such moves as have been made by local authorities

957
to restrict or abolish corporal punishment. There have been a number of instances in the past year or so in England and Wales, and in Scotland, of local education authorities seeking to impose a total or partial ban on the use of corporal punishment in their schools. We do not collect statistics on corporal punishment, and we do not of course have a comprehensive and definitive picture of what authorities are doing in this field. However, a number of instances have come to our notice, some of which have attracted a good deal of publicity in the Press. My overriding impression from these is that such moves have been effective, but only where there has been genuine consultation beforehand with representatives of the teaching profession, leading to an agreement to co-operate in the change. This Bill would completely short-circuit all this essential process of local consultation.
My Lords, there is one other argument—and we have heard it to-day—and that is that it is here in central Government, in Parliament, in the Palace of Westminster, where matters like this have to be decided. The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, said quite explicitly that this is a field in which Westminster knows best; and we have heard a good deal from noble Lords about how minds are moving in the Palace of Westminster. But I think your Lordships should have the benefit of the views of the local authority associations, who are responsisble for running this service, and of the unions of teachers, who are responsible for running the schools. In giving your Lordships their views, I should like it to be borne in mind that I am now about to give you a summary of the bodies which are representative of something between 300,000 and 400,000 teachers, whereas this campaign for the abolition of corporal punishment by this particular means at this particular stage has been mounted by an organisation known as STOPP, the members of which can be numbered only in their hundreds.
The teachers' unions and the local authority associations, like many noble Lords who have spoken on both sides of this debate to-day, are in principle opposed to corporal punishment, and are aware that it is being used less and less. They look forward eventually to its complete disappearance from schools—and this is the point on which the noble
958
Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, and I, and the Parties we represent, are in accord. But—and this is where we part—they do not want to see professional discretion removed; and, like Lady Plowden in her Report, they are quite certain that legislation for a new criminal offence is not the right way to tackle this question. They are very concerned about this Bill because it removes from the teacher his defence of reasonable chastisement and exposes him to the risk of severe penalties, and they cannot see how objections could be removed by its amendment.
My Lords, I have been impressed by the constructive and positive tone which the unions have taken in answering our inquiries as to their attitudes. Some unions, like many noble Lords, have rightly pointed to the present need for a more general examination to be made of the broad problem of maintaining discipline in schools. I welcome comments from noble Lords that we have had on that subject. They have gone on to indicate, as did the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, how irrelevant they feel this Bill is to the central and topical point which is their concern. They have also made the point that the sensible way to proceed to the removal of corporal punishment is to involve the teaching profession from the very outset in any discussions or negotiations leading to this end. I have had no assurances this afternoon that so far this has been undertaken.
They have also expressed alarm at the prospect, which could arise if the Bill became law, of a serious erosion taking place in the concept of the teacher being in loco parentis towards the children in his charge. They do not seem to share the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Grasmere, in this respect. The concept extends well beyond the field of discipline, across the whole range of the relationship between teacher and child. This is not an academic point. It is one of the impressive features of our educational system that the teacher does not confine his interests and his feeling of responsibility for his charges to the narrow confines of his classroom; his relationship is stretching out all the time from the school into the community.
My Lords, I come to my conclusion. Your Lordships' House is undoubtedly the repository of very great wisdom and

959
very wide experience. There is here an accumulation of many skills in many fields, many of which have been deployed to-day. But, my Lords, in dealing with this Bill we need to ask ourselves, as did the noble Lord, Lord Annan, whether we really have the personal, up-to-date, firsthand experience of classroom teaching, for instance in a big inner city comprehensive school, to bring our own personal, unaided judgment to bear decisively on the wide variety of issues that arise in the evolution of this essentially local service and the place of corporal punishment in it. Certainly this Government—and, until to-day, I thought the Party opposite—remains clear that evolution in this sphere should be left—
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, this is a Private Member's Bill.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, would give way? He raised this point while I was speaking. I made our position quite clear. I indicated that there was a developing movement of thought in this field. The noble Lord really must not—as he did when he intervened before and as he has done when he spoke—attempt to give this a Party flavour, a strong Party flavour, that nobody, I think, who has listened to the debate will feel is involved.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I do not want to force the Party opposite into expressing their opinion on this matter. I thought it would be helpful to the House to know whether the Party opposite remain of the view expressed when they were last in power, or whether, as I suspected from what he said at that Despatch Box opposite, the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, was expressing his own personal view. I will not pursue the matter. If the Party opposite do not want to express a view, they need not do so.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I read to the noble Lord what Mr. Edward Short wrote in his book, and I repeated it to him because I thought he might have missed it the first time. The noble Lord ought really to be a little more careful.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, the House and I were interested to hear what Mr. Short had to say in his book. What I thought the House would also be
960
interested in was to know the official view of the Party opposite about this particular Bill. But, clearly, the Party opposite have not felt willing or able to express that—
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, I really must protest at the line that the Minister is taking. Parties are not expected to have official views on Private Member's Bills, and I think it an outrage—I repeat the word "outrage"—to try to press us to take a political stand on what is a Private Member's Bill.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I am not pressing the noble Baroness in the very least. I am saying that I think the House might be interested. The Party opposite have now made clear that they do not want to commit themselves—at least we know that—and we can leave the point.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, before we leave it I want to make this point. The noble Lord asked me to go out of the Chamber with him. He asked me what line I intended to take. I think he will agree that I gave him a very detailed résumé of the line I intended to take. He at no point indicated that he would be asking me the question he has or would put the point he is making.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I do not want to press it any further than that. I say that I think it would be helpful for the House to know that the Party opposite, at this stage, does not want to express a view; and I quite agree with the noble Lords and Ladies opposite that there is no need for them to express a view.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, is he speaking for his entire Party?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I am speaking for the Government, and perhaps I may now go on. My Lords, it is appropriate, because the next words I have written in my speech are that I am a Minister of the Department of Education and Science. It is in that capacity that I have had the benefit of getting inside several scores of schools in recent weeks. But I would certainly not back changes as sweeping in scope, sudden in application and dramatic in effect upon

961
the teachers as these—even if I supported them—without prior assurances that the local authority associations, bodies of governors and managers and associations of teachers and head teachers had been fully consulted about them and, at the very least, understood their purpose and broadly consented to the new régime that they would introduce. My Lords, it is because this debate has brought me no such assurances of consultation, and because it has brought out no argument that I find convincing for a change now of this kind or to show why the sudden sweeping and dramatic change of approach embodied in this Bill should be introduced, that I must advise your Lordships not to accord the Bill a Second Reading.
7.8 p.m.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, and particularly to those who have spoken in support of the Bill. I am grateful, also, for some constructive criticisms which I shall certainly consider very carefully; and I hope that if your Lordships give the Bill a Second Reading this may lead to some improvement in it at a later stage. I should like to make an apology to the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, because I was absent from my place during the early part of his speech. If I have been correctly informed, he quoted his daughter as saying that I thought that everybody could be cured by kindness. Is that right—or substantially right?
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, it is substantially right. My daughter said that, "Dear Lady Wootton is so good and so kind, and thinks that everybody can be cured by kindness."
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: Perhaps the noble Lord will tell his daughter that, if that is her opinion, she is mistaken. I do not think that everybody can be cured by kindness; it would be surprising if I did after 44 years' experience in magistrates' courts. What I do think is that nobody can be educated by being beaten, which is a different proposition.
I should like now to come to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord
962
Sandford, on behalf of the Government. I cannot, for obvious reasons, deal with these at length: the House would not wish me to. But I will deal with one small point and then say a little about a more substantial point. The small point occurred in his opening speech, when he said that the Bill could not apply to Northern Ireland because it was to be presumed that, under the new arrangements, this would be a matter for Northern Ireland to determine for itself. My information is that under the Northern Ireland Constitution in 1973 the criminal law is retained with the Westminster Parliament. Perhaps the noble Lord will look into this point at a suitable stage and see which of us is right.
The noble Lord's substantial point is one which I think is widely shared and one that I have heard from many quarters. It is that we should wait until the right thing happens in due course. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, is not enthusiastic, I think, about corporal punishment. He was inclined to say that it did not do any particular good, but he was not convinced that it did any particular harm. I think he was well answered at an earlier stage by a noble Lord who said that this argument that, "We must wait; that this is not the moment because we cannot prove the change in the climate of opinion", is one that would stop every progressive movement. And I think it was even more effectively answered by the noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme, who said that if a thing is wrong to-day it should be put right to-day, not to-morrow or the day after. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, would have us wait until corporal punishment passes out in due course, and this means until every one of several hundred (I am sorry I do not know the total, but it is at least a great many hundreds) of education authorities in this country are unanimous in wishing to abolish it completely. At the moment, the number of who have got that far can be counted on the fingers of one seriously mutilated hand, and it looks therefore as if we might have to wait a very long time.
My Lords, my real difficulty in answering the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, is that I do not use the same English vocabulary. Many times in his speech he used the words "radical", "sweeping", "sudden" and "dramatic" as though they were

963
automatically of a pejorative nature. I am sorry, but I do not share that use of language. Neither do I share his use of language which identifies "sensible" and "gradual". I recognise that in some matters it is important to move gradually—though not when one is rectifying a wrong or putting right an injustice. I recognise that it is necessary to move gradually when changes are to be made that may involve the obsolescence of existing technical equipment which it would be expensive to throw away. In circumstances like that, and others, it is proper to hasten slowly; but not, as I say, on the question of rectifying injustices or putting right a wrong.
But, my Lords, the British have a peculiar addiction to gradualness. My mind goes back longer than Lord Sand-ford's, at least in personal memory, to a
time more than half a century ago when Parliament decided that it was wrong that women did not have the vote. But for 10 years thereafter women between the ages of 21 and 30 continued to be disenfranchised simply because of this extraordinary reluctance to realise the immediate consequences of our convictions. If we wait until corporal punishment dies out of itself, or until hundreds of local authorities are agreed that it ought to be abolished, exactly the same thing will happen. Numbers of children who are now at school, and numbers of children who will be at school next year and the year after, will continue to be beaten for no better reason than that they made the mistake of being born too soon.
7.12 p.m.
On Question, Whether the Bill shall be now read 2a?
Their Lordships divided: Contents 51; Not-Contents, 67.

CONTENTS

Amulree, L.

Garnsworth, L.

Morris of Grasmere, L.

Ardwick, L.

Goodman, L.

Phillips, B.

Balogh, L.

Hale, L.

Platt, L.

Barrington, V.

Harmsworth, L.

Segal, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Henderson, L.

Sharp, B.

Blyton, L.

Hoy, L.

Stocks, B.

Brockway, L.

James of Rusholme, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Kahn, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Clwyd, L.

Leatherland, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Collison, L.

Lee of Asheridge, B.

Vernon, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Listowel, E.

Wade, L.

Diamond, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Wells-Pestell, L. [Teller.]

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

White, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Longford, E.

Willis, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Maelor, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B. [Teller.]

Faringdon, L.

Melchett, L.

Fiske, L.

Milford, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Gaitskell, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ferrers, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Aberdare, L.

Ferrier, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Furness, V.

Newall, L.

Allerton, L.

Gowrie, E.

Northchurch, B.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Grenfell, L.

Oakshott, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Gridley, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Berkeley, B.

Hacking, L.

Peddie, L.

Bethell, L.

Hailes, L.

Porritt, L.

Bledisloe, V.

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

Rankeillour, L.

Brock, L.

Redesdale, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Hanworth, V.

Rowallan, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Harrowby, E.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Caccia, L.

Hunt, of Fawley, L.

Sandford, L.

Coleraine, L.

Kilmany, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Colville of Culross, V.

Kinloss, Ly.

Somers, L. [Teller.]

Courtown, E.

Limerick, E.

Stamp, L.

Cowley, E.

Long, V.

Strange, L.

Daventry, V.

Loudoun, C.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Denham, L.

Luke, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Lytton, E.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Swaythling, L.

Swinton, E.

Tenby, V.

Windlesham, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Taylor, L.

Vivian, L.

Young, B.

Templemore, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion for Second Reading disagreed to accordingly.

CRUEL EXPERIMENTS BILL [H.L.]
7.22 p.m.
LORD WILLIS: My Lords, I am delighted that the Bill for which I am now inviting a Second Reading in your Lordships' House should follow the Bill presented by the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, because in some parts it answers a criticism which is often made against those organisations and those people who tend to take up the cause of animals and who are too often dismissed as "cranks". The fact is that the House to-day is demonstrating a concern for life, a concern for all living creatures. That, to me, is a fundamental principle which should guide the actions of any individual or nation with any pretension to be civilised. Children cannot speak for themselves, nor can animals; and it is good that their cause should be voiced to-day in your Lordships' House.
The Bill for which I now ask a Second Reading is no "Cranks' charter". It comes before your Lordships with impeccable references. Perhaps I may go back in history a little and say that it began with a letter bearing the signature of a distinguished Member of this House, the late Lord Silkin. This letter was sent out to people in all walks of life by a Miss Barrington, who has most selflessly devoted herself to the work of MACE—the Movement Against Cruel Experiments. The letter speaks for itself, and I hope that your Lordships will pardon me if I read it in full, because it will save time in the long run by explaining the purpose of the Bill.
The letter, which is about the Movement Against Cruel Experiments, is headed, "The Right Honourable Lord Silkin", and it says:
"Dear Sir,
Nearly a century ago Frances Power Cobbe drew the attention of some prominent members of society to the painful and often pointless experiments that were then being carried out on some hundreds of animals every year.
966
Her memorandum calling for a halt drew support from the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice, Cardinal Manning, Jowett, Ruskin, Tennyson, Browning and many other distinguished persons. This led to the enactment of the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876, regarded by Lord Shaftesbury as a first inadequate step. Today some five million animals, their 'welfare' supervised by thirteen inspectors"—
the number is now fourteen—
are used and disposed of annually like paper tissues, and there has been no second step.
"There are many people who feel that licensed researchers can be trusted to use their powers with discretion and humanity. After reading in The Times on 26 August, 1969, that animals at a government research station have been exposed for five hours at a time, for three months on end, to the distressing effects of CS gas in concentrations 1,000 times greater than that required to disperse a crowd, we cannot share their confidence.
"There are also those who assert that a ruthless exploitation of less intelligent creatures is justified in the interests of expediency and progress. What then is progress? The modern citizen recoils from the respectable Victorian who sent small boys up chimneys, but yesterday's expendable child is surely today's monkey flaunted in space (or more privately abused in laboratories) and it unhappily meets the same passive acceptance from a public that always accepts any form of cruelty commonly upheld by leaders of opinion as part of the current way of life."
The letter then goes on to ask people to support a stand against this situation.
The response was overwhelming. The memorandum was signed by over 100 prominent people in the Arts, the Church, the Humanities, the Law, Medicine, Science and public life generally. I will not give the full list, but I will give your Lordships some of the names. They were as follows: Benjamin Britten, the late Poet Laureate, C. Day Lewis, Yehudi Menuhin, the late Sir Compton Mackenzie, J. B. Priestley, Peter Ustinov, Dame Sybil Thorndike, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, and twelve other Bishops (I should say that the Right Reverend Prelate the Bishop of London has asked me to present his apologies to the House because he cannot be here to-night, and to indicate his full support for the Bill) Professor Sir Hugh Trevor Roper, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner—who also cannot attend to-day because he is at another conference in Paris, but who has sent me a note of his support for the

967
Bill; the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hodson, the noble Lord, Lord Soper, seventeen leading doctors and surgeons, Malcolm Muggeridge and over a dozen of our leading scientists. That is to say nothing of the support of thousands of ordinary people. That, I hope, is sufficient proof that this is no "Cranks' charter" but a serious and responsible measure.
I want to emphasise from the outset that this Bill does not seek to prohibit genuine experiments which can be proved to be of benefit to humanity. That is quite outside the scope of the Bill; but it does seek to provide—and surely nobody could argue with this—that all experiments should be carried out with a proper regard for the welfare of the animals used, and it seeks to prohibit the many thousands of experiments which have no real scientific or medical purpose. Finally, it sets out to encourage the use of suitable alternatives.
My Lords, it is a grave mistake to think that experiments on animals are mostly carried out for the purpose of medical advance. Let me give a few statistics. The proportion of medical experiments has declined steadily from 62 per cent. of the total in 1920 to 31 per cent. in 1971: in other words, by half. Over 100 million animals died as a result of experiments between 1919 and 1972—I repeat, my Lords, 100 million. The annual total of experiments has increased by over 1 million in the past nine years. Something like 6 million animals are used each year. That is about 14,000 a day, 600 an hour, or 10 for every minute of every day. In fact, something like 50 animals have died since I have been on my feet, not all in the cause of medical advance. Eighty-six per cent. of all experiments are carried out without the benefit of anaesthetics. I cannot believe that such slaughter and cruelty on such a scale is necessary.
I believe, and I am sure your Lordships will agree with me, that the enormous increase justifies a new look at the situation and a revision of the 1876 Act. That Act has undoubtedly been better than nothing, but it is out of date. It was devised for a different time and a different situation. When that Act was passed, nearly a hundred years ago, it was designed to control a few hundred experiments a year and a handful of
968
experimenters. The Home Office has declared, times without number, that the Act is perfectly well suited to deal with the massive change in conditions that has taken place since its enactment. My Lords, that statement is about as convincing as if the Minister of Transport were to argue that a Road Traffic Act, passed a century ago and intended to control hansom cabs and penny-farthing bicycles, was suitable to the needs of the present day.
The sad truth seems to be that the Home Office either does not know, or does not want to know, the facts of the situation, or that it is the prisoner of a very powerful lobby. Its stonewalling attitude was indicated in a reply by the Minister of Science and Education, Mrs. Margaret Thatcher, in 1971 to a similar Motion in the other place, and by a Home Office spokesman who, for my part, summed it up more clearly than any words that I can say. He said,
"All experiments, for whatever purposes, are subject to restrictions to ensure that no animal suffers severe pain that is likely to endure or avoidable pain of any kind."
My Lords, that is rubbish. There is absolutely indubitable evidence to show that thousands of animals do, in fact, suffer severe pain and that it is prolonged; and, moreover, that much of it is avoidable.
The impetus for this Bill came originally from an experiment seen on television. I invite your Lordships to tell me how much such an experiment advanced the cause of human welfare. In this experiment monkeys were strapped into chairs before a board displaying various light bulbs. It was on television. Every second one of the bulbs lit up, and the animal had to place his or her paw over the light immediately. If he got there too late, he was punished with an electric shock and could be seen to be crying out. Of course they got there later and later because they were already dying of radiation sickness. My Lords, where was the 1876 Act during that experiment? Where was the Home Office during that experiment? Where was the anaesthetic? What was the human value of that experiment? The plain fact is that the benefit to human or animal welfare is not a factor that is required to be taken into account under the 1876 Act. An experiment may be authorised because it is thought useful for saving life or alleviating suffering.

969
This respectable motive is entirely overshadowed by the more comprehensive statement which says that it can be allowed if it is in the interests of the "advancement, by new discovery, of physiological knowledge".
LORD BROCK: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would tell us where that experiment was originally conducted? If it were conducted in this country it would be illegal to have exhibited it on televisison. Perhaps it was of American origin.
LORD WILLIS: I will come back to that.
LORD BROCK: Could we have the information now?
LORD WILLIS: I will come back to that later. I will make my speech, if you do not mind, in my own way. You might wonder, my Lords, what "the advancement, by new discovery, of physiological knowledge" can mean. A new discovery may cover any collection of data—
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, perhaps if the noble Lord will allow me to interrupt. Since he does not want to make this point now, may I inform the House that that experiment did take place abroad.
LORD WILLIS: I thank the noble Viscount. It was none the less shown on television here, my Lords.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: But the noble Lord will appreciate that in those circumstances it is irrelevant to say, "Where was the Home Office?" and "What was the effect of the 1876 Act?" It was done outside the jurisdiction of anything we do inside this country.
LORD WILLIS: Well, my Lords, I have quoted perhaps one experiment that took place abroad. I shall not, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, did not in her speech, weary your Lordships with details and evidence that we have of endless experiments taking place in this country which do cause needless pain, and which do cause prolonged pain without anæsthetics. I will come to one or two in a moment. The fact that one of them took place abroad should be a warning and should not be something
970
about which we should smile with complacency.
My Lords, under the present Bill, the Bill that I am introducing, it is proposed that the only legitimate purpose for research on living animals should be the advancement of specific or fundamental knowledge that is directed towards saving of life or alleviating suffering. Fundamental research is not excluded as a legitimate object. I fully appreciate that it may not always be possible to predict which lines of research will, in fact, turn out to be useful for alleviating suffering. In the Bill, I have leaned over backwards to leave the way open to research that may lead to medical advancement.
Schedule 3 to the Bill sets out a catalogue of procedures deemed to be distressing. These were not drawn up at random. As I have said, they are based on evidence of what has been happening; examples, accurate examples, of painful experiments. In many cases, what is objectionable is the extravagance of the painful stimulus. Why hurt the animal a little when with no extra trouble you can hurt it a lot? In a report published last year, newly shorn sheep were subjected to freezing cold winds at temperatures of minus 20 degrees centigrade for up to eight hours at a time. What was the report?
"It was concluded that the induction of different forms of adaptation depended on the length, severity and frequency of cold exposures."
Did bare-coated animals actually have to be frozen for hours on end for that startling conclusion to be reached? It is like pushing a horse over a cliff to find out whether it hurts itself when it gets to the other end.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, will the noble Lord excuse me for just a moment? He has quoted one cruel experiment abroad. Would he tell us whether this last one was done in Britain?
LORD WILLIS: Yes. This was done in Britain. It was done in Scotland, in fact, and the man who did it was a man called Slee.
LORD HALSBURY: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us the date of this experiment?
LORD WILLIS: I cannot at the moment, but it is a quotation from a

971
medical journal, and I will find it for your Lordships before I reply. In outline, the difference between the Act of 1876 and the Bill is as follows. Under the Act, a certificate is required only for a defined range of experiments and is not required for an experiment that is to be carried out under anaesthetic at every stage. Under the Bill, every experiment would require the issue of a certificate and a special form of certificate would be needed for any experiments that might cause pain or distress. These matters are dealt with in Clause 3. The licensing of experiments is dealt with in Clause 4, under which the Home Secretary would have to be satisfied on several important matters before issuing a licence.
Clause 5 makes the registration of premises mandatory instead of the permissiveness of the present situation and sets up machinery for inspection of registered premises under conditions a great deal more effective than is now the case. Clause 2 differs from the equivalent provision in the Act by the up-dating of the financial penalty, and also by providing that any person convicted under the clause shall be disqualified from holding a licence at any future time. The clause also disqualifies any person who performs abroad experiments that would be prohibited under the Bill in this country. If an experiment has been refused a certificate in this country it would clearly be intolerable for an experimenter to arrange for it to be carried out abroad, and it is therefore provided that this too would lead to disqualification. The sanction is a severe one, but the offence is extremely difficult to pin down. So far as my information goes, no one has ever been successfully prosecuted under the Act of 1876.
Subsection (1) states that a certificate may be granted for an experiment directed to saving life or alleviating suffering, these two expressions being taken from the Act of 1876. The Bill differs from the Act in that the acquisition of physiological knowledge, divorced from this principal purpose, is not an authorised purpose. I would add only the following comments: It is open to the applicant for a certificate to state in what way the knowledge he seeks might save life or alleviate suffering. If he fails in this object, it is still open to him to seek his knowledge without the use of a
972
living animal. There are many satisfactory alternative methods of research, and there have been notable medical advances that owe nothing to experimentation with animals. Medicine will not in fact be prejudiced at all by this limitation. Physiologists and others intent on imposing endurance tests on animals would however have to think again.
There is a proviso to subsection (1) which would make two types of experimentation illegal and they are rather important. These are experiments concerned with the testing of cosmetics. A "cosmetic preparation" is defined as,
"a product intended to enhance physical attractiveness, but does not include any product the purpose of which is to remedy a disfigurement or other abnormality."
I have never yet met any human being who thinks that rabbits and guinea-pigs should have shampoos and hair sprays squirted in their eyes so that a manufacturer can announce the production of a gaily coloured packaged liquid described as having a magic ingredient. The plain fact is that completely satisfactory shampoos, sprays, creams, lipsticks, powders and astringents are available that are composed entirely of vegetable and other harmless constituents. There is no need to torture animals in the interests of beauty, or even hygiene.
The other class of experiments the Bill seeks to prohibit are those in which animals are forced to ingest nicotine, or alcohol, or other drugs that are taken by humans, voluntarily, for their own pleasure or satisfaction. Perhaps I have a restricted circle of acquaintances, but I do not know of anyone who wants animals to be tortured so that he can be helped to make up his mind to stop smoking or drinking. If animals have to suffer for our diseases that is one thing, and let us minimise their sufferings. But do they really have to suffer for our vanity and our vices?
My Lords, I turn now to the subject of anæsthetics. Certificates are at present issued by the Home Office only in the case of experiments not to be performed under anæsthetic; under the Bill all experiments would have to be certificated. To this day one of the few statistics published annually by the Home Office puts experiments into two classes,

973
those performed with and those performed without anæsthetic. This distinction is not a very useful one. Very painful experiments may be carried out without anæsthetic, sometimes because the whole point of the experiment is to hurt the animal and see how it behaves. Guinea-pigs which in 1967 were subjected to feeding experiments developed scurvy, suffered bleeding from the mucous membranes of the nose, eyes and extensive ulceration. They did not receive anæsthetic over the six weeks or more when they received the experimental diet; but they suffered very much. In other experiments anæsthetic may be applied during the surgical part of the operation, but not afterwards. There are two researchers at Cambridge who in 1967 specialised in cutting out parts of monkeys' brains, and watching the results. They observed that the animals,
"stumbled around their cages, bumping into the walls and hitting their heads on protruding objects. If they had to steady themselves by catching hold of the wire, they reached too short, too far, or in the wrong direction, missed their target and fell."
As your Lordships will notice, the interesting part of the proceedings took place after the anæsthetic had worn off.
I think it will be seen that the use or non-use of anæsthetic is no guide at all as to whether or not an experiment is painful, and therefore requires additional scrutiny. Subsection (2) of the clause therefore makes it clear that nothing turns on the use of anæsthetic.
A very much more detailed system is proposed for the control of experiments that will or might cause pain at any stage. Again, the experiment would have to be authorised by a certificate issued by the Home Secretary, but he would not issue a certificate unless a recommendation for its issue had been made to him by a committee to be known as the Committee of Moral Reference. The setting up of a committee was one of the suggestions made by the Littlewood Committee. I am happy to say that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London has agreed, in the event of this Bill's passing into law, to become the first President of the Committee of Moral Reference, and he would be responsible for appointing the members.
What is proposed therefore is that while the granting of certificates for
974
painless experiments would be done by the civil servants in the Home Secretary's Department, a committee of laymen and citizens would stand between the researcher and his animals, to decide whether the claims of research should be allowed to override the rights of captive animals to humane treatment. If a two-thirds majority recommended the issue of a certificate, then the experiment could proceed.
Noble Lords will probably be aware that in recent years two attempts have been made in another place to secure legislation prohibiting experiments on animals in cases where alternative methods might be used. These appear to have had the objection raised against them that a researcher could not be expected to comb the four quarters of the globe inquiring about alternative methods. Under this Bill he is not required to do so. Those who specialise in this field would put their evidence before the Committee, and the Committee would determine whether or not the alternative techniques proposed would or would not serve the purpose. If not, then it would be open to the Committee to recommend the experiment for a certificate. There is a great deal of optimism in some quarters about the many fields, and especially the field of toxicity testing, in which alternative techniques not involving live animals are considered to be effective. I do not have the time to develop the theme of alternatives, but I can assure your Lordships that they exist. Tissue culture systems, the use of mathematical models to simulate living systems, are being developed. Indeed, it is of some urgency that such developments be speeded up because many experts agree that there are many areas in which tests on animals are irrelevant to man.
Clause 3(4)(a) prohibits the causing of severe pain or distress. "Severe" is unfortunately an elastic word, but I should imagine that there must be some experiments in which it would be generally agreed that the point had been reached. In 1954, two experimenters injected various chemicals into the brains of cats. The injections of tubocuranine caused a cat to jump
"from the table to the floor and then straight into its cage, where it started calling more and more noisily whilst moving about restlessly

975
and jerkily … during the next four minutes the movements became wilder … finally the cat fell with legs and neck flexed, jerking in rapid clonic movements, the condition being that of a major (epileptic) convulsion … within a few seconds the cat got up, ran for a few yards at high speed and fell in another fit. The whole process was repeated several times within the next minute."
My Lords, this animal took 35 minutes to die. Let us hope that from this act of cruelty the experimenters learned something to the advantage of the human race.
There are other tests, known as writhing tests, in which the purpose is simply to count the number of times an animal writhes in pain before it dies. These are some of the reasons why the Bill stipulates that in all cases where pain or distress can be relieved by anæsthesia, or other measures, this must be done. Human beings are given the greatest care after an operation, but I have yet to see any mention in a report of an animal experiment describing methods taken to relieve post-operative discomfort of an animal.
Unfortunately, many researchers who deal habitually with laboratory animals come to regard them as more or less inert matter, and few of them take steps to nurse animals suffering from the effects of surgery. I am sorry to say that some eyewitnesses have reported that animals are frequently disposed of after an experiment by having their heads smashed against the bench. We know from recent history—and we cannot afford to forget it—that people, quite good people, can and do become insensitive to the suffering of others; and I am afraid that this happens far too often with researchers. The Bill also insists that no animal is to be subjected to suffering for an unreasonable period. Perhaps I may quote your Lordships an example which will illustrate the point.
In March, 1972, in the New Scientist, Dr. Nicholas Humphrey described how, six years before, a monkey known "affectionately" (I use the word "affectionately" in quotes) as Helen had her visual cortex destroyed by surgery. For the first year or two she appeared not to be able to see at all, though later she recovered her vision to some extent. At that stage her behaviour is described as follows:
976
"Helen bumped into any and every obstacle; she collided with my legs and she several times fell into the pond."
In the earlier stages she merely groped around in her cage, and after about a year of this the researcher found that he had other things to do—a thesis to finish, and, in his own words, "Helen was left to her own devices for about 10 months"—that is to say, such devices as she could manage in a small cage in her condition. That was for 10 months, while her researcher was busy elsewhere. After hearing this, perhaps your Lordships will understand why the Bill also ensures that no animal shall be the subject of more than one pain certificate.
I have been reluctant to write into this Bill any privileged treatment for dogs and cats. Favouring a dog or cat implies disfavouring an unpopular animal such as a rat, which is in fact also highly intelligent, very sensitive to pain and, if allowed to be, affectionate to humans. However, we have to recognise that, whereas a rodent may pass a tolerable life in a cage, a dog or cat kept in a cage is in a state of misery before the researcher gets to work at all. The Bill therefore has something to say on this, and on the subject of other larger animals.
I am drawing to the end of my speech, my Lords. Clause 6 might be regarded as the clause with the most teeth because it requires a certain amount of publicity to be given to experiments on animals. At the present time the veil of secrecy is thick and impenetrable. I have never quite been able to understand why. If nothing is going wrong, why is there such secrecy? There is no possible way under the 1876 Act or anything else by which an interested person can intervene to prevent an experiment from taking place, either because it is excessively cruel or for any other reason. There is no way in which information about these experiments can be funnelled out, except through well-wishers. Under the Bill, any Member of Parliament could request copies of all applications made. It would then be possible for experiments that ought not to be permitted to be intercepted.
My Lords, that is the substance of the Bill. I have, of course, put the dark side of the case. I am ready to admit that many experiments are not cruel, and that many experimenters take every step to ensure that their animals do not suffer

977
and are well cared for. No humane researcher, therefore, need fear this Bill if it becomes law. But it is also abundantly clear that a very large number of experiments slip through the very inadequate net of the Act of 1876 and the situation needs to be changed. I have heard, not directly, that the Government intend to oppose the Bill in its entirety. If that be so, I shall listen with great interest to their reasons, and I should like to pose the following questions.
Do the Minister and the Government really believe, in face of all the evidence, that no cruel experiments ever take place? If that is the case, why has this issue been raised a dozen times in the last 10 years in the other place and here and elsewhere; and why is the stonewalling going on? Does he support painful experiments of animals which have no other purpose than to devise a new beauty treatment? Does he really believe that an Act drafted a hundred years ago—and even then claimed to be inadequate—can cope with the immensely changed situation of to-day? Does he think that 14 inspectors can cope with experiments on millions of animals in hundreds of laboratories? Does he think that 14 people can ensure that the rules about anæsthetics are complied with? Does he believe that there is no scope for improvement, and that everybody who has spoken in this House and in the other place on this issue over the last 10 years is blind, or wrong, or simply out of his mind? Why do successive Governments continually stonewall on this issue and refuse to admit that anything is wrong, and contend, in face of formidable evidence, that the present Act is working well?
My Lords, I should like to repeat that I am no "crank". I am not an antivivisectionist. I came to this Bill only a few months ago, to take it up from where the late Lord Silkin had left it off, because I was convinced by the evidence. I am well aware that this country faces graver issues, but it is the mark of a civilised people that, even when faced with grave difficulties, it can still spare time for the helpless and the voiceless. Almost a hundred years ago Ralph Hodgson wrote a poem which I commend to your Lordships. It does not
978
perhaps have an immediate bearing on this Bill, but its sentiments are right:
"'Twould ring the bells of Heaven
"The wildest peal for years,
"If Parson lost his senses
"And people came to theirs,
"And he and they together
"Knelt down with angry prayers
"For tamed and shabby tigers
"And dancing dogs and bears
"And wretched, blind pit ponies
"And little hunted hares."
My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord Willis.)
7.57 p.m.
THE MINISTER or STATE, HOME OFFICE (VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS): My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me if I do not answer the questions in exactly the terms in which he has asked them. He did not tell me beforehand that he wanted them dealt with in quite that way. I hope that he will be able to spell out from the course of my speech the implicit answers to everything he put to me. Indeed. I am sure that all your Lordships and all right-thinking people are glad that we can set aside some of the grave issues to which the noble Lord has referred and look at this subject to-night.
Certainly we all share the noble Lord's sentiment that animals should be properly and humanely treated, and that we have a solemn duty to ensure that everything is done to protect them from being subjected to cruel treatment or unnecessary suffering of any kind; and, quite frankly, the noble Lord cannot state this principle too strongly for me. I entirely respect the motives that have led him to pick up this Bill from the late Lord Silkin. One also has to be very careful (I say this with great respect to the noble Lord) that the examples that are taken are from practice in this country; because the difference between standards of protection for animals in this country and those in some others is in truth quite remarkable. So one has to be stringently and scrupulously accurate about this.
The Long Title of the Bill is:
"An Act to restrict and regulate the performance of experiments on living animals."
One notes. "restrict"; and the noble Lord means it. He has made it clear that this is the basis of what he is saying. I think that he and certainly some others

979
who agree with him make certain assumptions, some of which, I am afraid, are ill-founded. For instance, some people say that the present scale of animal experimentation is grossly excessive. That was a topic which the noble Lord at any rate touched on. Some people say that the existing controls over experiments are inadequate and ineffective, and the noble Lord challenged me directly on this. Without doubt, all of us want to do our utmost to minimise suffering by animals. But let us take care that, in our enthusiasm to achieve this objective, we are not so zealous that we produce a result that actually impedes essential medical and scientific research of great value to the welfare of men, and also of animals themselves.
Let us just bear in mind that the experiments on animals are not all pointless; and when it is suggested that alternatives should be developed and used I doubt whether any scientist would disagree with that proposition, because alternatives are usually cheaper; they are almost always, if they are successful, more certain and more sure. Therefore the noble Lord is preaching to the converted in saying that the experiments should have a point and that where alternatives are available it is highly desirable, and indeed sensible, to use them. But I have to tell the House that after a very careful and close examination of the Bill the Government have concluded that it would do a positive disservice to the proper development of medical, veterinary and scientific research in this country. I shall have a little more to say about this when I turn to the Bill itself, but perhaps it would be helpful if I say a few words about the much maligned existing law and the much maligned present administration of it.
The controls and safeguards over animal experimentation in this country of course are embodied in the 1876 Act. That is an Act which this Bill wishes to repeal. It is true that it was passed nearly a hundred years ago, but its basic principles are certainly not outdated. In fact even to-day the controls imposed on the use of living animals for experimental purposes in this country under that Act are probably more stringent than those imposed in any other part of the world. It is also worth remembering what the
980
Departmental Committee on Experiments on Animals, the Littlewood Committee, had to say about this Act. After all, they carried out a pretty thorough examination and heard evidence from all shades of opinion. They were of the opinion that the aim of legislation should be to prevent objectionable activities and to encourage humane practices, and they concluded that by these standards the 1876 Act was generally effective. They went on to say—and I quote from paragraph 239 of their Report:
"no licensees appeared to regard it as a piece of useless bureaucracy, many left us in no doubt of their high respect for it. The Act has been effective partly because it has commanded the ready support of those subject to it, partly because the Home Office has adopted a wide interpretation, insisted on humane standards, and administered the law conscientiously".
There is an answer to a number of the noble Lord's questions in the form of an impartial Committee's findings.
The basic object of that old Act is to regulate and restrict experiments calculated to cause pain to living vertebrate animals. This is not dissimilar to the object of the Bill, but, as I shall explain, the existing Act achieves its purpose in a rather different way. That Act contains no definition of "experiment" or "pain"; in practice any procedure upon an animal designed to find the answer to a problem—other than in the normal course of veterinary diagnosis—is regarded by us as an experiment and it is considered to be subject to the Act if it presents any risk of pain, discomfort or interference with the animal's ordinary state of health or wellbeing. I would ask your Lordships to bear in mind that in the administration of the present Act "experiment" is interpreted in that very wide sense, and therefore control is exerted in that very wide way.
The Act prohibits absolutely any experiment performed for the purpose of obtaining manual skill or for any purpose other than the advancement by new discovery of physiological knowledge or of knowledge which will be useful in saving or prolonging life or alleviating suffering. Experiments are also permitted, under special restrictions, to enable persons such as medical students attending lectures at hospitals, medical schools and elsewhere to acquire such knowledge. No experiment permitted by the Act may

981
be performed without a licence from my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, and itself contains restrictions on the infliction of pain to any animal under experiment. My right honourable friend uses his powers of licensing to impose other conditions to ensure that no animal under experiment suffers severe pain that is likely to endure or avoidable pain of any kind—a phrase held up to ridicule by the noble Lord. I deny his allegation and I can assure the House that this is the attitude of my right honourable friend.
LORD WILLIS: My Lords, I accept the attitude of the noble Viscount's right honourable friend, but can the noble Viscount explain how the experiment which I quoted about Helen can slip by? Is there not needless pain there? Was that not certificated? Was that passed? And what about all the other evidence quoted in all the debates that have taken place in the last ten years in both Houses? Is that to be ignored? Is that not evidence that the Act is not working, that something is wrong?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: No, my Lords, it is nothing of the kind, because one has to look not at the inevitably abbreviated version of these incidents which noble Lords and right honourable and honourable Members can put into their speeches—it is impossible to give full details—but at the whole of the case, and I would again remind the noble Lord that one has to see whether these occurred in this country or abroad. I do not know about Helen; I do not know about the other cases that he mentioned, except that we know about the sheep. I therefore cannot comment on these specific ones without notice. Nevertheless that is the attitude, and to my own knowledge this is very strictly adhered to.
LORD WILLIS: My Lords, can the noble Viscount tell me how the sheep slipped through the net?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I do not accept that they slipped through the net. Perhaps my definition of "net" and the noble Lord's is different. I should like to know more about the details of this matter than the noble Lord could possibly give in the course of a short speech. I cannot comment without notice on these matters.
982
There are, however, some matters that I can comment on, and one of them was touched upon by the noble Lord and relates to the number of animals involved and the statement that the majority of experiments performed under the Act are carried out without anaesthetics. I have the numbers. While these have risen considerably in the years since the last war there is now some evidence that the rate of increase is slackening or even stopping altogether. In 1972 the total number of experiments performed was 5·3 million, which was more than a quarter of a million less than in the previous year. In fact experiments in that year were fewer than those in 1969 and only marginally more than those in 1968. As your Lordships will probably know, the Littlewood Committee looked into the reasons for what was at that time a steady increase in the number of experiments and concluded that:
"the increase in the numbers of animals used in research is largely to be explained by the expansion of biological science and the mandatory testing of biological substances".
The noble Lord might like to look with some care at Sections 31 and 32 of the Medicines Act, 1968, because he will find that there are many mandatory requirements in that Act.
It would, I think, be premature to attach any particular significance to the levelling off in the annual number of experiments in recent years, but it may to some extent reflect the changing pattern of medicine whereby the use of sera and the use of living animals for diagnostic procedures is becoming less common. It may also be in part attributable to an increased use of alternative non-animal tests which I mentioned a short while ago. The noble Lord really must get the present law right. I think he said twice that experiments carried out under anaesthetics required no licence. The noble Lord is wrong. If the animal is anaesthetised throughout and subsequently killed before it recovers consciousness a licence is required under the same stringent conditions. There are yet more stringent conditions in all other circumstances, and therefore the noble Lord's description of the present law was seriously inaccurate in this respect.
As regards experiments without anaesthetics, I would like to make it clear that in every case where the experimenter

983
proposes to carry out such an experiment wholly or partly without anaesthetic he must submit to the Home Office—and this is why I say it is more strict still—a certificate signed by the President of a learned Society and a professor of a branch of medical science that the administration of an anaesthetic would necessarily frustrate the object of the experiment. Most of the procedures used in experiments without anaesthetic involve no significant risk of pain and consist of innoculations, external applications of stimuli, modifications in diet or environment or the administration of some pharmaceutical or biological product followed in each case by observations of any effects. In the majority of such cases, the administration of an anaesthetic would be likely to cause more disturbance to the animal's wellbeing than that involved in the procedures themselves; as well as frustrating the object of the experiment.
I must make it clear that authority to dispense with an anaesthetic is never granted where an "operation" more severe than simple innoculation or the taking of a blood sample is proposed. Experiments in which anaesthetics are used for the operative part of the experiment, but where the animal is allowed to recover and to survive after the effects of the anaesthetic have worn off, are permitted only where survival forms an essential part of the experiment; and that needs yet a different sort of certificate in addition to the licence. An example is where one is developing or assessing new methods of surgical treatment of human or animal diseases or new types of post-operative treatment. The noble Lord suggested that no research was taking place into post-operative treatment. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Brock, may wish to say something about this in due course. Strict conditions are imposed, as I have said, to ensure that any pain or discomfort is kept to an absolute minimum and that the animal receives adequate nursing or other care—certainly of no less standard, in many cases better and in some cases much better, than that given to any animal undergoing veterinary surgery.
Before anyone is granted a licence to experiment on living animals, a Home Office inspector satisfies himself, by personal interview if necessary, that the
984
applicant is a suitable person to hold a licence, and therefore inspectors keep in touch with licensees by regularly visiting all laboratories registered for the performance of such experiments. There is a substantial number of licensees (about 16,000 at present) but generally in any one year about a third of them do not perform any experiments; so that the active number of licensees is always appreciably fewer than the overall total. The inspectors visit at irregular intervals, and without prior notice, all laboratories registered for the performance of experiments to ensure that proper standards of care, accommodation and handling facilities for the animals are maintained; to see that licensees working in the laboratories understand and fulfil their responsibilities under the Act and that the requirements of the Act are strictly observed. Last year over 4,000 such visits were made to the 592 laboratories then on the register. From my personal experience at the Home Office—and I have been on irregular and unheralded checks with the Inspectorate—I can assure your Lordships that the law is faithfully administered by the Home Office, properly complied with and well respected by the research workers.
My Lords, that is the background; that is the present law and the present practice built up under the 1876 Act. If that is thought to be anything less than stringent and severe, I should be surprised if many noble Lords were to agree with that view. I turn now to the Bill itself. It would repeal the old Act and set aside the structure of control over animal experimentation that has been built up over the best part of this century. In it place it would introduce the new system of control that the noble Lord described,—designed severely to restrict the use of animals for medical and scientific research and the use of animals for the purpose of producing sera, vaccine or any other biological product. Let me make it quite clear that, so far as I can see, the Bill does not seek in any way, except possibly on the Committee of Moral Reference, to implement the Littlewood Committee recommendations. Indeed, in many respects its proposals run completely counter to those endorsed by the Littlewood Committee. For example, under the terms of the Bill experiments will be permissible only if they are undertaken specifically to acquire

985
knowledge directed towards saving life or alleviating suffering.
Moreover, Clause 3(3) limits this to human life and suffering; and therefore there will be no further experimentation to help the cure and relief of animals' distress and pain and disease. That would in future be prohibited. That is the interpretation that we put on it. I would remind your Lordships that the 1876 Act permits experiments for the acquisition of fundamental physiological knowledge or for the acquisition of knowledge which will be useful for saving or prolonging life or alleviating suffering, and that old Act applies to animals as well as to human life and suffering—and we would say rightly so.
The Littlewood Committee gave very careful consideration to evidence presented to them about allegedly unnecessary experiments and to representations made to them by the R.S.P.C.A. that restrictions should be imposed to ensure that experiments were allowed only if they were essential to solve some specific problem of human or animal suffering. That again is of the essence of the Bill. The Committee specifically rejected such suggestions and I think it is worth quoting what they had to say on this matter. They said:
"From our study of the evidence about unnecessary experiments and the complexity of biological science we conclude that it is impossible to say what practical application any new discovery in biological knowledge may have later for the benefit of man or animal. Accordingly we recommend that there should be no general barrier to the use of animal experimentation in seeking new biological knowledge even if it cannot be shown to be of immediate or foreseeable value."
This was their recommendation No. 16.
Since this Bill was published the Government have received representations from medical, veterinary and scientific bodies, including the Medical Research Council, the Medicines Commission, the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry and the Agricultural Research Council—and the noble Lord, Lord Shawcross, in The Times to-day, as one-time chairman of the British Medical Research Council was very critical indeed—stressing that if experiments were restricted as proposed in the Bill it would effectively prevent a considerable volume of valuable medical and scientific research from being carried out in this country. These people just do
986
not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Willis, I am sorry to say, that medical research would not be inhibited by this Bill.
It is worth noting, incidentally, that the terms of the Bill appear to us to prevent almost completely all the research work that is going on into the development of fisheries and into the cure of fish diseases and the development of fish farming. I should have thought that a very valuable and useful form of food for the human race; but it is prohibited as a sidewind by the noble Lord's Bill. The arbitrary prohibition on experiments involving certain substances was another matter on which the noble Lord touched. It is in the proviso to Clause 3(1). That also is completely at variance with the thinking of the Littlewood Committee on this issue. After considering and rejecting suggestions that restrictions should be imposed on the use of animals for consumer safety tests on cosmetics, the Committee said, in paragraph 266 of their Report:
"From the wider point of view, we think that it is in any case undesirable as a general principle arbitrarily to determine that particular kinds of purpose should never be served by animal experiments whether or not they involve stress or pain."
I do not agree that this is "torture", to use the noble Lord's word. If, in any event, the noble Lord were to succeed in this, what would happen? It would be done abroad, the product would be imported and the prohibition or penalties in Clause 2(2) would do nothing to prevent this. If it is done abroad, there would not be even the safeguards under the 1876 Act. Secondly, the other important difficulty, as we understand, about this prohibition is that supposing you found a certain cosmetic produced severe disease, or a skin complaint, the Bill would then prevent any research in this country to discover how to put the matter right. The noble Lord cannot intend this, I think. But, unfortunately, if he will insist upon having these arbitrary divisions, that is the sort of thing that happens. Then again, the Medical Research Council have commented that the prohibition on experiments involving the administration of nicotine, or any other "social" drug (in passing, my Lords, what is "any other social drug"?), would halt important studies on the physiology and pharmacology of alcohol and other drug dependence, which I would have thought was a very great problem in this

987
country, not only of medical but also of social importance.
A person proposing to perform an experiment permissible, or which he believes to be permissible, under the Bill would have to get a licence from my right honourable friend, in much the same way as he does now. But there the similarity ends. Before he could undertake an experiment he would have in addition to obtain a special certificate for each experiment carried out for a different purpose. The vast majority of the certificates that would be sought could be issued only on the recommendation of a special Committee—about which I shall have something to say in a moment. Before recommending the issue of a certificate the Committee would have to satisfy themselves, first, that no alternative method was available and, secondly, that the benefit to human welfare expected to result from the experiment justified the pain likely to be involved.
This may sound superficially something which is relatively simple and straightforward, but a close look at this provision, which is really the nub of the Bill, reveals problems that are so numerous and so complex as in our opinion to make the Bill quite unworkable. Let us look at a few of them. Except for the very few experiments which would not be liable to cause any pain or distress whatsoever, each application would have to be referred to the Committee on Moral Reference. Under the terms of the Bill an "experiment" may cover a series of related acts on the same animal, and may include more than one animal on which substantially identical procedures are performed; but this would appear to apply only when the purpose of the experiment is the same. For example, a certificate given for producing or testing one drug would not seem to be valid for performing similar procedures on animals in connection with testing another drug, since the Committee would be required to consider the justification of, and the availability of alternative methods for, producing or testing the second drug. So it would have to go back to them.
It therefore seems inevitable that the number of references to the Committee would be substantial, particularly in the early years of the operation of such a scheme. A modest estimate of the num
988
ber of references in a year would seem to us to be something in the region of 100,000. Simple arithmetic shows that even if the Committee remained in permanent session they would not be capable of dealing with this number of applications. If the Committee sat for five days a week, eight hours a day and for 46 weeks in a year, so that they would have six weeks' holiday, there would be about one minute available for each application if the Committee had to deal with 100,000 applications a year. During that time they would have to see into all the points about alternative methods and the benefit to human welfare. It just is not possible. Inevitably this would create a serious bottleneck and, in turn, serious and unacceptable delays in the issue of certificates, holding up vital work and jeopardising the continuation of drug production and medical research in this country. Veterinary research and research on fish, for instance, would stop altogether under the Bill, as this would not even come within the terms of reference of the Committee.
In considering whether to recommend the issue of a pain certificate the Committee on Moral Reference would have to exercise some sort of value judgment —all in one minute—on the experiment and satisfy themselves that no viable alternative method, not involving an animal experiment, exists. Questions such as these involve matters of the finest judgment; and more often than not the decision, particularly about the availability or effectiveness of an alternative technique, would be a matter of opinion rather than of fact. Scientific opinion is often divided about the acceptability and effectiveness (so I am told) of some suggested alternatives to animal tests, yet the Committee may possibly have no scientific expertise in their membership at all, and certainly no scientific majority. Only if one or more of the three Fellows of the Royal Society happened to be scientifically qualified would there be any scientists on the Committee at all.
Then how would the Committee decide this sort of issue? I think one only has to look at the composition of the Committee to see that it would be very difficult for them. I hear that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London has agreed to be Chairman: I wonder if he knows what he has let himself in

989
for? One then looks at the very distinguished people who would be sitting with him: serving or retired judges, bishops, principals of universities, Fellows of the Royal Society—and that is where the scientists would come in, if at all—and persons who have distinguished themselves in the creative arts, in politics or in other fields of service to the community. Without there being necessarily even one scientist on this Committee how could they determine matters such as the availability of alternative tests and the likely benefits to result to human medicine? These would pose problems calling for detailed medical and biological knowledge which I am afraid simply would not be available to them.
There are many other aspects of the Bill about which we have serious reservations. For instance, an all-veterinary inspectorate, appointments to and dismissals from it being subject to the approval of a Committee of the R.S.P.C.A., and the question of giving wide-ranging powers of entry to laboratories (which are of course private property) to Members of both Houses of Parliament. I will not go through all these objections; they are more detailed but equally severely held. Broadly speaking, I am afraid that our criticism is that the underlying principle of the Bill is quite unacceptable and that the detail of the Bill is unworkable. We cannot support it, and I am afraid that it is not amendable because the only words that the Government can support are the first three words of the Long Title. Therefore we have to say that in principle this Bill is something to which we cannot even suggest that the House should give a Second Reading because we say it is quite unamendable so as to make any form of sense at all.
That does not mean—and I go back to this simply in order to express it again because I have been somewhat forthright in my remarks—that the Government are unconcerned about animal welfare. We are very much concerned, my Lords. But we are equally concerned to see that nothing is done that may have serious and undesirable repercussions on medical research and the constant search by dedicated scientists for new treatments for diseases in man and animals. We feel—and I hope that I have shown this in what I have been able to say—that
990
we already have under the existing law very strict control over animal experiments. We say that the effect of the Bill would be to impair and impede research without bringing any tangible benefit to the animals used for experimental purposes. We are not challenging the motives or the underlying thoughts of the noble Lord, Lord Willis, in bringing forward this measure: we are simply saying that, with great regret, we have to inform the House that it is objectionable in principle and quite unworkable in practice. Accordingly I hope that in due course the House will refrain from giving it a Second Reading.
8.29 p.m.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, in rising to address your Lordships' House this evening, I have three interests to declare. First, I am a member of the Medical Research Council whose work would be irreversibly dis-disrupted if this Bill became law; secondly, I am Chairman of the Institute of Cancer Research, which is a postgraduate teaching school of London University, where upwards of 100,000 animals are sacrificed every year. I suppose "the buck stops here" and I must take the ultimate responsibility for that sacrifice. Thirdly, I am the President of the Research Defence Society which has recently lobbied some of your Lordships with a written document over my signature, giving a written analysis of the objectionable features of this Bill.
It is usual in debates on this subject to compliment the reformists on their good and worthy motives while coupling these compliments to an expression of regret that the reforms proposed are impracticable or unacceptable. As I study this matter in ever greater depth as the years go by, I become more and more dubious as to the justification for these compliments. This Bill comes from a very bad stable. These are strong words, but I propose to justify them with illustrations from what the noble Lord the sponsor of the Bill has said.
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Willis, was asked a straight question: "Was this experiment done in England". Instead of saying "Yes" or "No", he said he would deal with this matter in due course and make his own speech in his own way. The noble Viscount who replied for the Government informed the House that

991
it was not done in England. The noble Lord, Lord Willis, had nothing to say. I hope he will clarify this when he winds up. Did he not know, or did he not take the trouble to find out? He referred to dropping a horse over a cliff to see whether it was damaged when it reached the other end. I would ask him to clarify in his reply: Did he know that an experiment on a horse, ass or mule requires Certificate F from the Home Office? I asked him whether he could give us the date of this incident, because I wanted to know.
LORD WILLIS: My Lords, I mentioned this in a speech. I used the example of the horse not because it was an actual experiment, but as an illustration of the stupidity of some of the experiments that take place. So far as the other experiment is concerned, I did not know at the time I was speaking that it had been performed in America. I was informed by a note just prior to the Minister rising to reply, and I apologise to the House for that.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, I am glad to extract that apology from the noble Lord. Then we come to cosmetic experiments. There is a very difficult interface between cosmetics and dermatology. Does the noble Lord know that "cosmetics" is a technical medical term used in the medical profession? I wonder whether he has any view on how the courts will construe his embargo on cosmetic experiments if something should happen to be "cosmetic" in the medical sense. May I ask him to clarify whether, when drafting the Bill or taking sponsorship for it, he knew that "cosmetic" is a medical term? There is a very simple way to prevent the type of cosmetic experiment which involves no more than beautifying people who would really look better without it; that is, to bring public pressure to bear on the Home Office and the Government not to issue licences and certificates for this type of unnecessary experiment. I would agree with the noble Lord in this and have no particular approval to voice whatsoever, but it is very important to phrase this matter correctly. To use the word "cosmetic", without defining in what sense it is meant, in an Act of Parliament intended to be taken seriously, is completely irresponsible.
992
There is the embargo on nicotine. May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Willis, in his reply, to tell up whether he knows that nicotine has a large number of uses as a pharmacological tool among others which are used to study nerve transmission? It is an extremely important pharmacological substance from the research point of view. How does he think the courts will construe the use of nicotine in its physiological aspect as opposed to its aspect as a social habit? This is a very badly drafted Bill. I feel less and less interested by the wide list of distinguished ignoramuses presented by the noble Lord, Lord Willis, who have never conducted an experiment under licence, who have probably never seen an animal operation, and who cannot give a list of the advantages and the good to the human race accruing as a result of animal experiments. I am sorry to see that the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, is not in his place. I understand that he may be here later; he is held up by other public business. I am sorry he is not here, because he at least is a Member of your Lordships' House who actually holds a licence. I expect the noble Lord, Lord Stamp, does, and also the noble Lord, Lord Brock. But there are few Members of your Lordships' House who do. I think your Lordships ought to listen seriously to what noble Lords such as the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, have to say. I refuse to be blinded by the statistics as to the totality of the animals sacrificed without regard to the circumstances or without comparison with the total number of animals sacrified for food; again, in what circumstances?
My Lords, the author of the Book of Job was overwhelmed by insight into what I have called elsewhere the ultimate cosmic horror; namely, that a righteous God could have created agents and patients capable of inflicting and suffering pain either deliberately and consciously as men do, or unconsciously and by reflex action, as animals do. The Book of Job ends with a voice from the whirlwind stating that these problems are beyond us. Notwithstanding the passage of time since the Book of Job was written, I believe that these problems are still beyond us. But I also believe that we have a moral duty not to be overwhelmed by their insolubility. I believe the anti-vivisectionist spectrum, from the extreme

993
to the compromise anti-vivisectionist, consists of those who have failed in their discharge of this duty. They have allowed themselves to be so overwhelmed by the unacceptable horror of unrelieved human suffering that they turn their backs on it in order to salve their reconciliation to a cosmos in which it can occur; so alleviating some of the manifestations of that cosmos by alleviating animal suffering: namely, that proportion of animal suffering inflicted on some animals by men as opposed to that inflicted on them by other animals. It may well be, from the standpoint of moral philosophy, that we have a positive duty to exploit a regulated amount of animal suffering in order to alleviate both human and animal suffering in the long term. If we have this duty, then the anti-vivisectionist is not a moral hero; he is a moral coward! He ignores the fact that, owing to animal experimentation, the deaths of children from diphtheria have been reduced since immunisation was introduced in schools from an annual total of 2,600 to an annual total of 1·3.
The point is that the assessment of what is our objective moral duty is an act of subjective moral judgment carried out by a faculty whose origins are obscure and mysterious, and which leads many of us to differ in our conclusions, one from another. Moral philosophy does not produce an algebraic formula which answers "Yes" or "No" to any particular situation. We have no criterion in terms of which we can say that we certainly have this duty to experiment on animals, or that we have a duty to refrain from it. In a situation where we cannot agree whether we have this duty or the reverse, we must therefore compromise. The current compromise is the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876, which originated mostly from the activities of men of science who were also men of conscience, though they enlisted many other people in their campaign for support.
The noble Lord, Lord Willis, has stated, as if it were a failing of the 1876 Act, that no prosecution has been brought under it. Again, I would ask the noble Lord, does he think that Acts which provoke the subject into disobedience of the law and into breach of the law of the land are for that reason good? The virtue of this Act is that it produced co-operation between the animal experimenter
994
and the licensing authority. No prosecution has taken place because no prosecution has been necessary. The animal experimenters have invariably co-operated with the Home Office. The Act makes the Home Office, or its Inspectorate, the keeper of our conscience with respect to what is and what is not legitimate to inflict on an animal in relation to those other purposes to which we put animals; for example, killing them in order to eat them, just as many of the animals kill one another for food.
There are ways in which, I agree, the Act of 1876 could be improved. The Littlewood Commission has suggested a number of them; I could suggest some more. The classification of animals currently employed for the purposes of certification is based on the sentimentality that regards them as cuddlesome pets, the chosen of animal lovers who, notwithstanding their love of animals, through ignorance, will breed Alsatians to a specification which ensures an unacceptably high level of dislocation of the hip, and Pekinese to an unacceptable specification which ensures an unacceptably high level of extravasation of their eyeballs.
I am much more concerned with protection for a phylum which the noble Lord's Bill entirely neglects, the higher mollusca. Seen when skin-diving, the octupus is an object of transcendant beauty: its deep enormous impenetrable eyes perceiving what? I do not know what it perceives, but it can discriminate the 26 letters of the Roman alphabet. Out of water the octupus is not a cuddlesom pet but just a nasty, slimy mess. Doubtless that is why the present Bill makes no more provision for it, although I think it deserves it, than any other Act. As to being cuddlesome, the youngest and most athletic Member of your Lordships' House, let alone myself, subject to it endemically, would suffer a slipped intervertebral disc if he tried to pick up a performing dolphin. Yet dolphins have a high intelligence second only to our own, and for all we know spiritual insight comparable to our own. The noble Lord's Bill does not do much for performing dolphins. How many anti-vivisectionists in your Lordships' House are aware that the lifespan of a performing dolphin is reduced from 25

995
years in nature to 5 years in a dolphinarium? How indignant does this make them feel? This is a context where one needs more than good will; one needs knowledge.
All this, my Lords, is but a preliminary to an attack on the totally irresponsible Bill now before your Lordships' House. It abolishes the Act of 1876 to set up a Committee of Moral Reference under the Bishop of London or his nominee. It gives them such power that an anti-vivisectionist Bishop could pack the Committee of Moral Reference with fellow anti-vivisectionists in such a way as to place an embargo on all experiments on animals. The Bill does not require the appointment to the Committee of even one person qualified in medical or veterinary work or the techniques of animal welfare. The noble Viscount is not here at the moment but he asked a question, I think of the noble Lord, Lord Brock, as to who is it who is concerned with operational aftercare of an animal. I can tell him that that most admirable body The Universities Federation for Animal Welfare is concerned. This is a body which is concerned with animal experimentation, and is also concerned with animals as animals.
The Bill, of course, refers to Fellows of the Royal Society, but they could be distinguished lay Fellows, like the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. It does not follow that they would necessarily be biologists or physiologists who are accustomed to this kind of experimentation. They are required to decide whether alternative experiments are available, or alternative techniques. This is a profoundly technical point which the Committee would be totally unqualified to pronounce upon, quite apart from the fact that in order to evolve and validate alternative techniques animals have to be sacrificed in animal experiments. It is a most complicated situation. They are entitled to consider the effects of these experiments on human health, but no reference whatsoever to animal health is made. The sponsors appear never to have heard of Veterinary Science. Nor have they referred to the need to do experiments on animals to educate students in the medical sciences.
At this point I would appeal to whatever residue of common sense remains
996
(at this current nadir of our fortunes) among those capable of providing the nation with that almost evanescent quality, political insight into the laws of cause and effect. Your Lordships are aware of tax havens. Your Lordships are aware of passport havens. Your Lordships have heard of flags of convenience. And every one of them is due to over-legislation of one kind or another. Do your Lordships want to set up a vivisectionist haven?—a straight question. It will probably be in Japan. Dogs are scavengers in Japan and their natural increase has to be kept down, so every year so many tens or hundreds of thousands of dogs have to be put down. It is cheaper for the City Fathers of Tokyo to give them away. And recipients do pretty beastly things to dogs in Japan by way of experiment. There is no Cruelty to Animals Act 1876 there. There is no Home Office Inspecorate there.
Is this because the Japanese are beastly? No, my Lords, not at all. They are not beastly; they are probably just Buddhists. I wonder if anyone opposed to animal experimentation has ever tried to argue the pros and cons with a Buddhist. I am hoping somebody is going to interrupt me and say that he has. But since not, well, let me tell those opposed to animal experimentaiton that they have not even begun their education into the nature of counter-productive activities. The suffering animal in Buddhist philosophy may, for all one knows, be purging its Karma of some sin of cruelty in an earlier and higher incarnation, while the animal experimenter may be purging his Karma of failure to exercise moral responsibility in incarnations likewise gone by. How on earth does a Committee of Moral Reference propose to resolve basic differences such as that? What if somebody comes along with an experiment and says, "Your criteria are invalid. I am a Buddhist"? You cannot make something morally right or morally wrong by voting on it. No representative Committee of Moral Reference could ever agree on anything. It could do so only if it was unrepresentative.
We in Britain have probably got the most highly developed system of ethical control over experiments on animals of any country in the world. It is up to others to follow us, not up to us to scrap

997
what we have and institute something new and untried but which foreseeably sins against common sense and will make the overall situation worse and not better. There is a current trend to believe that something new, however untried, must inevitably be better than something traditional, however well proven. So we come to the Bill's attempts to stop the setting up of vivisectionist havens; we come to Clause 2(2). Anyone procuring or participating in the performance abroad of an experiment that would be refused a certificate under this Bill forfeits his licence in this country indefinitely. My Lords, since when have British subjects been convicted for acts locally legal and done outside the jurisdicition of British courts? What is "to participate"? What is "to procure" in these circumstances? Where does a right of appeal lie, since there is nothing under the Bill which permits any lesser sentence to be imposed? It is life forfeiture of one's qualification for one's professional career.
In terms of these criteria, I would appeal to every Member of your Lordships' House to cast this Bill into outer darkness by such a majority that the subject is removed for a long time to come from the sphere of moral eccentricity, thereby providing time to deal with matters wherewith your Lordships are more genuinely interested and concerned, namely, consideration of the Royal Commission Report on the Act of 1876 and matters arising therefrom. It seems to me monstrous that on this subject we have Private Members' Bills galore to the utter waste of your Lordships' time, while the Royal Commission Report on the same subject goes unattended to. It was debated in the other place in 1971, and I seem to remember that the late Lord Silkin put down an Unstarred Question on it in January, 1970, four years ago, but nothing came of it. This subject is too complex to be left to Private Members' Bills, and the present one bungles the job. I shall vote against it accordingly.
8.51 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, you will be glad to know, as I am, that practically every point that I had planned to deal with has been covered by the speeches made by the noble Earl and my noble friend Lord Colville. I was chairman of
998
a pharmaceutical group of companies, but I was pensioned off in 1965, since when I have had nothing to do with it. I was extremely interested in the work of the research department, and I feel that it is proper to say, and to urge upon the noble Lord, Lord Willis, to remember, that certainly in my experience researchers are as sentimental and silly over animals as I am—and that is very silly. They are very tender, and it should be borne in mind by people who promote figures such as the noble Lord gave us, of millions of experiments, that to impute any measure of cruelty to the professional people employed in these tasks, some of which are unpleasant but have to be done, is wrong.
There are two points that have not been touched upon by noble Lords who have spoken to which I should like to refer. First, I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Willis, whether he can say in his reply whether Clause 3(4)(b) of the Bill will preclude the toxicology tests which are necessary in passing insulin for medicinal use. Under the Bill too, a very large increase in the number of veterinary officers will be necessary. My mind goes to the Unstarred Question which my noble friend Lord Balerno has down for the day after tomorrow suggesting that we are already very short of veterinary officers. It will be interesting to hear how that shortage is to be overcome if the Bill passes through Parliament. Another point to which I should like to draw attention is the clause which provides for Members of Parliament, and others, to have free access and to bear away copies of possibly confidential and valuable reports. What price patent protection there? How could patent protection, which is so valuable in providing the resources for pharmaceutical research, be protected if anybody could come and pick up reports and take them away? There was one other figure that worried me, and that was the noble Lord's statement that 82 per cent. of the experiments carried out were done without anæthetic. Of course they do not always need an anesthetic. Does the noble Lord realise that every time you put a rabbit on a diet it is an experiment? The prick of an ear for drawing a drop of blood is another experiment.
I would conclude by recalling as a matter of interest that when the 1876 Act was only some 30 or 40 years old

999
I was involved in animal experimentation. I was brought up by a professor of physiology, and in the country we were sent half litters of puppies. I was only nine or ten at this time. We used to measure and record the diet and the hours of sunshine to which these puppies were exposed, and they were then sent back to the laboratory and examined. The result of these researches was that the causative factors of rickets came to be discovered, and it was not long before vitamins became a common word, though they had not been heard of previously. I shall not take up any more of your Lordships' time because there are names on the list after mine of men highly experienced and far more knowledgeable than I am. I look forward to hearing, or certainly reading (because I do really want a bite of supper) what they say.
8.56 p.m.
LORD PORRITT: My Lords, it already seems obvious that we have only to cross the t's and dot the i's. It is obvious that the motivation of this Bill is to limit, so far as is humanly possible, infliction of pain on animals in medical research. Who would quarrel with that objective? It is the method of implementing that objective that seems to be causing all the trouble. I would entirely agree with the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, that this Bill does not begin to achieve that objective. It is not helped at all by a series of horror stories. I speak as one who has seen much in the way of animal experimentation and have admired it greatly, and all of it has been done under this excellent Act of 1876, the Cruelty to Animals Act. In the dim and distant past I myself held a number of the licences and certificates issued under that Act. It may seem therefore that I am automatically biased, but I can assure your Lordships' that this is not so. I should like to mention one point that has not been raised yet, and I do so having seen a great many research laboratories and worked in some many years ago. Although we have this national trait of being animal lovers, I suggest that one would find more animal lovers in a research laboratory than in any similar sample outside. They may occasionally be casual, but cruel—never.
My Lords, this old Act—the 1876 Act —has worked for nearly 100 years and
1000
it is working well to-day, yet we are asked to repeal it, and, it is stated in the Explanatory Memorandum, to replace it with a modern code—redefining conditions for research. To my mind there is one thing that this Bill does not do, and that is to define anything. Terms such as "discomforting experiments" and "pain certificates" are surely as airy-fairy as any terminology could be. The definition of "distress" in Schedule 3 is so broad as to necessitate almost every experiment likely to be performed requiring a "pain certificate".
I think that the Bill, in comparison with the old Act, is notable for its glaring omissions. It contains some most astonishing suggestions that it would seem highly impracticable to implement; and then, at the end of it all, it gives far less protection to animals and—a point that has not been mentioned—to those poor unfortunate two-legged animals, the licensees, who are now left wide open to malicious and irresponsible prosecution. This is covered in the old Act. At the same time, as we have heard, the Bill imposes so many limitations and restrictions on research work that one can only envisage a sad and frustrating brake being put on many of the experiments which have led to the medical advances of the last 50 years or more; work which has brought incalculable good to the people of this country. Many of your Lordships have been circulated with an example of this, and one has been quoted already, in which both poliomyelitis and diphtheria have been virtually wiped out in this country, entirely as a result of animal experimentation. This new Bill would virtually preclude all toxological studies required by the 1961 Medicines Act—the testing of the safety and efficiency of all medicinal compounds. This is surely a most impossible thing to suggest. To all intents and purposes, pharmaceutical research would by this Bill be brought to a standstill.
Perhaps I may say one or two words about some things, most of which have already been mentioned. I must say I feel exactly the same as other noble Lords about the proposed Committee of Moral Reference (I cannot imagine what this means) which is to be responsible for the issue of every certificate and pleasure to know the right reverend

1001
Prelate the Bishop of London for a considerable number of years, but I imagine that if he has read this Bill he must quail at the thought of chairing a Committee constituted as this one would be, virtually without any help from the scientific, medical, veterinary or animal husbandry professions. There is another point about that Committee which I think is worth mentioning. The chosen members of that Committee, before accepting membership, must have pledged themselves to consider only experiments of "significant benefit to human welfare". How on earth can any Committee, least of all that one, make decisions of that sort? The members are not qualified so to do. Note, too, that in stressing human welfare no mention is made in the Bill of animal welfare—a point which I think has been mentioned already. Again, this unfortunate Committee is to be asked, before agreeing to any particular experiment, to consider the
"efficiency and availability of alternative techniques".
No wonder it has been suggested that this committee should be chaired by a right reverend Prelate! Supernatural powers would certainly be required for this Committee to arrive at the necessary decisions.
In saying this, my Lords—and more seriously—I am well aware that methods alternative to animal experimentation do exist and have in recent years been increasingly developed. Such methods involve, chiefly, the use of cell, tissue and organ cultures in vitro. But to ask this Committee to make decisions of this sort is quite impossible; it is just nonsense. It is a very highly scientific and currently very controversial matter. I would, however, mention the suggestion of the National Anti-Vivisection Society to set up an institute in this country, under the aegis of the Medical Research Council, to investigate the value and the feasibility of such alternative methods. This is a practical and constructive idea, and is not prohibitive, as is the Bill we are considering.
Returning to the Bill itself, my Lords, its provisions seem to limit everything, so far as I can see. No provision is made, as in the 1876 Act, for experimentation in the field of prolonging life; and, as has already been stressed—and very importantly stressed—the basic biological and
1002
physiological investigation from which so much of value comes directly and indirectly is excluded from this Bill although it exists in the Act. Turn, too, to those niggling restrictions, as we have already heard, to be placed on experiments dealing with cosmetics, nicotine, alcohol and—this glorious term—"social drugs". I do not know what horrors are covered by that term, but I presume it is meant to cover the all too prevalent drugs of addiction. Why are these specially included? As we have already heard, the study of cosmetics is very important from a medical point of view, not only in the question of skin cancers but in that of a mass of allergies—things which make experimentation with cosmetics essential. I would suggest that anything which can throw any light on the problems of smoking, alcoholism and drug addiction is not to be thrown away lightly.
Nobody has yet mentioned the poor, unfortunate Secretary of State, but he comes into this Bill as well. Not only has he to produce an annual report, which I suppose is fair enough with his statisticians, but he would also have to give an evaluation of the benefits accruing from such experiments during the year. How can a Secretary of State, with the best will in the world, or even the best staff in the world, possibly deal with a problem of that size or of that importance? The licences now might take up to six weeks to produce; they used to take a week. Again, the applications for licences would, under the Bill, need to be countersigned by a university professor (description unspecified) and by a colleague (academic status, nature of work and experience unstated), in place of the previous signatures of the President of the Royal College and that of a medical professor. Comparisons are very often odious, my Lords; and that is, I think, obvious.
When we come to the question of the inspection of registered premises, we learn in Clause 5 that they are to be carried out at irregular intervals and without notice four times a month—that is to say, weekly —and by inspectors (veterinarians only; no medical men to be allowed, as under the 1876 Act) appointed by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals—not the Department, as was previously the case. I bow to no one in my respect and admiration for the R.S.P.C.A., but if this is not a biased

1003
decision I do not know what is. And what a vastly increased flock of inspectors would be needed! If my mathematics are right, the number will be eightfold. In the earlier part of our activities to-day we heard of the lamentable shortage of veterinary surgeons throughout the country. Finally, my Lords, there are those astonishing clauses which are to give permission to any Member of either House of Parliament, first, to see any application for animal experimentation and, second, to enter, inspect and obtain the the records of any registered experimental centre. One's mind boggles at the thought of a posse of your Lordships breaking into a laboratory to observe the exposed "innards" of an unfortunate rabbit.
The need for the control of experimentation on living animals is assuredly not in question, but I would suggest that we already have a very comprehensive and practical protection in the old Act. I should suggest that we stick to that, and that we do not accept this Bill. Change is certainly the universal law of to-day, but change for the sake of change is surely both expensive and futile.
9.8 p.m.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am in some difficulty—in fact I am in two difficulties. I understand that it is desirable that your Lordships' House should rise to-night somewhere in the region of 10 p.m. My other difficulty is that having listened to the Minister, I am not sure whether he recommended the rejection of the Bill on the ground that there is no evidence of cruelty, whether he is of the opinion that the 1876 Act is quite effective or whether, in his view, the Bill is badly drafted. I am sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, is not in the Chamber. I wanted to say that it is seldom that I have heard a speech in your Lordships' House given with so much vehemence touched with a certain amount of impatience. I would ask noble Lords to believe that those of us who support the Bill do so because we believe that there is to-day sufficient evidence available of unnecessary cruelty practised on certain animals. It may well be that we are victims of inaccurate propaganda; nevertheless we hold our views just as sincerely as do other Members
1004
of your Lordships' House who feel that this Bill is quite unnecessary.
If there is no evidence at all of unnecessary cruelty and unnecessary suffering, I am wondering why the propaganda which has come from, if your Lordships like, anti-vivisectionist organisations, from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and from some scientists and people engaged in research has gone on so consistently over the years. I am surprised that nothing has been said about it in your Lordships' House to-night. Certainly the Minister did not say that there was no cruelty, and I gathered from the speech made by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, that at no stage was he saying that there was no cruelty. Therefore, some of us are of the opinion, rightly or wrongly, that unnecessary cruelty is caused to animals in a large number of experiments which take place.
I will make my point shortly in view of the time factor. I believe that valid distinctions are to be made between human and non-human animals, just as there are between adults and children. No one asks a child to cast a vote in an election for Members of Parliament because the opinion of a child does not count, even though he may have a definite opinion on several issues which he considers important. In this sense children matter less than adults. But that is not to say, my Lords, that children have no rights. The very weakness that makes the unfit to pass as equal citizens gives them the right to care and protection, and they have the right to expect it. If we consider for a moment the status of a mongol child, that child is not only unequal as a citizen but also unequal compared with other children. No one argues that because of his severely limited intelligence a mongol child is not entitled to have his feelings considered. No one treats mongol children as if they are incapable of mental or physical suffering. No one takes this view of a human being, even if his brain is so damaged as to make him have less intelligence than a normal person; because as long as he is clearly recognisable as one of the human race people can identify with him and acknowledge how atrocious it would be to take advantage of his simple mentality and to inflict pain upon him.

1005
Because he is a human we do not consider that because he cannot use words to protect himself he is not entitled to consideration.
Many of us take the view that animals, like grossly defective humans, lack intelligence and cannot use words. When that has been said there is little to distinguish them from humans. They are capable of intense happiness and of intense unhappiness. The animals most commonly used in research, rodents, primates, dogs and cats, are all capable of great affection and devotion to mankind and, to a limited degree, they even show that to their fellow creatures. Animals can suffer anxiety, fear and disappointment as we can. Animals can suffer frustration as can an imprisoned man; except that the imprisoned man may console himself by reading a book or even by speculating on the meaning of his wretched existence. Beyond all shadow of doubt, animals fear pain, and there is no reason to suppose that they apprehend it any differently from the way in which we humans do.
Perhaps all this is sentimental nonsense, but a distinguished zoologist and a Fellow of the Royal Society, G. J. Romains certainly did not agree. In his book Animal Intelligence he described how a baboon comforted another companion when it was in pain and did not know what to do. It was my intention to quote exactly what he said but perhaps your Lordships will take it from me that he made it absolutely clear that there was what he would call a human reaction on the part of the baboon to its unfortunate companion. I think the claim of animals to be treated as creatures having the power of perception has always been recognised, not only by human scientists like Romains, but by a good number of ordinary people: and I hope that we shall continue to do this.
As animal experimentation is practised to-day, some men treat animals as if they were mechanisms, and think no more of inflicting appalling injuries on animals than they would think twice about opening the bonnet of a car and tinkering with the engine. I am not saying that animals matter more than people; but I do say that they matter, and certainly matter more than some of the things we do. Though their rights
1006
are not identical with human rights, they nevertheless have some rights in a moral society. I suggest that an animal has the right not to be tortured, and, so far, nothing has been said in this debate that some animals are not tortured.
The Bill before the House does not prevent the use of animals or the killing of animals. I am not going to contend that in our society the animal has the absolute right to life, but I do contend that it has the right not to be made to suffer extreme pain and distress. I would remind your Lordships that Clause 3 of the Bill states quite definitely the conditions subject to which certificates may be granted, limiting their issue to experiments having a legitimate medical purpose. The Bill does not do away with animal experimentation altogether, but it limits it to experiments which have a definite medical significance.
There are many things which I should have liked to say in support of this Bill, but bearing in mind that there are a number of other speakers and, as I say, there seems to be a time limit on our debate to-night, I would ask those of your Lordships who are exercised in your minds with regard to this Bill to look at it carefully. We have been told that there have been no prosecutions under the 1876 Act. Can we honestly and sincerely say to ourselves that there has been no cause for proceedings? Is not the truth that no proceedings have been brought for the simple reason that there have not been enough people to see that the Act is enforced? In view of all the propaganda that has gone on in this country for so many years by organisations and individuals who are concerned to see that animals are not treated cruelly, I cannot believe that there has not been any cruelty. I would ask the Minister whether he is asking this House to believe that there have been no prosecutions under that Act for the simple reason that there has been no cruelty. I hope your Lordships will look at the Bill carefully and come to the conclusion that it should have a Second Reading, so that we can take steps to see that the cruelty which is administered, sometimes needlessly, ceases in the future.
9.19 p.m.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: My Lords. I think I can keep my speech to under five minutes. I should like at the outset

1007
to make my attitude clear before discussing the Bill. I believe that, on balance, we are justified in using animals for testing drugs and for essential research, but within strict limits and to the minimum reasonable extent. In my view, it is only in extreme cases that some actions can be classed as black or white, and that in fact many of them are grey. I rather ascribe that colour to experiments with animals. It therefore follows that, whereas experiments with animals must continue, in my view we should make efforts to reduce them to what is essential, and not to tolerate painful experiments to satisfy scientific curiosity where that sometimes masquerades as justified research.
There are obvious areas where one might cut down the need for this vast amount of animal experimentation, and I consider quantity and quality are of some importance, if viewed from my own philosophical standpoint. It is highly questionable whether it is necessary for the drug firms to-day to produce as many similar types of drug as they do. This is a constant criticism, and one which I am perfectly certain is valid: we have nad debates on this subject before. Therefore, I would consider it unjustified, unless there is some opportunity of producing a worthwhile new drug, to produce one that is just marginally different. Again, where possible, we might make greater use of cells. Also, I am not entirely happy about what may go on masquerading under pure research, or about how efficient the periodic inspection may be. I simply cannot accept the view that anybody making an Act nearly 100 years ago can have had such prescience that the Act continues to work perfectly to-day. My Lords, that is a quite unacceptable proposition.
What I believe we should do is to grasp the nettle to see whether we can make some improvements where they seem to be necessary. I do not believe that this Report, which was made in 1965 and contained a large number of recommendations, can have been wholly wrong. In fact, it was considered to be a very well-balanced Report. The plain facts are, of course, that this is a subject which no Government, of whatever colour, really like to grasp, and if they can possibly avoid doing anything about it, they will. But I feel it is time that we made some limited improvements in the old Act.
1008
What really worries me—and I think it is a terrible pity—is that we should have before us tonight a Bill which is so extreme that many, if not most, of us cannot possibly accept it. We have lost an opportunity to strike a blow for the animals, and perhaps also for making improvements which would be possible, by putting forward a Bill which is so extreme that it has no hope of getting substantial support. If I possibly could, I would vote for a Second Reading of this Bill; but I really cannot. I must say once again to those who are really keen on this, that it is an area where a more moderate approach is likely to produce something far more beneficial. There are areas where extremists do succeed in getting something useful done by their extremism. I am quite sure this is not an area where that applies, and I feel that this is a lost and wasted opportunity.
9.25 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, 9.25 on a Monday evening hardly seems the right moment to make a speech except one of considerable brevity—and that is what I shall try to do. The Bill we are discussing has no doubt been motivated by the sincerest of reasons. Like the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, I feel that there are many of us who would like to see some improvements in an Act which is 97 years old. I rise to speak only because my family and I have had an interest in the medical profession—not a financial one, I may say—for many years.
I have in fact been round and visited a number of pharmaceutical companies both here and on the Continent, and have seen for myself some of these experiments which are performed on animals. My Lords, we are all animal lovers. I have lived, as many of your Lordships have done, with dogs for a good deal of my life, and to me there is nothing more distressing than to see a dog being used for an experiment. The same goes for any other animal. Where deliberate suffering is caused, of course those responsible should be brought to book. But there are, too, human beings who suffer—from brain cancer, from cancer of the stomach, and from other malignant diseases. Some of these diseases, alas! are still incurable. But if we did not have experiments of this kind, properly conducted, the curative

1009
methods available in respect of these diseases would certainly not be on the scale they are to-day.
I have seen, in a number of pharmaceutical companies in this country, places where the animals are kept, as well as the experiments concerned. I believe that the Home Office inspectorate do a very good job in the close watch which they keep on this work. Of course, they can inspect at any time and without notice. So far as I know, it is open to any Member of either House of Parliament, by arrangement, to visit one of these establishments, and there is nothing to hide. In fact, I believe that it is the duty of Members of another place who have pharmaceutical companies and other such places in their constituencies to visit these places. And if, in the course of such visits, they see or hear about malpractices, by all means let these come to light. The present Bill does not really legislate for this. The present Bill merely puts a damper on research in this country and on those devoted people who carry out this research, and thus cut down, and we hope will in time cut out, the number of malignant diseases that still occur. For those reasons, and with some reluctance, I feel that this Bill should proceed no further.
9.28 p.m.
LORD STAMP: My Lords, in intervening in this debate to-day as an ex-professor of bacteriology and licence holder for nearly forty years, there are two feelings uppermost in my mind. On the one hand, I fully understand the motives behind the sponsors of this Bill who are deeply concerned to limit the infliction of pain and distress in animals used for experimental work, but who, I believe, are equally and, one would hope, even more concerned to alleviate human suffering from disease in all its manifold forms, and also suffering in the long term in animals.
On the other hand, I completely fail to comprehend, as other noble Lords have said, how anyone could really believe how these objectives could be furthered by the provisions of this Bill. Indeed, in seeking to abolish the 1876 Act, and to establish an entirely new organisation for the supervision and control of all animal experiments, its supporters would, it
1010
would seem to me, be passing a vote of no confidence in the Home Office, its inspectors, and all concerned in the implementation of that Act who have, over many years, on the whole maintained a balance between all the complex issues involved. Of course there is always room for improvement, as I am sure they would be the first to admit. There would have to be overwhelming reasons for so doing before your Lordships supported such a drastic step as the Bill envisages. In what I have to say, while I hope I can make one or two additional points—and it is rather doubtful in view of the number of points that noble Lords who have already spoken have raised—I should like to emphasise some of those that have already been made, particularly by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, and by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. Some points merit repetition and may gain in effect if they are put in a slightly different way. I hope that I shall not detain your Lordships too long at this late stage of the proceedings.
The basic problem is the complete, or almost complete, inability of the layman, without any medical, veterinary or biological knowledge, to understand the purpose behind many medical animal experiments, and how essential they are if there is to be any progress in a particular field. This would apply with particular force to the Committee of Moral Reference which, as has been said repeatedly, need not contain a single member with any medical or biological knowledge and, if it did, these would be a small minority. Much would doubtless be said before that Committee advocating methods not involving the use of animals, such as cell, organ or tissue-culture techniques, to which the noble Lord, Lord Willis, has already referred. It is essential that one should go into that subject for a few moments in this debate.
While much progress has been made in such fields, and they are undoubtedly a valuable adjunct to research for certain purposes, few, if any, with any basic scientific training in the fields we are discussing could possibly believe that they could be anything more than that, at least in the foreseeable future, though I should be the last to suggest that they should not be investigated as fully as possible. Can anyone, for example, really maintain that tissue-culture methods

1011
could reproduce the conditions necessary to demonstrate the toxic effects of thalidomide on the fœtus which have been demonstrated in only two animal species, apart from man; namely, the monkey and the rabbit, and then only at a certain limited stage of pregnancy. The fact of the matter is that had more, rather than less, animal experimentation been carried out, that tragedy—which shook the conscience of the world—might have been avoided. If even the scientists were caught out, how could any unqualified person presume to pass judgment on what was a justifiable or unjustifiable series of toxicity tests?
Tissue-culture techniques may be of some value in studying the cause of various forms of cancer, but can anyone with any knowledge of the subject seriously believe that they can be made to reproduce all the complex factors that contribute to producing this most baffling of diseases? Nor is large-scale animal experimentation work essential only in investigating the cause of disease and in testing therapeutic agents for toxicity; it is equally vital for the development of methods for prevention and cure. All your Lordships will be familiar with the near miracle vaccination against poliomyelitis that has almost entirely removed from our midst a dreaded scourge, particularly of the young; one that might have afflicted our own children. This was only made possible through experiments involving large numbers of monkeys, many of which I suspect would never have received the approval of the proposed new Morality Committee. How many sufferers from diabetes owe their lives to the work of Banting and Best, carried out on dogs?
Animals are also used to a large scale for the diagnosis of certain diseases and, in the public health field, for the control of infection. Even these aspects represent only a part of animal experimentation carried out in this country that would be adversely affected by the Bill. Physiological and other biological experiments designed to extend knowledge in these fields which may, even though indirectly, be of profound importance in advancing knowledge of human disease are excluded from the Bill. For example, neurophysiology may well be of the greatest importance in the investigation
1012
of that tragic and dread disease multiple sclerosis, though the direct connection may not be fully evident.
If this Bill were to become law, what a sad thing it would be for a great British scientific tradition in physiology, established by such famous Nobel Prizewinners as Sherrington, Dale and Adrian, the last named of whom we are so pleased to have with us here this evening, who have brought great honour to our country! Are we voluntarily to relegate our country to the "has been" in this vitally important field of human progress? I refuse to believe it.
For some extraordinary reason, as has already been pointed out, a reason which is quite incomprehensible in view of the solicitude expressed for animals, veterinary research and the need to benefit animal welfare are also conspicuous by their absence. As has been said, these are to be no concern of the Committee of Moral Reference, judging from Clause 3 which makes no reference to them. If this Bill becomes law, we should, for example, be unable to carry out further research in such fields as rabies, of particular concern to dog lover and doctor alike. In fact it would seem that veterinary research in this country, including its agricultural and bloodstock aspects, might just as well pack up—a fact that may give considerable concern to many of your Lordships. So much for some of the vital aspects of animal research which the Bill fails to provide for.
Unfortunately, in its positive proposals it is no less open to criticism. I and other noble Lords have already referred to the shortcomings of the composition of the Committee that it is intended should take over the responsibilities of the Home Office. Incidentally, I question the applicability of the name of the proposed Committee, implying that it is to be a guardian of morality. The first point to which I should like to make reference, to which the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, has already referred, relates to Clause 22 which states:
"any person procuring or participating in the performance abroad of an experiment that would be refused a certificate under this Act shall be likewise disentitled "—
that is, to hold a licence. My Lords, I do not see how it would be possible to enforce this and, if it were possible, it would mean that a very large number of

1013
research workers wishing to come to this country to pursue their work would be automatically prevented from doing so. As one who has had many such coming to my department from overseas, I feel this would be an impossible situation.
To turn to the conditions under which the Committee of Moral Reference would authorise a pain certificate, it is stated in Clause 3 (4) (a):
"no severe pain or distress shall be caused deliberately."
What does this mean? As I understand it, no experiment would be permitted if there is a likelihood that it would cause severe pain or distress. If this is so, it might be held to include many vital fields of animal research, depending on the definition of the word "severe". How does one define it? The noble Lord, Lord Willis, has underlined this difficulty. But if such an interpretation can be excluded and it is intended to ensure that only the primary intention should not be to cause severe pain or distress, this is an insult to all engaged in experimental work on animals. They are responsible persons and not perverted little boys inflicting pain just for the sake of it.
The same implication is apparent in Clause 3 (4) (b), where it says:
"no greater pain or distress shall be caused than is requisite to effect the purpose of the experiment".
In this paragraph, which also deals with toxicity tests, anyone who has any experience in this field would know that such step-by-step testing as is laid down would be quite impracticable — particularly when the toxic effect may be delayed and large numbers of substances are under test, as in the safety testing of drugs. So far as the stipulation in Clause 3 (5) is concerned, that the pain certificates must be applied for at least six weeks before they are required, an indefinite number of blank certificates would have to be issued in advance if a large part of diagnostic work involving animals was not to be brought to a halt.
Turning to Clause 5, dealing with the inspection of research centres, subsection (1) states that every registered centre should be visited not less than four times a month by veterinary inspectors, and with the increase in the number of inspectors that this would involve this is really going too far. Even if they could
1014
be recruited, the expense would be quite unjustifiable. As I said, I have held a licence for many years, and having been concerned with experimental work my mind boggles, as the noble Lord, Lord Porritt, said, at the implications of subsection (2) of this clause. An unheralded visit from the honourable Member for Much Quizzing, or perhaps even the great honour of one on a busy morning from the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of London, acting in the capacity proposed for him, would be liable to drive you round the bend. If the visit of an M.P. or other lay person is to be worth while, it must involve a large amount of time on the part of the experimenter being given up to explaining, as far as possible in non-technical language, the objective of the experiment and the need to use animals and possibly inflict considerable pain or distress in order to obtain the desired information. Even then the visitor with no special knowledge could hardly be expected to grasp it all and would certainly not be in a position to pass judgment on the necessity or lack of it for the experiment he had witnessed. The fact of the matter is that the inspection of such work is not a matter for Members of your Lordships' House or of another place, but solely one for qualified professional inspectors who are doing the job very effectively under the present system and who from experience know what to look out for.
What a prospect, though, for animal experimenters throughout the country to look forward to if this Bill were ever to become law. One undoubted effect would be to drive many of them abroad, as has already been said, where regulations would not be so strict—an exodus which would be to the great detriment of medical and veterinary research in this country. I simply cannot believe that your Lordships will agree to give further consideration to this Bill, based as it is on false premises and open to serious criticism on practically every point of detail. On the other hand, I feel that this debate will have served a useful purpose in reminding all experimenters of their great responsibilities in this field. The overall aims of vivisectionists and anti-vivisectionists alike are surely the same—the alleviation of human and animal suffering and disease and the acquisition of knowledge to that end by the most effective means.
9.44 p.m.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, before I begin, may I say that I think it is a great pity that this very important debate should be taken at this time of night when the House is virtually empty. I should have thought that something a little less important could have been tucked into to-day and this Bill relegated to another day. However, be that as it may.
I am going to support the Second Reading of this Bill, but with certain very grave reservations. I support it because I know the noble Lord, Lord Willis, well enough to know that his motives are entirely genuine and sincere and that if there is anything wrong in the Bill it is probably simply because he has been badly briefed. I do not know who has been responsible, what organisation or society has given him the information that he has received, but he quoted in his opening speech some very sweeping allegations against totally unnecessary and irresponsible experiments. It would be interesting to know where he got those allegations from; and may I say that if anybody hears of experiments such as those, their first duty is to go to the police and report them with some evidence that they have actually seen them.
I dislike experiments on animals, as I think do all responsible research workers and, as I know, does the noble Lord himself. But I also dislike human suffering, and I have seen enough of it to know that it can be every bit as horrible as any suffering we may see in animals. Therefore I feel that anything that will check the research that is necessary to eliminate that suffering should be very carefully looked at.
I should like first of all to refer to the Committee of Moral Reference in Schedule 1. I am entirely in favour of having the Bishop of London, particularly the present holder of that Office, as the Chairman of this Committee. He will make an excellent, entirely impartial chairman, which is what is wanted; but the composition of the rest of the Committee seems to be to be utterly unrealistic. They are all highly respected eminent men in their own walks of life, but I very much doubt whether any one of them will have the faintest idea as to (a) whether experiment is necessary for
1016
medical research, or (b) whether or not it is causing pain. I think we want on the Committee people with expert medical and veterinary knowledge. This is a matter that I think could be put right in Committee. In fact, I think that all the objections which I am going to make to-night can be put right in Committee; and that is why I support the Second Reading.
My Lords, paragraph 6 of Schedule 1 says that experiments
"involving procedures or suffering of the type mentioned in the third schedule to this Act should be permissible if, and only if, a significant benefit to human welfare could be expected to result from their performance."
What is a "significant benefit to human welfare"? I do not think it is generally known—in fact it was not known to me until a few days ago—that by far the majority of experiments on animals are made, not to produce some new substance, but to test the quality of some already known substance which is coming on to the market. I believe—and I shall be corrected if I am wrong—that an instance of this is insulin which varies very much in its strength—or so I understand. Some are extremely strong, some extremely weak. It has to be tested on a live animal before it can be put on the market. That is an important point. Surely that drug is of significant benefit to mankind.
Clause 3(3) mentions alternative methods. Tissue cultures have been mentioned already. They are, I suppose, among the most prominent of alternative methods. Tissue cultures are very good and are much used for certain things but only to a very limited degree, because the tissue is only a part of the human body. A substance may be tested upon tissue and produce no reaction at all, but when it is tested on the whole body it may produce a violent reaction. Therefore tissue culture is no use except for materials which purely affect the tissue.
Another great objection to the Bill is that there is no provision for veterinary science. It has already been mentioned to-night that rabies has been practically exterminated in this country by means of animal experiments, and surely we want our pet animals to live in as healthy a condition as our fellow human beings. It has also been said that the Bill could drive research into other countries where there is less protection for animals than

1017
exists here. I think this point needs careful thought. Of course one might say that simply because other people are doing wrong, that is no reason why we should not do right. On the other hand, I think one must ask oneself whether we are trying to protect all animals or merely trying to protect those which are at present resident in the United Kingdom. Surely it should be all animals. Therefore, we do not want to drive research abroad because there will be far less protection for them there than there is here.
I should like to mention Clause 5, which deals with the inspection of registered premises—four times a month or once a week. There are 600 registered premises for research in this country. One will have to recruit a new army if it is intended to visit them all once a week. I think four times a year would be entirely adequate. I should like to see something done to ensure that experiments which are carried out are not irresponsible and are not unnecessarily painful. I do not think many of them are, because I think that research workers are responsible people who have as much consideration for causing pain as we have. Therefore I think the noble Lord should really stop and consider whether he is not putting too hard a brake on research, action which is, after all, going to cause a good deal of difficulty in the medical world. I sincerely hope, therefore, that he will accept such Amendments as I hope to put down for the Committee stage, if we have one. I think that provided we consider it thoroughly we could make it a workable Bill.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Somers, a question? The noble Lord said that he approved the appointment of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London as Chairman of this Committee. Does he realise the intense resentment in Scotland against such an appointment? The Church of England does not affect Scotland; the Church of England communicants and bishops are dissenters in Scotland. If the noble Lord wishes to realign the balance, the Committee would have to include with the Lord Bishop of London the Moderator of the Edinburgh Presbytery.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, the only answer to that is that we should have joint Chairmen.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, have joint Chairmen ever made a success of anything?
9.56 p.m.
LORD BROCK: My Lords, I had composed a fairly long speech, but in view of the late hour I will only say, as shortly as possible, what I feel has abundantly emerged from our debate. I suppose I could decline to say anything, but I feel it would be improper of me to say nothing.
I should like to indicate my support for the Act of 1876 and for those who administer it so well. Also, I would like to comment on the present Advisory Committee which exists to judge any doubtful matter that the Home Office wish to refer to it, and which I think is a very satisfactory Committee—in contrast, of course, to the Committee on Moral Welfare which has been proposed and which has an entirely unacceptable composition. I wish to emphasise again the point already brought out, that the members cannot possibly understand what they face. Particularly I would suspect that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London has no idea what amount of work this would involve. It would certainly allow him and his successors no time to conduct their episcopal duties. They could manage only part of the work if they acted as a rubber stamp. One would have to think up an alternative organisation that would supplant the present Home Office organisation and that excellent panel of advisers with presidents from learned societies and Royal colleges who do the main mass of work. I find it impossible to conceive of an organisation that would be equal to and certainly superior to that.
There is no provision in the Bill for any veterinary research or any improvement of animal welfare, which to me is quite incomprehensible in the case of people who declare their interest in animal welfare in relation to research projects. There are many other equally unacceptable details, but I will not go into those. They have already been stressed. Briefly I would say that the Bill is unwise, badly framed and totally unacceptable.
9.59 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I am sure noble Lords will be pleased to hear that I have completely scrapped my speech. However, I would like to ask the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, who is such a distinguished scientist, one or two questions. He quite rightly said that dolphins, which belong to the whale family, are extremely intelligent animals. In fact I have known of a case where a dolphin was run over by a boat; he was stunned and the other dolphins tried to keep him on the surface. The noble Earl said, and I am quoting from memory, why did not the people who sponsored this Bill worry about dolphins kept in dolphinariums where, as he said quite rightly, the dolphins live only for about five years on average, whereas in their natural state they might live for 30 years, certainly for 25.
May I quote a paragraph from a Mr. Richard Ryder, senior clinical psychologist at Warneford Hospital, Oxford. He is talking about monkeys, baboons and rats that were kept for research, and he says:
"My first experience of an animal laboratory was when I was an undergraduate at Cambridge. They were kept for weeks and months before they underwent brain surgery—usually in small single cages about 2 foot by 3 foot,…living upon wire mesh, deprived of exercise, their lives devoid of any normal pleasure. Usually they could not be allowed any natural contact with others of their species, and their diet, never varying from day to day, consisted of dry proprietary pellets."
They are kept in cages a fraction of the size that the most impecunious zoo would be allowed to keep animals in. The noble Earl was complaining about dolphins being kept in a small area. When there are monkeys kept in these cages, only 2 feet by 3 feet, for months on end, it seems rather odd that the noble Earl should complain about dolphins. But I quite agree that dolphins are not being experimented on for, presumably, human benefit.
Before I finish, I should like to ask the scientists this question. With due respect, I do not want to be rude but I thought they showed slight arrogance in this debate. I am not going to argue on the medical side. If it is a fact that animals have to be experimented on to preserve and to help human beings, then, provided that it is done as humanely as possible, that is all right. But where I cannot agree is when it comes to the non-
1020
medical aspect, cosmetics in the non-medical meaning, the psychological experiments. Because, so far as I know, no psychologist is a doctor, a medical man, and presumably they are allowed to experiment on animals without proper medical training. The other thing I cannot understand is why, if it is desired to find out the toxicity of some poison like weedkiller or detergent, the animals have to be dosed and dosed with these poisons—weedkillers, detergents, colouring material, or whatever it is—until they die. I would have thought surely it is enough to dose the animal until it is ill. Why is it necessary to dose it until it dies? Presumably all that is needed is to know when an adverse effect is reached. I do not have any sympathy with scientists when it comes to trying out pesticides and weedkillers. I think there ought to be some other means of testing these materials other than causing agony to animals. After all, we are all animals; we are primates. We call ourselves homo sapients and we by so doing rather try to distinguish ourselves from the animals. In my opinion, we may all be homo but I do not think we are all sapiens.
I would end by saying that I appreciate the noble Lord's action in bringing in this Bill. His motives are excellent. The Bill is very widely drawn, and it will be a pity if it does not get a Second Reading. If it gets a Second Reading, it can be very widely amended. I hope the Home Office will at some time do something about causing pain to animals just to prove the strength of a weedkiller, or the toxic content of bread colouring OT of a dye for colouring smoked fish. To test animals and cause pain for such purposes is highly immoral. Having said that, I will now sit down because I know the Whips want to close the debate.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, the noble Viscount has asked me a rather protracted question. If I may, I will compress it slightly in order to accelerate our debate. He asked why I talked about dolphins instead of primates, and the answer is because the Bill legislated for primates instead of dolphins.
10.6 p.m.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, that was brief, and I shall try to be likewise. I

1021
have been a licence holder for many years; as Professor of Medicine I have signed hundreds of applications for certificates for research on animals; as President of the Royal College I have countersigned them; as a member of the Medical Research Council have come into contact with this, and finally, I have been a member of the Advisory Committee to the Home Office which was established by the Act of 1876. I am quite sure that everything the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, said to us is correct. The 1876 Act was absolutely inspired. It has worked extraordinarily well. The regulations for animal experimentation are far better in this country than in any other country in the world. That is not to say that there could not be improvements.
I always feel with animal experiments that I dislike them intensely, and I wish they did not have to be done. I always feel on the side of the animals. With that, I have asked myself very sincerely whether I could possibly support this Bill to a Second Reading in order that we might, by amending it drastically in Committee, get something of an improvement. But I can see nothing in this Bill that improves on the 1876 Act. I can see a great many things that are not nearly so good. Therefore I cannot argue myself into that position. I do not know whether the noble Viscount is going to reply on behalf of the Government, but I should like to know why this Government and, if you like, the previous Government, have done nothing whatsoever about the Littlewood Report. The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, referred to it as the Royal Commission, but it was actually a Departmental Committee. Why has nothing been done about this? That Report states quite clearly that the 1876 Act has been very good, that on the whole the situation is good, that scientists doing animal experiments are responsible people, that the inspectorate works excellently though it needs strengthening; and then the Report makes 83 recommendations, of which no fewer than 48 need legislation. I hope that my figures are correct.
This Report has been allowed to lie on the table, and it is a very great pity, because the 1876 Act needs amendment to bring it up to date in a number of ways. I can well imagine why the Report has been shelved. Successive Governments
1022
have said, "Well, after all, things are not really bad in this area. This is something that can wait until next month, or next year, or the year after; or to the next Government". So it goes on being shelved. I suggest to the Government that the time has now come for some responsible people to look into the Littlewood Report, read it carefully, and see what simple acts of legislation would improve matters.
All I will add is that, as a member of the Advisory Committee to the Home Office, I was not entirely happy. I quite often disagreed with my scientific colleagues about the severity of certain proposed experiments—because it was of course only the difficult and severe ones that were referred to us. I think that we should have a reconstituted Committee, on the lines suggested by the Littlewood Report, and it should meet much more frequently. I would not require it to meet once a fortnight for no particular reason, but if it met even four times a year, instead of once in three or four years, it would be a great improvement. I also think the Committee should discuss very much more, not only the problems which are brought to their notice by the inspectors but general problems of policy; and whether, for instance, it is right to keep cats and dogs in quite small cages—and monkeys, too—which is something I absolutely loathe. Those matters of general principle a really active Committee, meeting frequently, could discuss, and in those respects, I think, could do a lot of good.
10.11 p.m.
LORD HOY: My Lords, I apologise to your Lordships for not putting down my name for this debate, but I want to say one or two words on it because in the City of Edinburgh we have a very large research institution and they would like their opinions to be known. May I say to the noble Lord who has just sat down —and I do not want to be patronising—that I think his speech was the most substantial contribution to this debate that I have listened to to-day—because noble Lords in all parts of the House have had their opinions. One of the lessons I have learned in your Lordships' House is that the language does not differ very much from that in another place. I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord

1023
Auckland, say that he had only two words to express and he took five minutes to express them. That was exceeded only by the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, who had one word which took him seven minutes to say. This is the kind of language we used to use in another place.
My Lords, what are we discussing here tonight? It is a Bill introduced by my noble friend. In fact, what is the purpose of it? To begin with, I do not much like its title, "Cruel Experiments Bill". But if my noble friend feels that there is something which must be done in this particular field, then my noble friend is entitled to introduce a Bill to do it. It so happens that I do not agree with the Bill that he has introduced, but I will always assert that he has a right to introduce it if he thinks fit. Indeed, I was a little disturbed, if I may say so, by the vehemence of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, who I thought, from his most vituperative point of view, seemed to think that my noble friend did not have this right. Indeed, when he was calling in the aid of the Bible to supplement his case, I thought he was going a little too far. I felt rather like the old Scotsman who said that indeed he had a great belief in the Lord. When someone said, "And what had the minister to say in the sermon, John?", he said, "It was from the Book of Deuteronomy. I am not at all sure what it was about, but I think the minister was against it". That is a much better attitude to adopt —perhaps the noble Earl will just let me finish—than to take the line that the noble Earl took, and seek to condemn my noble friend for saying, mistakenly or not, what he was saying.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, I never disputed the right of the noble Lord to introduce the Bill. I merely discriminated between his right, on the one hand, and its wise exercise, on the other. I said that this is too complex a subject for Private Members' Bills: the Government should exercise their proper responsibilities in this matter.
LORD HOY: My Lords, if the noble Earl wants to complain about the Government, I would agree with him; he has my full support. But, to tell the truth, the noble Earl has made so many
1024
amendments to the speech which he made originally that he had better get it drafted and submit it to me, when I will tell him whether I agree with him or not. All I say now is that I agree with the last remark he made—that he is against the Government. In that, I think he is absolutely right.
My Lords, this Bill seeks to do a job which I think might well be popular, but I would say to my noble friend who moved it that if one is going to bring in a Bill of this kind there is only one reason for doing so. The justification for the introduction of a new Bill must surely rest on demonstrating that the existing controls are inadequate. Provided one can do that one is entitled to bring in a Bill of this kind. Whatever else he might have done in introducing this Bill, I thought that my noble friend did not produce that argument, and that must be the test of any Bill of this kind. I had a long experience at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I do not like to boast about it, but I would say to your Lordships that I served as a Parliamentary Secretary in that Department longer than any other Minister in the Department's history, and in the course of my long experience I met these cases times without number.
I agree that there will be a response from any human being to any allegation of cruelty, and we all want to take steps to put it right, but if we are going to do that by legislation we have to remember that the legislation becomes legally the responsibility of everyone concerned. That is what my noble friend is asking of us tonight. I think of one small measure in the Bill, the appointment and dismissal of veterinary officers by a committee of the R.S.P.C.A. That would not be appropriate or acceptable to the profession. It is a section of the agriculture industry for which I have a great respect. The veterinary inspectors do a tremendous service. Very often they are not commended for the job they do, except when we are in trouble because of an outbreak of foot and mouth disease or something of that kind. Then everyone pays tribute to their work. But when the incident is over they are forgotten. I do not think that veterinary officers would like to be at the beck and call of such a committee as would be created by my noble friend's

1025
Bill. For that and other reasons I cannot support the Bill. I think that my noble friend was right to introduce it and to ask your Lordships to debate the matter, but, having done so, I think that he would be equally right to say that he does not propose to take the Bill to the Division Lobbies.
10.18 p.m.
LORD WILLIS: My Lords, we have had a fairly lengthy debate and I am in a little difficulty because a number of points were raised, but I am sure that at this hour your Lordships will not expect me to answer all the points. Were I a scientist or a doctor, probably I should be able to answer a number of the points raised, but without a doctor or scientist at my elbow to advise me I do not know the answers. I am sure that there is an answer to many of the points that were raised, if only because I know that there are many distinguished doctors and scientists who take the opposite view to that expressed by some of the speakers who have opposed the Bill.
The pattern of the debate was not entirely unexpected to me. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hoy for his defence, which was not quite necessary because I am always happy to take on a scientist and I can look after myself. The pattern of the debate was summed up by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, who made a brilliant speech, often quite funny. Like a dancing master, he danced all round the point without getting on it, and sometimes he confused the House with comments which indicated that he had not studied the Bill in detail. For example, the word "cosmetics" is clearly defined. There can be no mistake about what we mean by "cosmetics". What interested me most, and the point was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, was the way the noble Earl poured scorn on the amateur. He showed that we who are promoting this Bill are the woolly-minded idealists and he and his friends are the stern, practical people who, at the end of the day, are concerned with the good of humanity while we woolly-minded idealists are the reverse.
I assert strongly the right of the amateur to be heard in all matters concerned with this country: and I can talk of them on a large number of issues, not least decimalisation, where if the voice
1026
of the amateur had been listened to by some of the experts we might be a lot better off. The noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, mentioned a little arrogance. I thought that the arrogance was monumental. It did not surprise me a little, because it seems to me that there are two professions in this country, in particular, that suffer from this kind of insulated arrogance because they lack contact with reality and they lack contact with ordinary people: they are the scientists and, if the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will forgive me, the law.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that the two professions which have most contact with individuals and their suffering are precisely the doctor and the lawyer?
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, might it also not be possible that that is precisely why they have to keep themselves so isolated?
LORD WILLIS: My Lords, I was particularly referring to the scientists. I should be more convinced if, for once—just once—apart from the noble Lord, Lord Platt, one of the scientists got up and said "It is conceivably possible that some of the evidence, as brought forward by these woolly-minded idealists, these amateurs, is right; it is conceivably right that Helen, the animal I mentioned, was a bad case and should be looked into; there may be dozens of other cases; it is conceivably right that somebody in my profession "—says the scientist—"may at some time become de-sensitised to the suffering of animals, as men have become de-sensitised to the suffering of other men. It may conceivably be right that something is wrong and we ought to listen, and it is therefore our duty, as scientists, and the duty of our scientific organisations, to approach the Government and make proposals as to how the law of 1876 could be amended and improved."
It would be of great interest to me if that was said, instead of vague words of blessing about my motives, and saying, "He is a very sincere lad, but very mistaken", and so on. I should be much more convinced if we had a few hard, practical proposals, and less of this cutoff, stonewall arrogance which seems to suggest that "Everything is right in our

1027
world and nothing is right from outside". Why do you gentlemen think for one moment that people are screaming out, year after year, about cruelty to animals if there is no basis of truth in it? Why do you arrogate to yourselves all the moral judgments, all the rights? Why do you say, "We, and we alone, know what goes on, because we, and we alone, can understand what an experiment is for." I beg you, gentlemen, to come down from that great big pyramid on which you place yourselves and listen occasionally to the humble voice of the amateur. Think sometimes that the man in the street could be right. He may not phrase it right; he may not argue correctly; he may even get his experiments
1028
mixed up, but, by God!, he could be right. Why do not you listen sometimes?
As I have said, I have not time to go into all the detailed points that have been asked—and there is another reason for it—and at this stage I will not press the Bill to a Division. While thanking all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill withdrawn.

ZETLAND COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1ª, and referred to the Examiners.