Sitting of 17 December 1973

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  NORTH WALES HYDRO ELECTRIC POWER BILL
  Lords amendments considered and agreed to.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS

    Sub-Post Offices
    Mr. Edwin Wainwrightasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications how many sub-post offices have been closed down in the United Kingdom in each of the past five years.
    The Minister of Posts and Telecommunications (Sir John Eden): With permission, I will circulate the information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Wainwright: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many of these sub-post offices were closed because the remuneration to the sub-postmasters was insufficient? Will he bear in mind that sub-postmasters have to bear the heavy cost of lighting, heating, rates and rents? Can he take action to help sub-postmasters who have to obtain the services of another assistant when the amount of business transacted does not cover the amount of wages to be paid?
    Sir J. Eden: I am well aware, and most appreciative of, the contribution of sub-postmasters. I tried to speak on this point in the Adjournment debate on 13th December. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman has studied the report of
    926
    that debate, from which he will see that the Post Office is trying to take fully into account all the extra duties which sub-postmasters are often called upon to fulfil.
    Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that this is a subject in which the Post Office Users National Council takes a continuing and active interest?
    Sir J. Eden: Yes, Sir. I am well aware of the point which my hon. Friend makes. He will be aware that the Post Office also takes a continuing and active interest in this subject and watches carefully over the needs of consumers when determining policy in relation to sub-post offices.
    Mr. Heffer: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in some of the larger cities the closure of sub-post offices and smaller post offices has been detrimental to old-age pensioners? Is he further aware that many pensioners who previously went round the corner to get their pensions now have to travel long distances? Will he consider this matter further and try to ensure that there are no further closures of sub-post offices affecting older people? Will he consider reopening some sub-post offices where there is a need to help old people?
    Sir J. Eden: As the hon. Gentleman will know, this is a matter within the operational responsibility of the Post Office. I can assure him and the whole House that the Post Office is aware of the sort of problems to which he has referred and that it watches these matters closely.
    Dr. Glyn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is a matter of great concern to a large number of small communities? Does he agree that a particular problem arises from the closure of sub-post offices in rural areas when people are unable to travel to the nearest town to obtain postal facilities? Will he make sure that this is one of the most economic ways of carrying out the Post Office function? Rather than decreasing the number of such offices, will he consider increasing them?
    Sir J. Eden: I ask my hon. Friend to be good enough to look at the report of the Adjournment debate of 13th December, from which he will see that

    927
    there are many factors which the Post Office takes into account, including the position of elderly people in areas where there are closures and the difficulties experienced in rural areas concerning postal services. The fact remains, however, that there are many different factors which the Post Office must bear in mind when considering policy relating to sub-post offices.
    Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: When the Minister discusses the matter, as I hope he will do with the Chairman of the Post Office Corporation, will he draw the chairman's attention not only to the substantial number of sub-post office closures but to the failure to open new sub-post offices on many new housing estates, including council estates? Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that a considerable number of people are completely bereft of sub-post office facilities and that this situation is particularly difficult for old people on housing estates?
    Sir J. Eden: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that this is a matter about which the Post Office is already fully aware and which it is watching most closely. The hon. Gentleman's point is very well taken. The Post Office must, however, balance economic factors against other matters. The overall position is that the provision of sub-post offices is more favourable in this country than in any other European country.
    Following is the information:

    1968–69

    71

    1969–70

    100

    1970–71

    108

    1971–72

    127

    1972–73

    162

    These are net figures. They exclude 48 sub-offices which were transferred to the Channel Islands postal authorities on 1st October 1969.

    Television Licence Fee
    Miss Fookesasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will take steps to alter the present television licensing system so that any person acquiring a colour set in place of a black and white one may continue to use the lower cost licence until its expiry.
    Sir J. Eden: There would seem to be no justification for doing so.
    Miss Fookes: Will my right hon. Friend explain why the Post Office finds it
    928
    administratively easy to collect extra money for a licence yet administratively impossible to refund part of the cost of a licence when people change from colour to black and white or give up television altogether?
    Sir J. Eden: The first point that has to be borne in mind is the statutory position. It is a matter of law, not of cost or operational convenience, that a colour licence is needed for colour reception. That is the point to which my hon. Friend's Questions was directed.
    Mr. Russell Kerr: Not a very good answer.

    Telephone Exchange Equipment
    Mr. Goldingasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will list the approved suppliers of telephone main exchange equipment to the Post Office.
    Sir J. Eden: General Electric Co., Plessey Telecommunications. Standard Telephones and Cable, and Pye/Telephone Manufacturing Company.
    Mr. Golding: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that Pye TMC will be included in the discussions which will take place on the future of System X telephone exchanges? When are the manufacturers likely to come together to discuss that development?
    Sir J. Eden: As the hon. Gentleman will recognise, this is a complicated matter involving the sharing of commercially valuable information among manufacturers. It is for the industry to negotiate satisfactory arrangements which will enable Pye TMC to participate.
    Mr. Kaufman: Could the right hon. Gentleman have a sharp word with Plessey, which, I understand, supplies the telephone equipment allegedly connecting this House with the outside world, and inform it that never have so many attempted telephone calls been connected to so few respondents? Will he try to do something about this?
    Sir J. Eden: That does not arise on this Question.

    Programme Content
    Mr. Hugh Jenkinsasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications

    929
    whether he will now answer Questions relating to programme content.
    Sir J. Eden: As the House knows, the broadcasting authorities are responsible for programmes and their content.
    Mr. Jenkins: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, under the curious rules we frame for ourselves, it is necessary to ask the Question in this form even if most of us do not want him to interfere in particular programmes? Is he further aware that many of us feel he has a duty to see that the authorities maintain their task in keeping a proper balance and that there are those of us who feel that the balance has not been kept by the broadcasting authorities? Will he keep a firm eye on the authorities to see that they carry out the duties which he quite rightly says are theirs?
    Sir J. Eden: If there were a general consensus in the House that the governing authorities of the broadcasting bodies were not carrying out the responsibility placed on them, that would be a grave matter which would involve the Minister of the day.
    Mr. Gorst: Even though my right hon. Friend will not consider answering Questions about programme content, will he nevertheless—when it comes to a consideration of the virtual collapse of London Broadcasting and any reorganisation which he might deem desirable or necessary—bear in mind that there would be great disapproval in this House if he were to make any arrangements permitting a London newspaper which so far is not represented on the board of that company to take over control or even greatly to influence its programmes?
    Sir J. Eden: There are later Questions dealing with this subject.

    Christmas Mail
    Mr. Rostasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he is satisfied with the current position with regard to the delivery of Christmas mail.
    Sir J. Eden: My hon. Friend will be aware that the Post Office has had to restrict parcel services because of the disruption on the railways, but I am satisfied that it is doing all it can to get the rest of the Christmas mail through in increasingly difficult circumstances.
    Mr. Rost: If, as happened last year, Christmas is spoiled for a large section of the community because of the late delivery of Christmas mail and parcels, will the right hon. Gentleman make sure that the public are made aware of the cause of this inconvenience and know that it is not due to the Post Office or to Post Office workers, who are doing everything possible in difficult circumstances to get the mail delivered? Will the blame please be put on to the ASLEF train drivers?
    Sir J. Eden: I am satisfied that everyone in the Post Office has done his level best to ensure that there is not a repetition of the situation experienced last year. Unfortunately, other circumstances have arisen this year, primarily as a result of the disruption to rail services. This is bound to have a direct effect on the movement of mail over Christmas.
    Mr. Driberg: When was the decision about parcels taken and why was it announced only very late apparently on Saturday night in a confusing form, so that it could reach only the later editions of the Sunday papers? Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify what is being refused and where?
    Sir J. Eden: I have to ask for the indulgence of the hon. Gentleman. The Post Office naturally has to watch this situation not only day by day but literally hour by hour. It is most anxious to avoid taking any decision which would lead to interruption in the movement of mail over Christmas. It is holding off taking final decisions for as long as possible. The Post Office gave a lot of prior warning about the likelihood of its being forced into taking such a decision as it has had to take over the weekend. It naturally regrets it very much indeed, but it needed a breathing space if it was to have the slightest chance of catching up on the vast backlog which had accumulated as a result of the disruption of rail services.
    Sir E. Bullus: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it would be right to drop the 3½p postal rate, since there is no priority for it, and revert to the 3p stamp for letters?
    Sir J. Eden: I do not think that would help in the present state of confusion.
    Mr. Charles R. Morris: Bearing in mind the splendid job being done by Britain's postal workers in clearing the Christmas mail this year, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will now endorse the action taken by the Chairman and members of the Post Office Board in supporting the application by the staff of the Post Office to have its pay considered as an anomaly by the Pay Board?
    Sir J. Eden: That is another matter, which does not arise on this Question.
    Mr. Ewing: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he was consulted before the Post Office took the decision to stop accepting parcels for London and the Home Counties? Can he also explain why, if an item which previously would have been posted as a parcel comes within the size and weight limits, it can now be posted at letter rate? How does this relieve the position?
    Sir J. Eden: The hon. Gentleman knows that the Minister is not responsible for the day-to-day operation of the Post Office. The public were urged in advertisements in the national Press as early as 9th December to post parcels immediately.
    Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: With respect, that does not answer my hon. Friend's question. Why can a parcel now be sent by letter post, at a very much greater cost to the sender, when it cannot be sent as a parcel? Maybe some people at the Post Office over-reacted.
    Sir J. Eden: There are special trains operating all these services. Letter post and Christmas cards are being given priority at the moment. The situation at the weekend arose as a result of the failure of some essential trains to run. This caused a great backlog of parcels.

    Postal Rates (Pensioners)
    Mr. David Steelasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will estimate how much it would cost to grant a concessionary penny postal rate to all retirement pensioners.
    Sir J. Eden: This would be a matter for the Post Office, but it would be impossible to ensure that only pensioners' correspondence was sent at the concessionary rate.
    Mr. Steel: While I accept there would be great administrative difficulty in any such suggestion, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider such a scheme over the Christmas period?
    Sir J. Eden: I do not see how on earth one could tell whether an old-age pensioner had written the letter.
    Mr. Molloy: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider supplying old-age pensioners with a few pre-paid envelopes—there would be no great administrative difficulty about that—which they could get when drawing their pensions? Is not this a reasonable suggestion which could be implemented almost overnight?
    Sir J. Eden: That is a matter which the hon. Gentleman should address to the Post Office Corporation.

    London Broadcasting Company
    Mr. Whiteheadasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what representations he has received from the Independent Broadcasting Authority regarding the financial affairs of the London Broadcasting Company.
    Mr. Gorstasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what requests he has received from the IBA for a variation of any of the undertakings given by the Government regarding the commercial radio all-news station in London on 12th April 1972; and what reply he has given.
    Mr. Kaufmanasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications when he last discussed the question of the London Broadcasting Company with the Chairman of the Independent Broadcasting Authority.
    Sir J. Eden: I have received no representations from the Independent Broadcasting Authority about the London Broadcasting Company, nor have I discussed this matter with the chairman, since nothing has arisen which calls for Government intervention.
    Mr. Whitehead: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a major financial crisis in the London Broadcasting Company and that the National Union of Journalists has already asked the Independent Broadcasting Authority for an inquiry? As the IBA will

    933
    not contact him, will the right hon. Gentleman contact the IBA and say that, while it is obviously true that the company must have time to find its feet, its feet will be kicked from under it by any one or more of three or four major threats—mass redundancies, which are now being threatened, a cut-back in the reporting standards to a rolling news programme, a shift in ownership or newspaper control? Will the Minister ensure that that does not happen and that in return the IBA will allow LBC to get the money it should have from Capital Radio for the new service which it provides?
    Sir J. Eden: The union situation is a matter for direct negotiation between the unions and the employers concerned. I am satisfied that the IBA is watching the situation closely.
    Mr. Gorst: Does my right hon. Friend recall that in the debate on 12th April the Government gave an assurance that, if the standard of news on the station was not adequate, it would be permissible for other stations not to take its news services? Can he give an assurance that none of the stations either contemplated or already in existence need continue to take this inadequate service? Secondly, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that there will be no question—as was also repeated in the debate—that anyone else will have to bear the cost of subsidising this station, whether it be other contractors, the Treasury or the IBA itself, from a loan?
    Sir J. Eden: It is still much too early to apply blanket condemnation. This station is experimenting with a format completely new to British radio, and we must give it every encouragement to develop.
    Mr. Kaufman: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a categorical assurance that, no matter what the pressure or cajoling, he will not permit this station to be turned into anything other than the news and information service it is required to be and that, if the choice is between turning it into a news plus pop station and allowing it to go under, he will allow it to sink unmourned beneath the waves?
    Sir J. Eden: If the company wanted to make any major changes in format, it
    934
    would have to discuss its proposals with the IBA, and the Chairman of the IBA would have to put them to the Minister.
    Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Will my right hon. Friend remain quite firm on this and accept that the public like this station and do not agree that he should contemplate its sinking beneath the waves?
    Sir J. Eden: I can confirm that I have had many letters of appreciation from listeners who value the contact that is given to them with the outside world and with sources of information as a result of the broadcasts put out by LBC.
    Mr. John Grant: Will the right hon. Gentleman take care in this matter not to show the same remarkable complacency as seems to characterise the IBA's handling of it? Does he not think that the anxiety shown on both sides of the House justifies an independent inquiry into the whole unfortunate affair? Does it not underline his need to sweep away the secrecy which surrounds the way in which franchises are awarded by the IBA, so that we can see what sort of criteria the IBA is using in these matters?
    Sir J. Eden: The awarding of franchises is the responsibility of the IBA, not of the Minister, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, and that is the way it should be. There is no complacency whatever on anyone's part. One should not conduct a campaign against something which has only recently been launched, which is still going through fairly early difficulties and troubles but which none the less offers fairly good prospects for a bright future.

    Television Licences (Pensioners)
    Mr. Radiceasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications how much money has been spent in the past year on granting concessionary television licences to retirement pensioners.
    Sir J. Eden: Retirement pensioners as such do not receive concessionary television licences. About 190,000 people have old persons' home television licences; the value of this concession amounted to about £1 million.
    Mr. Radice: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, in the new situation created by the present crisis, one of the least costly gestures of good will that the Government could make would be to

    935
    give all old-age pensioners cheap television licences? Is he aware that most old-age pensioners would regard a change of heart on television licences as a real Christmas present, better than the one they are getting at the moment?
    Sir J. Eden: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has had the opportunity to study the figures rehearsed in this House on a number of occasions, but to give all retirement pensioners a free television licence would cost £30 million a year. I do not think that can be contemplated.

    Fourth Television Channel
    Mr. Wyn Robertsasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications when he expects to make a statement about the fourth channel.
    Sir J. Eden: Next spring.
    Mr. Roberts: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Independent Broadcasting Authority is the only organisation which can provide an additional service without an extra direct charge to the viewer? Will he also confirm that some of the existing contractors have a great deal of spare studio capacity?
    Sir J. Eden: I bear the last point in mind. It was one of the aspects of the representations made to me by the independent television companies. If the decision were taken to assign the fourth television channel, one could only avoid making a charge on the consumers' part by having an alternative source of revenue—for example, from additional advertising.
    Mr. Whitehead: As the Government are now about to preside over a major recession, and since the first casualty of any recession is always television programme expenditure, is not this the time to say to the ITV companies once and for all that we do not need a fourth channel and we do not need ITV2?
    Sir J. Eden: That is a point of view.
    Mr. Marten: Before the channel comes into operation, will my right hon. Friend look at the question of censorship? Has he seen the letter in The Times from Mr. Woodrow Wyatt saying that one of his programmes was gravely censored, which is scandalous?
    Sir J. Eden: That is a matter for the authority and not for the Minister.
    Mr. John Grant: Even at this late stage, could not the right hon. Gentleman consider possibly extending the terms of reference of the Crawford Committee, so that it can look at regional possibilities for the fourth channel? That committee and its witnesses are suffering some difficulty because of the inhibitions placed upon them in that they cannot discuss the fourth channel properly.
    Sir J. Eden: The terms of reference have been set, as the hon. Gentleman knows. In so far as it might regard the prospect of using the fourth channel as applicable to particular regional situations, I have no doubt that the committee would find it possible to comment on that aspect.
    Mr. Robert Cooke: The Government are rightly spending many millions of pounds more on the arts. Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the fourth channel could bring the subsidised arts to a far wider audience?
    Sir J. Eden: That is one of the more interesting propositions submitted to me as justifying the application of the fourth channel at present. I agree with what my hon. Friend has said.

    Broadcasting Coverage
    Mr. Brocklebank-Fowlerasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what instructions he has given to Sir Stewart Crawford regarding the priority he should give to reporting on local area coverage as distinct from the other problems his committee is investigating.
    Sir J. Eden: None. It is for the committee to decide what priority to give to the various problems it has been asked to consider.
    Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House when he expects the committee to report on that part of the overall investigation? Will he undertake that the IBA will grant no new contracts to programme companies until the report has been received by him and action has been taken by the Government?
    Sir J. Eden: I hope that the committee will report early next year. However,

    937
    I cannot undertake to bind the IBA in any matter for which it has direct responsibility.

    Public Telephones (Deaf Persons)
    Mr. Pavittasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will issue a general direction to the Post Office to install amplified telephones for the use of those suffering from partial deafness in selected Crown post offices and some public places where the technical problems can be surmounted.
    Sir J. Eden: No, Sir. The Post Office is fully aware of the needs of the hard of hearing and is already conducting trials of suitably modified coinbox equipment.
    Mr. Pavitt: Is the Minister aware that I am most grateful for the conversations I have had with senior technicians in the Post Office, who have assured me that the subject of my Question is a possibility in the very near future? Will he exert pressure to make such that the near future comes very shortly, and see at the same time that the research into induction coil and loop reception is exploited so that when the new behind-the-ear aids become available this will be available in telephones, too?
    Sir J. Eden: I am glad for what the hon. Gentleman said. The Post Office has agreed to proceed with trials at selected sites throughout the country as soon as possible.

    Radio Services (Northumberland)
    Mr. Beithasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what he estimates to be the number of people in North Northumberland who are unable to receive local news and weather forecasts on BBC North-East Radio 4 VHF; and whether he has considered any proposals for extending the range of this service.
    Sir J. Eden: Approximately 23,000, according to the BBC's latest estimates. I shall consider any proposals put to me by Sir Stewart Crawford's Committee, which is considering this and other problems of broadcasting coverage.
    Mr. Beith: Will the Minister, who did not await the report of the Crawford Committee before taking away the
    938
    medium wave frequency, initiate discussions with the IBA and BBC to see whether urgent facilities can be provided at the Chatton television transmitter? Is he aware that the news was broadcast on medium wave by mistake on 4th December? Will he tolerate that mistake being continued temporarily until a permanent arrangement can be made?
    Sir J. Eden: Decisions affecting the medium wave were taken some time ago and were not affected by the appointment of the Crawford Committee. I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that, having appointed the committee, I would be well advised to await its findings.

    Post Office Vacancies
    Mr. Wellbelovedasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will make a statement indicating the number of vacancies in all grades of the Post Office at the present date.
    Mr. Charles R. Morrisasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will make a statement indicating the number of vacancies in the postman, telephonist, telegraphist and postal officer grades of the Post Office at the present date.
    Sir J. Eden: The Post Office tells me that the latest figures are: postmen 9,300; telephonists 3,100; telegraphists 150; postal officers 1,100 and clerical staff 1,100.
    Mr. Wellbeloved: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that those figures give no reason to be satisfied with the state of recruitment in the Post Office? Is he aware that the present situation is due to the fall in morale in the Post Office, and that Post Office workers look to him as the Minister responsible to support the Post Office Board in making representations to the Pay Board for justice for all grades in the Post Office?
    Sir J. Eden: I agree with the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question but not with the second and third.
    Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Can my right hon. Friend say what are the percentages involved and whether there are a larger number of posts vacant in the South-East of England than in the rest of the country, which is the normal situation?
    Sir J. Eden: I cannot give my hon. Friend the geographical distribution, but the total national position is as follows: postmen 9·5 per cent., telephonists 7·5 per cent., telegraphists 9 per cent., postal officers 4·8 per cent. and clerical staff 3·8 per cent.
    Mr. Ewing: Does the Minister agree that the shortfall of 15,000 staff in the Post Office is very serious? What does he propose to do to relieve the situation? Does he propose to support the Chairman of the Post Office Board in the application to the Pay Board? Is he aware that there is another serious problem inasmuch as staff turnover is now much higher than ever?
    Sir J. Eden: The question of wages and remuneration of staff is, first, under negotiation between the unions concerned and their employer. Secondly, there is the question of the relativities report. Thirdly, there is ample scope within the flexibility provided under stage 3. Fourthly, I have no doubt that the future of the Post Office will improve as more and more people come to recognise the valuable service that can be given in its employment.
    Mr. Golding: Is the Minister aware that that answer will be received with a sneer by Post Office staff? Is he aware that the international telephone service is in dire difficulties? The fault rate is very high because of the shortage of telephonists. Will the right hon. Gentleman impress upon the Government the need to deal with the wages question as quickly as they can?
    Sir J. Eden: Yes, Sir. The particular position affecting certain aspects of the telephone side involves other factors which are certainly of concern in the present situation. The Post Office is very well aware of this. It is doing its best to overcome the manpower shortages in every possible respect, and the question of wages is under direct negotiation.
    Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: No matter how dedicated the staff of the Post Office may be to their task in life—and they are—we should all like to hear, and the employees of the Post Office would like to hear, that the Minister will stand up for them on the question of wages. Otherwise we shall have no people working in the service at all.
    Sir J. Eden: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, he must recognise that the scope for negotiation is set down by the terms of stage 3. I cannot depart from it, nor can anybody else. It is the law of the land. There is ample scope for negotiation within it.

    Television Licences (Hotels and Businesses)
    Mr. Ashtonasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will introduce legislation to bring in a specific television licence for sets used by hotels and business premises.
    Sir J. Eden: There already are some such licences. If the hon. Gentleman has any problem about them I shall be pleased to do my best to try to resolve it.
    Mr. Ashton: But why should the Savoy, with 450 television sets, pay for only one licence? Why do we have a situation, under the 1949 and 1970 Wireless Telegraphy Acts, in which the Grosvenor with 200 sets, Claridge's with 200 sets, the Churchill with 100 sets, the Inn on the Park with 100 sets and the Dorchester with 50 sets each pays only one television licence for the lot, when we are telling old-age pensioners that they cannot have a cheap or free television licence? Will the Minister do something to stop this racket? Will he charge the people who are staying at those places on expense accounts with the full cost of the television, and give the concession to the pensioners?
    Sir J. Eden: There are various forms of multiple licences. Their purpose is to reduce the amount of paper work which individual licences would entail. The full information about multiple licences is given in Statutory Instrument 1970 No. 548.
    Mr. Fernyhough: Does not the Minister realise that the meaning of what my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) has told us is that he has extended to the wealthy patrons of very prosperous hotels the same facilities that he has extended to pensioners living under warden supervision? Is not that completely wrong? When we are to have announcements such as are to be made later this afternoon, how can the right hon. Gentleman justify the fact that people who are in a position to rent

    941
    suites in those hotels are having television for almost nothing?
    Sir J. Eden: This has been a longstanding and very practical arrangement. The fees for hotels and business premises are the same as for domestic premises. The guidelines affecting multiple licences are clearly laid down.
    Mr. Jeffrey Archer: Does my right hon. Friend realise that many of us on this side of the House still think that it is grossly unfair that pensioners in groups and pensioners individually pay a different sum for their licence and that we would like to see the situation resolved once and for all?
    Sir J. Eden: As my hon. Friend well knows, the matter has been considered many times before and has been debated in the House. The difficulty has been to try to define a system which is administratively simple and cheap to operate and which does not produce new anomalies greater than those which already exist.

    Electricity Saving
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what new instructions he has given to members of his Department for the saving of electricity.
    Sir J. Eden: All staff in my Department are being instructed to apply strictly the restrictions on the use of electricity recently announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
    Mr. Dalyell: As it is all too easy to criticise the public service, will the Minister make clear what is the truth, namely, that the public services, including the Post Office, probably do more than their share and not less than their share in the current situation?
    Sir J. Eden: Yes, Sir. I accept and agree with what the hon. Gentleman says.

  CIVIL SERVICE

    Scientists (Pay)
    Mr. Evelyn Kingasked the Minister for the Civil Service by how much average earnings in the United Kingdom have risen since the General Election;
    942
    and by how much salaries of Government employed science graduates in technical employment and salaries of graduate scientists in the Atomic Energy Authority have risen in the same period.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Civil Service Department (Mr. Kenneth Baker): Average earnings rose by 47 per cent. between June 1970 and September 1973. During this period a science graduate entrant to the scientific officer grade received pay increases of 11 per cent. in January 1971, 7½ per cent. in January 1972 and 7 per cent. in April 1973. The problem over scientists' pay is that they did not agree to a substantial pay research review in January 1973 since they were dissatisfied with the basis of comparison, and we have now asked the Pay Board for its advice on the criteria for determining scientists' pay.
    Mr. King: Does not that reply reveal a disturbing position—an 11 per cent. or 7 per cent. rise as against a 40 per cent. rise? Does it not reveal an unacceptable disparity? When entering the Government service, did not scientists think that they would be treated on a par with others? That has not been so.
    Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend cannot have heard me correctly, because the figures are better than that, but I fully acknowledge the importance of scientists in the Civil Service and I am sorry that this disagreement has stretched out for so long and that scientists have not come within the anomalies review. But I assure my hon. Friend that we are deeply concerned about this dispute and we hope that the Pay Board will report soon.
    Mr. Swain: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one of the items in the Prime Minister's platform for the General Election was that he would seriously examine and cut back the number of civil servants? Can the hon. Gentleman now tell the House what number has been cut back and what additional numbers have had to be taken on to administer the vicious Housing Finance Act and the Industrial Relations Act?
    Mr. Baker: That question is rather wide, but I have answered similar questions on this subject frequently and the last figures I gave, on 1st October 1973,

    943
    showed that, taking industrials and non-industrials together, there had been a fall in the total number of civil servants since we came to office.
    Mr. Maclennan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that scientists in the pay of the Atomic Energy Authority are extremely angry about the Government's policy and that the Government's excuse about the Pay Research Unit is wholly unacceptable to them, as was made clear more than two years ago? Is he aware that the fact that the Pay Board will not be in a position to make its announcement until the middle of January—apparently at the earliest—is regarded as yet another breach of faith? What are the Government doing to accelerate a settlement of this dispute?
    Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman is being somewhat unfair. I am as concerned as the IPCS about this subject. We want to agree a new basis for determining relativities for scientists' pay and that is what we have asked the Pay Board to do.
    Mr. Wingfield Digby: Are not scientists in atomic research establishments of great importance at present when we are talking about increasing nuclear energy?
    Mr. Baker: I could not agree more, but I wish to reassert that we are as concerned as other hon. Members about the fact that the dispute should have dragged on for so long. We are keen to agree a new way of determining the relativities for scientists' pay.
    Mr. Sheldon: Is that enough, given the present situation? Is it not a fact that what happens in determining the pay of scientists is that the Pay Research Unit makes comparisons with the pay of outside scientists; but as the Government are the predominant employer of scientists, this kind of comparison has less validity, so that the Government scientists have fallen sharply behind as a result and something has to be done outside that framework?
    Mr. Baker: I take the point. Scientists have said that a comparison with outside employment was not suitable for them though suitable for the rest of the Civil Service. That is why we have jointly referred the matter to the Pay Board, and I hope that it will report soon.

    Secretaries and Typists (Pay)
    Mr. Pardoeasked the Minister for the Civil Service by what percentage the average wages of secretaries and typists employed in the Civil Service in London have increased since 1st January 1972.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: The average wages of all secretaries and typists have been increased by 19 per cent. since 1st January 1972, including the increase on that date. I am glad to say that a settlement has just been reached which, if the Pay Board approves, will give an average increase of about 8½ per cent. from 7th November 1973. There will be a stage 3 increase on 1st January 1974.
    Mr. Pardoe: While this may not be the best day to ask for an increase for anyone, does not that reply mean that the allowance to a Member in respect of his secretary should have risen by about £160 since January 1972? Will the hon. Gentleman discuss the matter with his right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council?
    Mr. Baker: There are Questions later today to my right hon. Friend on the subject of allowances for Members for secretarial services. I am responsible for Civil Service secretaries, and the figures I have given show that their salaries have risen reasonably well over the past 18 months.
    Mr. Pavitt: As the hon. Gentleman has one of the few Departments able to breach the principle "For them that hath may more be given", will he consider the subject of differentials so that block increases given to secretaries are not extended to men with £10,000, so that differentials are based on the strategy for other sectors of the Pay Code?
    Mr. Baker: We did that in the past when we shifted increases further down so as to give the lower-paid, such as junior typists and secretaries, a greater amount than was available to those earning, say, £4,000 or £5,000 a year.
    Mr. Biffen: Have the Pay Board and the Price Commission been able to fulfil their clerical functions at these rates of pay, or have they been obliged to use outside agencies?
    Mr. Baker: To some extent they have been obliged—as have all employers in

    945
    London, both public and private—to use secretarial agencies. [Interruption.] It is not entirely a matter of pay. Many girls who become secretaries and typists want a life style different from the past. I do not speak from personal experience. They want much longer holidays, and when they work they want to work for very much longer hours. That is one of the reasons why secretaries and typists in London find that agency work gives them the sort of things they want—independence and longer holidays as well as more pay.

    Electricity Saving
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Minister for the Civil Service what new instruction he has given to members of his Department for the saving of electricity.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: My Department has instructed all Government Departments, including the Civil Service Department, to apply strictly the restrictions on the use of electricity announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. All staff are being instructed accordingly.
    Mr. Dalyell: Can the Minister assure us that the life style of civil servants in relation to matters of electricity is not different from that of the rest of us?
    Mr. Baker: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that civil servants will not receive any special treatment, either up to 30th December or in the régime that operates in the New Year. I should like to emphasise that civil servants will work with electricity for three days and for the remaining days offices will have to stop when it gets too dark or when they cannot continue their work. As there is some feeling that there will be special exemptions for the Civil Service, I should like to emphasise that there will be few exemptions and that such exemptions as are made will be made entirely for essential public work or for services to the public and not for the convenience of civil servants.
    Mr. Sheldon: That was a serious statement. Does the Minister mean that those offices that have no natural light facilities will find themselves having to stop work early as the result of fading light? How does that apply to the Department of Employment, which will be particularly concerned with its problems, and the
    946
    Pay Board, which may be similarly placed? Will not the hon. Gentleman give them exemptions? On the general question, what does he intend to do about the minimum heating regulations that are laid down for the service?
    Mr. Baker: The heating question is covered by the order which is already in force. Heating which is oil-fired, coal-fired or gas-fired will be permissible up to a certain temperature. Heating fired by electricity will not be permitted at all. I emphasise that working hours in the Civil Service will not be treated any differently from those of clerical workers in industry.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Private Business Procedure
    Mr. Geoffrey Finsbergasked the Lord President of the Council what is his policy towards the setting up of a Select or Joint Committee on private business procedure.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. James Prior): I believe that an inquiry into this subject is probably due, but I am not sure that it would be appropriate to undertake such a commitment this Session. If such an inquiry were set up, the Government's view is that it might be appropriate that it should be undertaken by a Joint Committee of both Houses.
    Mr. Finsberg: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he appreciate that the present system is hopelessly antiquated and bears heavily on people who have to make objections to Private Bills? If the Government are unable to announce the appointment of a Joint or Select Committee, will they refer the matter forthwith to the Procedure Committee?
    Mr. Prior: On the last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, this matter would not be within the normal terms of reference of the Procedure Committee. But, as I have said, a joint review of this matter might be useful. I agree with what my hon. Friend said in the earlier part of his supplementary question.
    Mr. Wellbeloved: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is essential that

    947
    Parliament should retain the right of full scrutiny of all private measures? Does he also agree that one area of private business which is well overdue for review is the fees that are charged, which I understand have not been reviewed for the past 50 to 60 years?
    Mr. Prior: I will consider the latter part of what the hon. Gentleman has said. On the first part, scrutiny, yes; obstruction, no.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: If my right hon. Friend refers this matter to a Joint Committee of the two Houses, will he include in the terms of reference the matter of reporting on the circumstances in which Ministers should or should not intervene in proceedings on Private Bills in this House?
    Mr. Prior: Yes, Sir. I should be quite happy for that to be part of the terms of reference and, in view of what my hon. Friend has said to me on previous occasions, I should ensure that it was.

    Secretaries
    Mr. David Steelasked the Lord President of the Council what representations have been received from the Secretaries' Council about the pay and conditions of work within the Palace of Westminster; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Prior: I have received several communications from the Secretaries' Council raising a wide range of subjects, and I have also received a communication informing me that a substantial number of Members' secretaries do not wish to be associated with its representations, especially as regards terms of employment.
    Mr. Steel: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be appropriate for the Compton Inquiry to take this question under its wing?
    Mr. Prior: I think that, on the whole, it would be better for the Compton Inquiry not to take this matter within its terms of reference. It is one which Members must decide for themselves and, if necessary. refer to the Boyle Committee.

    Ashworth's Secretarial Bureau
    Mr. Evelyn Kingasked the Lord President of the Council who is respon
    948
    sible for the appointment of Ashworth's Secretarial Bureau and the conditions under which it works, and for the appointment of its successor.
    Mr. Prior: A contract with the bureau is entered into by the Serjeant at Arms, acting under the direction of Mr. Speaker, who is advised by the Services Committee in these matters. In the past the outgoing owners have made arrangements for the transfer of business, but this has not been done on this occasion. Inquiries are therefore being pursued under the aegis of the Services Committee with assistance from the Civil Service Department.
    Mr. King: The bureau has rendered invaluable service to hon. Members for more years than any Member can remember. Is my right hon. Friend taking energetic steps to ensure that a successor is appointed, because it would be wrong if no such service was available to the Palace of Westminster? If it is necessary, as it may well be, to improve the conditions, will my right hon. Friend ensure that they are improved?
    Mr. Prior: I agree with my hon. Friend. The Services Committee is doing all it can to ensure that a successor is appointed, but it is not proving all that easy. There is a general shortage of secretarial staff in the London area and agencies are understandably cautious about taking on new commitments. However, I am hopeful.
    Mr. Ford: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Ashworth's situation makes it even more urgent and important for hon. Members to be properly remunerated to enable them to employ adequate secretarial assistance? Will the right hon. Gentleman hurry his investigations into this matter?
    Mr. Prior: A large number of people think that there is never an appropriate time to improve Members' secretarial or other allowances. But I am certain that today of all days is not the best day to consider the matter.
    Dame Irene Ward: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, quite rightly, the House of Commons has spent I do not know how much money on providing accommodation for private Members' secretaries, with which we all agree,

    949
    whereas the conditions for Ashworth's are such that it is no longer able to continue its service, which I very much regret? I am very annoyed about it.
    Mr. Prior: I hate my hon. Friend to be annoyed about anything, and I will do my best to ensure that the successor to the present agency, if we are lucky enough to obtain one, receives the assistance which it requires.

    Bicycles
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Lord President of the Council if he will take steps to extend the provision for the bicycles of hon. Members in the Palace of Westminster.
    Mr. Prior: Yes, Sir; there are already plans in hand to do this.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I thank my right hon. Friend for that most encouraging reply. Is he aware that today five bicycles, presumably belonging to hon. Members, were crushed into three bunks, one of them ostensibly reserved for my right hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden)—not that I begrudge him that? Is it not a reasonable expectation that a great many right hon. and hon. Members will be following the example of those of us who discovered years ago that a bicycle is much the most efficient way of getting around London? Will he reserve a portion of the new car park—say, half—for the use of bicycles?
    Mr. Prior: It may be a reasonable expectation, but I shall be very surprised if it is fulfilled.

    New Palace Yard
    Mr. Liptonasked the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement on the situation regarding plans for the resurfacing of New Palace Yard.
    Mr. Prior: The Services Committee is taking further advice and will report to the House in due course.
    Mr. Lipton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government have got into a terrible mess over this matter? Would it not be better to have a moratorium and leave the surface of New Palace Yard alone for the time being until wiser counsels prevail?
    Mr. Prior: No, Sir. It is not the Government who have got into a mess; it is the surface of New Palace Yard.

    European Assembly (Members' Expenses)
    Mr. Arthur Lewisasked the Lord President of the Council whether he is aware that Members attending the European Assembly are paid, in addition to their £25 a day attendance allowance, a £10 travel allowance in excess of their actual costs incurred; and whether he will propose that all Members should be paid on this basis.
    Mr. Prior: The rates of travel allowances for attendance at the European Assembly are a matter for that Assembly. I understand, however, that this allowance is based on the distance travelled.
    Mr. Lewis: Will the right hon. Gentleman investigate a report in the Observer yesterday that a group of City financiers and bankers were addressed by the Secretary of State for Defence in order to raise money from the banking houses in the City to pay the expenses of Tory Ministers and Tory back-benchers who go to the European Assembly? If that is true—and the report says that Government facilities were provided—many of us on this side of the House think it disgraceful that City financiers should have been called together and asked to pay the expenses of a selected few Members who are getting per day, tax free, more than the miners get in a week.
    Mr. Prior: It would be much more appropriate if hon. Members on both sides of the House went to the European Assembly and their expenses were properly covered from this House.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that when these City people met last week and were addressed by the Secretary of State for Defence on the question of raising funds to assist those Conservative, Liberal and other assorted Members of Parliament who attend the European Assembly—
    Mr. Pardoe: Withdraw.
    Mr. Skinner:—it was argued that the money was needed because the Labour Members of Parliament were boycotting that Assembly? I ask the Minister, and

    951
    you, Mr. Speaker, whether that is a breach of privilege.
    Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member wishes to raise a matter of privilege, he must do it at the proper time and in the proper way.
    Mr. Prior: Perhaps I should start by congratulating the right hon. Gentleman on his new Parliamentary Private Secretary. I gather that, as usual, the hon. Gentleman has not got his facts right.
    Later—
    Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not the convention to introduce questions on breach of privilege immediately they are discovered or made clear to Members of Parliament?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. May I help the hon. Member? If he wishes to raise a matter of privilege, he may do so after the statement.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS
Mr. Michael Foot: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate how much the whole House is waiting to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement, but will you tell us, Mr. Speaker, whether you have had a request from the Prime Minister to make a statement on the Copenhagen meetings of the EEC Ministers? It would surely be a breach of custom that a meeting of that character should take place without a report being made to the House of Commons at the earliest possible date. It is a matter of importance for the House to know whether there has been such a request, because the kind of questions put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer may be influenced by whether the Prime Minister is to make a statement.
May I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that on a matter of such importance it would be improper for the Prime Minister to assume that he could, in the midst of a speech, make a report on which he could not be immediately cross-examined by the House. If you have not had such a request from the Prime Minister, perhaps he could make a statement at a later stage. I suggest that it would be a breach of the conventions which the House has agreed on reports of this
952
nature if the Prime Minister were not to make a statement.
Mr. Speaker: I have had no such request.

ECONOMIC SITUATION

  Introduction
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Anthony Barber): Over the past week or so, many have described the situation which we as a nation now face as by far the gravest since the end of the war. They do not exaggerate. The duty of the Government is to take whatever action the national interest requires, however severe, but equally to avoid measures which could make an already forbidding situation even worse.
  Before I come to the measures which are immediately necessary, I must describe to the House the economic outlook against which the decisions have been taken. During the past two months a series of deliberate acts have been taken, both abroad and at home, which are at present starving this country of energy. The one over which this country has the least control was the decision of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries on 16th October to bring about by unilateral action an entirely new price régime for oil. As I have already made clear on a number of occasions, this change alone must inevitably make all oil-importing countries worse off than they would otherwise be, though, for reasons I shall explain, this change in the price of oil, without any other developments, would not in itself have frustrated a policy of economic expansion. But the subsequent announcements by some oil producers of their intention to reduce the supply of oil to the rest of the world to a level which is well below present requirements has created an entirely new situation.
  Although the supply situation in 1974 is unpredictable, it is now only too probable that there will be an energy shortage in all the oil-importing countries leading to stagnant, if not falling, output accompanied by rising unemployment. In all these countries output is expected to fall faster than purchasing power, with consequent increases in demand pressures for goods and services. We will share those problems.

  953
  But in the case of our own country these problems have been compounded by another factor, specific to the United Kingdom—the industrial action in the coal and electricity industries and on the railways. This, at a critical time when we are expecting inadequate oil supplies, has cut down the availability of the primary alternative fuel, has diminished our ability to get available oil and coal to the right places for consumption and has also made it more difficult when electricity supplies diminish to ensure that essential services are not threatened.
  At this immediate point of time, by far the greatest issue facing the nation is the fact that it is this industrial action, not the future shortage of oil, which has put British industry on to a three-day week and threatened the security of employment of so many of our people. As far as the industrial situation is concerned, I must repeat what I have said before. In the general interest, it is inconceivable that any Government could agree to a dispute being settled by an offer outside the limits approved by Parliament. Because this is the case, and because many millions of people are now beginning to suffer not just inconvenience and worry but hardship and, indeed, danger, I cannot believe that the sound common sense of the British people will not prevail.

  The Economic Situation
  In the United Kingdom just over half our energy is at present provided by imported oil, a rather lower proportion than most other industrial countries. It follows that, but for the immediate industrial disruption, we are better placed than most of our overseas competitiors, such as Japan, France or Germany. Furthermore, in the years to come our situation will be fundamentally improved by the increasing output of alternatives to imported oil—more nuclear power, more North Sea gas and, above all, by North Sea oil. But this cannot affect 1974, and it is the economic policy for the British economy in 1974, with our 50 per cent. dependence on imported oil, which we have to consider.
  With all the uncertainties of the Middle East situation, it is impossible to predict, for the 12 months ahead, either the price the United Kingdom will have to pay for imported oil or the amount which will be
  954
  made available to us. But it is already inevitable that the price will be very much higher than in the first nine months of this year and that the supplies will be less than we need. The unanswerable questions are "How much higher?" and "How much less than we need?".
  The extra cost of oil to our balance of payments is a severe blow. Our balance of payments was in considerable deficit before this oil situation developed, although there was then reason to believe that, as the effective depreciation of sterling worked through into the balance of payments, the deficit would begin to improve next year. A deficit was expected and has been financed in large degree by overseas borrowing by the public sector. But international borrowing will now take on an entirely new dimension for the world as a whole.
  From some of the talks I have had, there is emerging, I believe, a general consensus that the industrial nations as a group must expect to some extent to borrow back the money to pay for this increase in the price of oil, rather than to join in a self-defeating deflationary or protectionist race to counteract the effect of the price rise on the current balance of each individual country. But in our case, given our substantial deficit without the oil problem, some corrective action now needs to be taken to keep the prospective total deficit within acceptable limits.
  But the problems created by the rise in the price of oil coming on top of the rise in world prices of other commodities—severe as they are—are overshadowed by the uncertainties about the volume of oil which we will receive.
  It has to be remembered that the levels of supply to which the Arab producers refer are those of certain months in 1973. But on our original forecast of the growth of the economy, our oil needs in 1974 would have been some 5 per cent. greater than this reference level.
  We must now accept that output in 1974 is likely to be significantly below the levels for which we were hoping, although no worthwhile estimate of gross domestic produce can be made until it is possible to forecast energy supplies. The present troubles affecting coal, transport and electricity are bound to reduce output in the early weeks of the year.
  As for oil, the best estimates are that a 10 per cent. shortfall is the most that can be coped with without loss of output. If, in 1974, oil deliveries were more than 5 per cent. below those in the reference period in 1973, this would amount to a shortfall of more than 10 per cent. compared with our needs. If over the year as a whole the oil cuts were to turn out of be 15 per cent. there would be a fall in gross domestic product rather than the 3½ per cent. growth which we had in prospect.
  In this situation two points must be stressed. First, we do not know, and we cannot at this stage know, what energy supplies will be available throughout 1974. More than in any other period, therefore, it is essential to be prepared to act again as circumstances change or clarify. The second important point to stress is that oil shortage on the scale which seems possible could mean that, while the shortage lasts, we might have to accept the living standards of, say, a year ago rather than the improvements which we could have expected in the year ahead. To recognise that is to do no more than to face up to the realities of the situation.
  Some cut-back in personal consumption will result automatically through short-time working and temporary unemployment. But the fall in output will be greater than the fall in demand, because of course, those who are unemployed will spend their social security benefits, and many consumers will reduce their rate of savings. If nothing is done there will be pressure of excess demand which will draw down stocks and hold back exports.
  In this situation the Government have decided to take steps now to reduce demand by some £1,200 million in the coming year. These steps are, in my view, the most appropriate that can be made at this time, but the uncertainties are unprecedented and I will not hesitate to take further action at any time if developments should require it.

  Taxation of Property Development
  Before I come to the measures necessary to achieve this, there is one particular matter which can conveniently be dealt with at this stage—transactions in land and buildings.
  I have in the past explained why I do not think that a straight increase in the rate of capital gains tax on land transactions is the answer. Unlike income tax, capital gains tax is charged at a flat rate, and I do not believe that it is the wish of anyone, who reflects on this problem, to increase that rate in the case of comparatively small transactions of the ordinary kind. The sort of large windfall profits, which I have previously described in this House as "offensive". fall into a different category.
  The criticism is valid, notwithstanding that, as I explained in my Budget Statement last March, profits from speculation in land are already fully taxed as income, so that for individuals the rate can be as high as 75 per cent. or in some cases even 90 per cent., and that, in the case of company profits which are distributed, the combination of corporation tax and income tax can together amount to nearly 93 per cent. of the underlying profits.
  Where land is held as an investment, however, gains on disposal are taxed as capital gains at a rate of 30 per cent. But, as I said in the Budget, it has to be recognised that any increase of taxation on land disposals could lead either to people withholding from the market land which would otherwise have been made available, or to an increase in land prices, or to both.
  What has to be weighed, therefore, is the risk that higher taxation would have this effect against the widely-held public view that the taxation of certain land profits is seriously inadequate.
  I have come to the conclusion that this is a risk which must be accepted, and I have accordingly decided that new measures are called for.
  For the reasons I have given, I am sure that it would be wrong to raise the general 30 per cent. rate of capital gains tax. This is a long-term tax, and when this rate was fixed in 1965 the then Government justified the fact that it was lower than the rates of income tax by acknowledging that there was no allowance for the effect of inflation. That is still the case today. What is required is something which recognises the particular nature of certain land profits.
  What differentiates land from other assets liable to capital gains tax is the

  957
  fact that with land an owner can quite fortuitously make huge windfall gains simply as a result of decisions made by planning authorities acting on behalf of the community as a whole. It is the huge gains due to this development value—or even to potential development value—which people find offensive. It is this element in the gain on a disposal—the development gain—which should be liable to taxation at a rate higher than 30 per cent.
  This was, of course, the concept that underlay the betterment levy established by the previous Government's Land Commission Act. But that Act suffered from a number of fundamental defects which were, no doubt, the main reason why its repeal went unmourned. The truth is that the betterment levy was a bad tax, and that was why it failed.
  It was not graduated according to a taxpayer's ability to pay. It was charged on individuals when there was no disposal, so that those individuals often had to realise other savings to pay it. It sometimes imposed a burden on the ordinary owner-occupier and on others who were in no way involved in land development or land speculation. Also, perhaps most important of all, the levy fell upon a huge number of totally insignificant transactions which involved a mammoth bureaucracy and a vast interference with thousands of perfectly inoffensive small transactions in land, far removed from the kind of large windfall gains which have been the principal source of disquiet in recent years.
  I am sure that there is no wish to return to that kind of impost. Whatever is done must avoid each of those objections to the betterment levy.
  The House will remember that during the debates on the Land Commission Bill my right hon. Friends argued that the particular problem of development gains, as distinct from normal land transactions, could be dealt with by an extension of the capital gains tax. This is the concept which we have been working on with a view to legislation in the next Finance Bill. The change will now be made forthwith.
  To avoid the mistakes of the betterment levy, the new charge must have three principal features.
  First, it must be charged at rates which take account of the vendor's ability to pay.
  Second, it should normally be paid only when there is a disposal.
  Third, the great mass—[Interruption.] What I have to say concerns many people throughout the country. I hope, therefore, that the House will allow me to deliver my statement in its normally courteous manner. Third, the great mass of small land transactions and, of course, all sales by owner occupiers must be excluded. These are not the cases which have given rise to public disquiet.
  Legislation will accordingly be included in the 1974 Finance Bill to tax development gains much more severely. The new tax rates will apply to disposals of land or buildings in the United Kingdom after today.
  Tax at the new rates will be charged on the gain in development value during the vendor's period of ownership. But only gains above a number of closely-defined limits will be subject to the new charge.
  Subject to these limits—which I will outline in a moment—gains in development value made by individuals who are liable to income tax will be taxed as income at normal income tax rates up to 75 per cent. Development gains made by companies will be taxed as income at the full corporation tax rate, but companies will not be able to set payments of advance corporation tax against the corporation tax payable on these gains. Individuals will be able to spread the gain backwards over four income tax years or such lesser period during which the land or buildings have been in their ownership.
  As with the existing charge to capital gains tax, the principal private residence or a house occupied by a dependent relative will be exempt.
  The limits will be as follows.
  First, there will be excluded from the new charge all disposals of land and buildings by an individual in any year where the total proceeds do not exceed £10,000. For companies, in order to avoid the danger of fragmented sales by companies in the same ownership, the threshold will be £1,000.
  Second, there will be excluded disposals where the total gain—that is, existing use gain as well as development gain—is less than 20 per cent. of the cost, That simple test will enable the Revenue to disregard at a glance many disposals where the development gain must be quite small.
  Third, there will be excluded disposals where the disposal proceeds do not exceed the current use value plus 10 per cent. That will take out most cases where there is merely a slight prospect of future development.
  These limits are essential to exclude the great mass of small disposals, or disposals with a little development value, which would otherwise clog up the machinery of valuation and collection.
  No significant revenue is at stake with these limits; and they will enable the new charge to be operated by the Inland Revenue with relatively few additional staff.
  Also, as I have said, a principal private residence, or a house occupied by a dependent relative, will be exempted from the new charge, just as they are exempted from the capital gains tax.
  There will be provisions to extend the charge to disposals of shares in close land-owning companies and to interests in certain trusts, which means that it will be of no advantage to an individual to hold his land interests through a private company.
  I turn next to another, and even more difficult area in this general context of the taxation of land and buildings—the case where a property investment company has unrealised gains accrued over many years on which, because there are no disposals, any capital gains tax is postponed indefinitely. This was, of course, inherent in the capital gains tax as introduced by the then Government in 1965. An example will illustrate the point. A development company acquires land at its current use value. It subsequently gets planning permission, builds, and lets the building without any premium. Under the law as it stands, the letting in these circumstances is not a disposal for the purposes of capial gains tax.
  This general problem also we have been considering, and I have come to the conclusion that it is wrong to allow liability
  960
  to be postponed in these circumstances because, as a matter of common sense, the letting of the premises should be treated as a disposal.
  The 1974 Finance Bill will therefore provide that where material development of land or buildings in the United Kingdom, other than residential development, has been carried out by an owner and the property is subsequently let for the first time, this first letting will be treated as a disposal for all purposes of the capital gains tax, including, where appropriate, the charge on the development gain. The charge will apply to all such first-time lettings after today.
  Here again, it is necessary to have a limit below which this new occasion of charge will not operate. It would be wrong for the Revenue to be concerned with the great mass of small commercial lettings that may be made of new buildings up and down the country—for instance, where a shop with a store at the back is built and the store is let to a tenant. Only, therefore, where the proceeds of lettings are equivalent to a rack rent of £2,500 or more a year will a disposal be treated as having taken place for capital gains tax.
  Finally, on this part of my statement, I should make it clear that any capital gains from the disposal of land which are not subject to the new charge or to the new rule about first lettings—for instance, gains below the thresholds and so on—will remain subject to the normal tax charge on capital gains.
  Because of the importance of these changes, which I have inevitably had to explain at some length, the Inland Revenue is publishing a fuller statement setting out more of the details which will be contained in the legislation.
  It is obviously very difficult to estimate the yield of proposals of this sort, but the best estimate that can be made is that their total yield will amount to some £80 million in a full year.

  Credit Control, Indirect Taxation and Energy Prices
  I return now to the action which is necessary to reduce home demand in order to leave sufficient of our reduced resources available for export and for

  961
  productive investment in the private sector.
  First, consumer credit. Despite the inherent disadvantages in normal circumstances, I am sure that it is right, in the present exceptional situation, to reduce demand arising from personal consumption by reimposing controls on hire-purchase, credit sale and hiring agreements. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has accordingly made the necessary orders. These controls will cover a wide range of consumer items and will take effect from midnight tonight. The details of the terms and coverage are being announced separately by the Department of Trade and Industry.
  The banks and finance houses are being asked not to lend to persons or to offer check trading facilities on terms more favourable than those permitted under the hire-purchase controls. At my request, steps are also being taken to ensure that the provision of credit through credit cards is similarly restrained.
  With my agreement, the Governor is also taking steps to strengthen the techniques for controlling the growth of money and credit. The clearing banks have been asked to make certain changes in their practices designed both to limit arbitrage transactions and to secure a better control over the growth of their lending. The Governor is also requesting all banks and deposit-taking finance houses to adhere to a new technique under which non-interest-bearing special deposits would be placed with the Bank of England if their interest-bearing liabilities grow at more than a specified rate.
  With the introduction of this new device, and in view of the pressures on banks' liquidity which may arise in the period ahead, the call for the second 1 per cent. of special deposits announced on 13th November is no longer required. The intention of these monetary control changes is not to impose an additional squeeze outside the field of consumer credit: it is to ensure that we have effective control over money and credit during the difficult period which lies ahead. The new technique will enable the authorities to control the volume of money and credit with less reliance on general calls for
  962
  special deposits: it can therefore be expected to reduce the pressure on bank interest rates.
  Under the legislative provisions governing VAT, and by means of the more traditional regulator which covers the Revenue duties, the taxation of goods and services can be raised without the need for a Finance Bill. The effectiveness of action on indirect taxation is well established, by its frequent use in the past.
  Its disadvantage is, of course, that any increase in the taxation of goods and services makes a direct contribution to raising prices, but that is a disadvantage which, depending on the circumstances, previous Governments have accepted. The conclusion which I have reached is that the necessary restraint on domestic demand should be achieved in other ways, and, therefore, there will be no increase in indirect taxation at this time.
  There is one area of prices which I should particularly mention. At a time of the most acute energy shortage and in our present financial difficulties, it is anomalous—to say the least—that we are subsidising coal and electricity prices at a mounting rate. Unless action is taken on coal prices, the financial support required for coal, which exceeds £150 million this financial year, could easily be doubled next year. The subsidy for electricity is running at about £75 million a year, but that does not take account of the cost of the present emergency. Consultations with the industries on the price of coal and electricity will, therefore, be carried out as a matter of urgency. Arrangements will be made to safeguard the neediest households.

  Direct Taxation
  I come now to the taxation of income, where there will be one change. There is a dilemma which has to be squarely faced. Any increase in the basic rate of income tax is bound to hit millions of ordinary people who, through absolutely no fault of their own but entirely as a consequence of the deliberate actions of others abroad and at home, will soon find themselves with thinner pay packets as a result of the three-day working week. So, with one exception, I do not intend to increase the direct taxation of incomes.
  Those on higher incomes will, in general, obviously be better able to cope with the situation we face. I have decided

  963
  that in respect of the last year of surtax, 1972–73, there will therefore be a 10 per cent. surcharge on total surtax bills. The surcharge will be payable half on 1st July 1974 and half on 1st January 1975.
  The surcharge will not apply to anyone over 65 on 5th April 1974. The yield will be £35 million.

  Public Expenditure
  With the fall in output resulting from the shortage of energy, there will be some automatic fall in private demand as incomes fall because of short-time working and temporary unemployment. But without a deliberate act of Government there would be no such fall in demand by the public sector. It would be quite wrong for the public sector to continue unabated its demands for goods and services and its consumption of energy, leaving the private sector to bear the whole of the brunt of the energy shortage.
  Despite the small rise in public expenditure which was planned for each of the next three years, I am sure that it is right that the main weight of the action I am taking should lie not on persons or private sector industry but on public expenditure. To do that will make for a more tolerable level of personal consumption and release resources for exports and for private industrial investment.
  It is important to be clear about the purpose of reducing public expenditure in a situation of energy shortage. Shortage of energy and constraint on economic growth are bound to lead to a rise in unemployment. That cannot be avoided. It is inherent in the situation. But the direction of the cuts in public expenditure must be such as to avoid, as far as is humanly possible, a reduction in employment in the public sector being added to the inevitable unemployment created by the energy shortage in the private sector. It is the consumption of fuel and power by the public sector that has to be reduced, not its employment of people. There would be no point, in the wholly unique situation we face, in saving public expenditure by deliberately reducing the numbers of public servants.
  The particular reductions in public expenditure must, therefore, be directed
  964
  not just, as elsewhere, to cutting the demand for energy in the form of heating of buildings, use of cars and lorries, and so on, but, and of far greater significance, to cutting the indirect demand for for energy by reducing public construction programmes and public purchases of supplies of all kinds.
  The Government have, therefore, decided that public expenditure on building and construction, on plant and equipment, and on supplies of all kinds will be reduced, and, subject only to a very few exceptions, the reductions will apply in respect of all programmes which use resources in this way.
  There will be no reduction in investment in the energy industries themselves, or in public sector house building.
  The Ministers concerned are accordingly making arrangements for a reduction of one-fifth in the total of their capital programmes, and of one-tenth in the total of their procurement of supplies and other current expenditure on goods and services, excluding staff costs. Somewhat lower reductions will apply only where essential supplies—for example, for the National Health Service—would otherwise be jeopardised.
  In implementing this decision, the Ministers concerned will determine the priorities within their own programmes. The Ministers concerned will make every effort to avoid adding to unemployment in cases where work could otherwise proceed because supplies of materials are adequate. Cases of special difficulty will be considered within the Treasury, but the renegotiation of contracts in certain cases cannot be excluded if we are to make sure that work which is of a lower priority does not pre-empt resources needed elsewhere—for instance, to maintain exports or important household needs.
  These decisions on public expenditure will entail a reduction in the total of the current expenditure which was accepted by the local authorities in England and Wales in the recent rate support grant discussions, and a reduction in the amount of grant previously envisaged for 1974–75. Corresponding arrangements will be made in Scotland.
  The usual detailed annual White Paper on Public Expenditure, which was due to

  965
  be published this week, was prepared before the developments which have caused this statement. Although it does not take account of these decisions, it will still be published as a base line for the reductions which I have announced.
  The reductions in 1974–75 will total some £1,200 million. A table will be circulated in HANSARD setting out the reductions in the various programmes and the effect on the totals of public expenditure which had previously been planned for next year.
  This is by far the largest reduction in public expenditure for a succeeding year which has ever been made, both in absolute and in relative terms. It is bound to mean curtailing and deferring many desirable projects, to which we had been looking forward, but I think that the British people will prefer this way to the alternatives which I have rejected at this time.
  The result will be that, whereas public expenditure on goods and services had been expected to rise by nearly 3 per cent. next year, it will now fall by over 3½ per cent., and whereas total public expenditure was expected to rise by under 2 per cent. next year, it will now fall by some 2 per cent.
  As immediate action will be necessary to fulfil these decisions, there will in consequence be a reduction also in this year's public expenditure.

  Conclusion
  I do not think that any of my predecessors would dispute that, in the face of the many uncertainties ahead of us over the coming year, an economic judgment at this time is—to put it mildly—more difficult than usual. That is why it is important to say quite openly that, while I believe that the judgment I have made is the right one, I shall not hesitate to take, at any time, any further action which may be required in the national interest.
  Within five to seven years about two-thirds of our oil requirements will be met from the North Sea, and beyond that there is every hope that production will grow to equal our total needs. This alone will give Britain an immense industrial advantage. It will transform our balance of payments.
  But over the next year or so, it must be said that we in Britain face a severe test, and that over this period we shall not achieve the prosperity we expected. No Government, no party, could honestly pretend otherwise.
  I hope the House will permit me one personal word. I have taken the action which I believe to be right. I have tried to be fair. I hope the nation will respond.
  Mr. Healey: The House has listened to a very sombre statement, and I do not think that any of us will complain about its length. It is that Autumn Budget for which many of us had been waiting, and I hope that I may be allowed a little more latitude than is normal in asking questions following a ministerial statement, because of the comprehensive statement made by the right hon. Gentleman.
  First, the Opposition welcome the degree of realism shown by the Chancellor in facing some of the facts of our national economic situation. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House feel that if the Chancellor had shown the same degree of realism when he framed his Budget last March some of the sacrifices which the nation faces today would have been unnecessary.
  Having said that, I am bound to say that in the measures which the Chancellor has outlined to deal with our national situation he has shown a degree of discrimination in favour of the private individual against the public services and public expenditure which will undermine the appeal for national unity which the Prime Minister made only a few days ago.
  In his remarks about the contribution made by current industrial disputes to our problem the Chancellor invited his critics to put some facts on record. The fact is—and the House knows this—that the cuts which the Chancellor has announced would have been just as necessary if there had been no energy problem and no industrial disputes.
  Figures published in the last few days show that in the last two months our balance of payments deficit has been running at an annual rate of more than £3,000 million per year, and that is in a period in which the increased cost of Arab oil could not have been more than £10 million to £20 million.

  967
  Figures published on Friday show that, in the first year of the Government's humorously entitled counter-inflation policy, inflation was running at more than 10 per cent.—
  Sir Harmar Nieholls: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. Is there a motion before the House? We seem to be debating instead of asking questions. For one right hon. Member to take up all the question time is not fair to the House or to back benchers who want to ask questions which will enlighten them on the terms of the statement.
  Mr. Speaker: It is the custom, following a statement of the kind that the Chancellor has made, for the Opposition spokesman to be allowed a certain amount of time. On each occasion there is an objection from the Government side. I seem to remember the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) making the same point when a statement was made in the previous Parliament.
  Mr. Healey: As I was saying, inflation was running at more than 10 per cent. during the first year of the humorously entitled counter-inflation policy adopted by the Government, and last week's figures also show that growth had fallen in the last three months to under the rate of 3 per cent. per year, and is still falling. I am glad that the Chancellor at last gave us a more realistic assessment of the implications of the oil crisis, although it gives a different impression from his earlier statement and, above all, from that given by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
  The background to the proposals which the Chancellor has put before us is an oil crisis which, as the right hon. Gentleman fairly said, will lead the whole of the developed world into a trade recession and a recession of production over the next 10 months which Britain is in a weaker position to meet than any of her competitors.
  The Opposition welcome what the Chancellor said, if I understood him rightly, about agreement on international action to neutralise the effect on trade and the payment of unexpended Arab surpluses arising out of the increase in oil prices. But it is quite clear from what the Chancellor said that this is a national
  968
  crisis that will require the best efforts of us all to resolve.
  Mr. William Clark: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I trust that in your generosity you will allow hon. Members on this side of the House also to debate this motion, or to debate what the Chancellor said. I always understood that when a Minister made a statement questions were allowed but not a debate. I should like to ask whether, if I am fortunate enough to catch your eye, I, too, shall be allowed to debate the matter?
  Mr. Speaker: I have already referred to this. It is a convention of the House that, when a statement of this sort is made by whichever party is in office, the Opposition spokesman is allowed considerable latitude.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: Further to that point of order Mr. Speaker. While it is in accordance with precedent to allow latitude to a Front Bench spokesman, is it not an abuse that a spokesman from the Front Bench opposite should be allowed to deliver a lecture on Socialist economics which, quite clearly, was written before the Chancellor made his statement?
  Mr. Speaker: I anticipated these points of order, and I examined the precedents before coming to the House. It is a convention that a certain amount of latitude should be given. I do not think that there should be abuse of that convention, and I am not saying that there has been any yet. It is a convention which I propose to observe.
  Mr. Healey: In the light of what the Chancellor told us, is it not the Government's duty in this situation to achieve maximum growth out of the diminished resources that are likely to be available to this country over the next year? Is it not impossible for any Government to achieve those objectives unless they are prepared totally to change our national priorities and to allocate scarce resources in order to maximise the possibilities of growth?
  The Opposition's contention is that by indiscriminate cuts in public expenditure right across the board the Chancellor is likely to make all our problems more difficult—not less difficult—to solve, and I should like to put this question to the

  969
  Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman had something to say about the contribution made by current industrial troubles to a possible reduction in growth. Am I to infer from his speech that the right hon. Gentleman does not assume that the country will be subjected to a three-day week for the next 12 months? Am I not right in assuming that the whole of the right hon. Gentleman's statement and his proposals assume that those industrial problems will be overcome in the very near future?
  Were not all his proposals related either to the economic situation which existed before the energy crisis or to the aggravation of that situation created by the increase in the price of Arab oil and the probable cuts in its supply? Is it not the case that a cut of just over £1,000 million in the Government's deficit would be totally irrelevant if we were dealing with the sort of situation which the Prime Minister tried to frighten us into accepting last Thursday?
  Can the Chancellor explain how, at a time when energy is likely to be a major constraint on our national growth, he is subjecting the oil, coal, electricity and gas industries and the nuclear power industry in its public aspects to the same 20 per cent. cut as the Maplin airport?—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—If I misunderstood the Chancellor about this, I invite him to make it clear in his statement. So far as I could understand it, he talked about reducing the element of subsidy on the products of the nationalised industries. Does he propose to do that by increasing the price of their products? If not so, how does he propose to do it?
  Secondly, is steel production to be exempted from the cuts to which the right hon. Gentleman referred? Thirdly, why is he not prepared to submit less necessary public expenditure projects such as Maplin, the Channel Tunnel and, above all, defence, to a disproportionate cut compared with the more essential elements in public expenditure?
  I pass now to some questions about the tax side of the Chancellor's proposals. The Chancellor made it clear that during the next year living standards are likely to fall. What many of us—many on the Government side of the House, as well as the Opposition—were hoping to hear from the Chancellor was talk of some
  970
  redistribution of the tax burdens. We say that the cut in living standards should be borne by those best able to bear it. But all that we have concerning direct taxation is a levy which will bring in £35 million—I think the Chancellor said—from people who paid surtax last year.
  Why has the Chancellor made no proposal whatever in his statement to cushion those whose earnings are below the average against the appalling increases in rents, mortgage rates and the cost of food, which are bound to continue by the Chancellor's own arguments? Why did the Chancellor have no proposals for dealing with the 100 per cent. increase in bank profits over the last year, due not to any increased productivity by bank staff but wholly to the means by which the Chancellor is trying to deal with economic problems that he has created for himself?
  Mr. Gorst: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely the usage of the House, Mr. Speaker, has been taken to such an elastic extent that it has by now snapped.
  Mr. Speaker: That is a matter for the Chair. I remind hon. Members on both sides of the House that we are to have a two-day debate.
  Mr. Healey: Why has the Chancellor made no proposal to withdraw the tax-free loan interest which he introduced in his Budget last year and which, in itself, has been in part responsible for our rate of inflation?
  I come now to the Chancellor's proposal for dealing with profits in land and property. The Opposition welcome at least the Chancellor's bold and accurate statement about the nature of these profits and their obscenity in the current situation, or, indeed, in any situation. But can the Chancellor explain how his proposals will do anything to remove the monstrosity of the treatment of Centre Point, with which the Government promised to deal over a year ago and which the Government have now decided to do nothing about?
  The Chancellor told us that he proposes to raise £80 million out of various forms of taxation of property companies which have seen their assets increase in value by thousands of millions of pounds in the last two or three years. Does not the right hon. Gentleman's new tax on

  971
  rental, treating it as disposal, apply only to the first rental, property companies remaining free to increase their rents year by year in line with the enormous increase in the value of the property which they rent? Does not the Chancellor feel that in this situation it would have been right to mulct the property companies by a special levy of at least some thousands on the millions of pounds which they have made out of inflation in the last few years?
  Finally—[Interruption.]— does the Chancellor recognise that in seeking to place the burden of the inflation for which he has been responsible on local authorities, the public services and the social services, and in sparing the richer sections of the community from making a contribution commensurate with their wealth, he has undermined the possibility of creating that national unity which is the nation's only hope in dealing with the current crisis?
  Mr. Barber: I could have adopted the device of one of my predecessors, in a previous Labour Government, and made my statement as the opening speech in a debate. I decided not to follow that practice on this occasion because I thought, out of courtesy to the House, that it would be helpful to make my statement today so that it could be considered before the debate began. We would have avoided the questions if I had adopted the previous practice.
  Perhaps hon. Members would like to hear the answers to some of the points raised by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey). Concerning the Government's economic strategy, before the oil crisis and before the self-inflicted shortages of energy—
  Mr. Swain: Tell us the answers.
  Mr. Barber:—both the TUC and the CBI agreed that it was perfectly reasonable to keep the rate of growth up to that of productive potential. That was the agreement between us.
  Next, the right hon. Gentleman asked how my measures were related to the possible length of the present industrial disputes in the coal and electricity industries and on the railways. In deciding upon the particular measures which I considered best and most appro-
  972
  priate at this time, I certainly had in mind the fact that as a result of this industrial action there would be many people in this country who would be suffering considerable hardship and who would be having thinner pay packets. It was to some extent for this reason that I decided on the particular measures that I have announced today.
  Because some hon. Members opposite were interrupting at the time and obviously did not hear what I said about the energy industries, I will repeat it. In my statement I said that there would be no reduction in investment in the energy industries. As for steel, I have no doubt that, as a result of the shortage of energy, that industry will not be able to achieve the targets that it would have otherwise achieved. We have already had a foretaste of that from some of the figures of production which were reported recently.
  The right hon. Gentleman went on to make some general criticisms about the measures that I have chosen. He gave the House the clear impression—I understand from what he has said outside that it is his view—that instead of the action this Government have taken to deal with public expenditure, to which he objects, and to deal with the expenditure of local authorities, to which he objects, in his turn, having said that it was necessary to take action, he would presumably have taken action on direct or indirect taxation. Therefore, those outside the House will take note of the right hon. Gentleman's choice.
  I have given the House the facts. There are many uncertainties and many conflicting considerations, but, bearing all these in mind, I have decided on the measures which I believe are most appropriate, in all the circumstances. The right hon. Gentleman also made an extraordinary statement, which I took down. He complained and criticised us over what he called our "discrimination in favour of the private individual". I think that those words, too, will be noted outside. Those outside will know where, if the right hon. Gentleman had had to act over the oil problems which face the country now, the burden would have fallen under his administration. Perhaps it would have been better, for the right hon. Gentleman's sake, if I had adopted

  973
  the practice of his predecessor and not allowed myself to be questioned.
  Sir John Hall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have not written my speech for tomorrow's debate, so my question will be brief? Is he further aware that the implications are so far reaching that it is difficult to deal with them in the form of question and answer? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, in the new arrangements which he has announced for the banks, industry's ability to obtain credit for the financing of industrial development will not be limited?
  Mr. Barber: My hon. Friend is right in that assumption. There is no such intention. The objective is to limit credit for private consumption and not in any way to limit it for industrial development.
  Mr. Dell: In the cuts in public expenditure, can the Chancellor say what discrimination he has made in favour of the regions?
  Mr. Barber: The grants, loans and subsidies available to the regions under the Industry Act will not be affected by the cuts. Areas which have higher unemployment than the rest of the country will, therefore, get some protection from the effects of the crisis through the continuation of those policies. In the serious situation that we face, the effects of the action we are taking are bound to be spread throughout the country.
  Mr. Powell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that those of us, at any rate on this side of the House, who have for many months been stressing the urgency of budgetary measures to deal with our underlying problem of inflation, will offer to him every encouragement and support in carrying through those of the measures which he has announced?
  Mr. Barber: I say very genuinely to my right hon. Friend, I am grateful.
  Mr. Thorpe: Would the right hon. Gentleman confirm that it would be his hope that his financial statement will not only deal with the management of the economy but psychologically that it will make all sections of the community more ready to accept the prices and incomes policy? Does the Chancellor feel that the Government's objective has been achieved and is it the Government's view
  974
  that phase 3 still remains realistic? Second, what is the Chancellor's assessment of the effects of his measures on unemployment? Third, may we take it that the Government intend to make a more rigorous control of prices, and why, in particular, has he excluded rents? Fourth, has the right hon. Gentleman considered, and if so why has he not adopted, the concept of land value taxation in order that the assessed revaluation of capital appreciation, whether disposed of or not, may be taxed? Finally, in view of the admitted importance of energy, has not the time come for urgent consideration of the appointment of an energy commission to deal with the exploitation and conservation of our resources?
  Mr. Barber: On the right hon. Member's first point, I am afraid that it is inevitable and inherent in this situation, with the shortage of energy, of oil and coal, and all the problems that we face in the transport of both oil and coal—as a result of actions deliberately taken, as I said, outside and within this country—that there will be unemployment and short-time working. No Government could take action to avoid this so long as these problems persist. As for taxation of land, I have considered all the aspects and I came to the conclusion that, in all the circumstances, by far the best and most practicable way—there are great practical problems—was to deal with it in the way that I have mentioned.
  May I comment on the incomes policy and the right hon. Gentleman's request that it should be accepted? I say, as I said in the concluding words of my statement—which, for understandable reasons were not clearly heard by hon. Members opposite—that in the action I have taken I have done what I believe to be right in the national interest in the circumstances. Furthermore, I have tried to be fair. I now hope that the nation will respond.
  Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: On this sombre day, will not my right hon. Friend cast a little light, a ray of brightness, on the proceedings by telling us by how much these measures which he has announced will reduce the Government's borrowing requirement?
  Mr. Barber: The reduction in public expenditure to which I referred—£1,200

  975
  million in the next financial year—will reduce the borrowing requirement, pound for pound, by the same amount.
  Mr. Swain: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that his right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) warned him months ago about the situation that was gradually but inevitably creeping upon the Government—months before the wage negotiations with the miners even began, let alone before the industrial action took place?
  Mr. Barber: It is well known that both my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) and I have been warning each other of various things for a long time.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: Is my right hon. Friend aware that while his statement may have made it quite clear that public housing will be relieved from some of the imposts which he has described, it was not clear what would be available for private housing? Private housing must work in partnership with public housing or our housing needs will not be properly met.
  Mr. Barber: Certainly what I said about public sector housing investment was said in relation to my statement about public expenditure, but one hopes that, despite the shortages that we shall undoubtedly have in building materials, in bricks, cement and steel, as a result of the shortage of energy, the maximum priority will be given to housing in the private sector. Of course, if the public sector's demands for these materials for construction of one kind or another had continued unabated, there would have been even less available for private sector housing.
  Mr. Frank Allaun: Will the 10 per cent. cut in public expenditure apply to arms spending, which this year increased by £520 million to £3,350 million? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if the Government cut back in this direction to the same level of the gross national product as is devoted to armaments by the other West European NATO countries, it would save our country £1,083 million a year and thus obviate the need for nearly all the other cuts, which will hurt our people severely?
  Mr. Barber: The reduction in public expenditure on defence under these proposals amounts to £178 million. The hon. Member will be pleased to know, I am sure, that the forces that we are contributing to NATO will not be reduced, despite the fact that some improvements in equipment may be delayed as a result of these decisions.
  Several hon. Members Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I should like the help of the House. This cannot go on for much longer. Those who catch my eye now to put a supplementary question may be diminishing their chances during the debate.
  Sir R. Cary: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, for a few months past, I have been wondering what it meant to be 75 years of age? For his statement on surtax, may I thank him? May I point out that a large number of firms have installed generators with sufficient oil stocks to run their factories? May the firms which had this foresight be allowed to use those generators to help employ their work people?
  Mr. Barber: I will draw what my hon. Friend said to the attention of my right hon. Friend who is responsible. As for your adjuring us, Mr. Speaker, to be careful about putting questions now, I hope that the fact that the right hon. Member for Leeds, East was the first to catch your eye will not prevent him from being called in the two-day debate.
  Mr. John Morris: Am I right in assuming that, so serious does the Chancellor regard the state of the economy, if the trouble with the industrial unions were resolved tomorrow, he would not change his proposals by one comma?
  Mr. Barber: If, as we all hope, the industrial troubles are settled soon, certainly there would be no immediate change in the proposals that I have made.
  Mr. Tapsell: When will the special measures be announced to which my right hon. Friend referred to protect the poorer sections of the community from the proposed increases in the price of coal and electricity—before Christmas or not? Will they include measures to take direct action to stabilise the cost of certain basic foodstuffs?
  Mr. Barber: We have been over the ground on food subsidies many times, and we have also discussed the considerable increase in taxation which would be necessary if we were to make the sort of stabilisation which has been suggested by right hon. and hon. Members opposite. As for energy prices, what I said, as my hon. Friend will find if he looks up the exact words, was that consultations with the industries will be held as a matter of urgency. Until those consultations have been completed, it would be wrong to say any more about the

  PUBLIC EXPENDITURE: 1973–74 AND 1974–75

  £ million

  Reductions for

  1973–74 Cmnd. 5519

  1974–75 Cmnd. 5519

  Capital

  Procurement

  1974–75 Total

  1974–75 Revised programmes

  At 1973 Survey prices

  Defence and external relations

  …

  1. Defence

  …

  3,398

  3,418

  −16

  −162

  −178

  3,240

  2. Overseas services

  …

  590

  603

  —

  —

  —

  603

  Commerce and industry

  3. Agriculture, fisheries and forestry

  …

  576

  532

  −4

  −3

  −7

  525

  4. Trade, industry and employment

  …

  1,917

  1,664

  −10

  −9

  −19

  1,645

  5. Nationalised industries' capital expenditure of which—

  Fixed assets:

  Fuel and power industries

  …

  1,815

  723*

  —

  —

  −264

  1,801

  Other industries

  …

  1,323

  −264

  —

  Other capital expenditure

  …

  19

  —

  —

  Environmental services

  6. Roads and transport

  …

  1,570

  1,632

  −188

  −24

  −212

  1,420

  7. Housing

  …

  2,165

  1,963

  —

  —

  —

  1,963

  8. Other environmental services

  …

  1,425

  1,409

  −139

  −9

  −148

  1,261

  9. Law, order and protective services

  …

  948

  973

  −21

  −11

  −32

  941

  Social services

  10. Education and libraries, science and arts

  …

  4,163

  4,249

  −119

  −63

  −182

  4,067

  11. Health and personal social services

  …

  3,286

  3,378

  −69

  −42

  −111

  3,267

  12. Social security

  …

  5,458

  5,725

  —

  —

  —

  5,725

  Other services

  13. Other public services

  …

  419

  412

  −4

  —

  −4

  408

  14. Common services

  …

  433

  459

  −17

  −6

  −23

  436

  15. Northern Ireland

  …

  770

  782

  —

  —

  —

  782

  Total programmes

  …

  28,933

  29,264

  −851

  −329

  −1,180

  28,084

  arrangements which in the event would be made to safeguard the neediest households.
  Mr. Joel Barnett: How much will the Chancellor's statement on land and property help or not help to let Centre Point?
  Mr. Barber: I do not propose, on an occasion when I am making a statement about a general change in taxation—a question and answer occasion—to deal with the question of a specific tax claim.
  Following is the table:

  £ million

  Reductions for

  1973–74 Cmnd. 5519

  1974–75 Cmnd. 5519

  Capital

  Procurement

  1974–75 Total

  1974–75 Revised programmes

  16. Debt interest

  …

  2,950

  2,800

  —

  —

  —

  2,800

  Contingency reserve

  …

  —

  150

  —

  —

  + 100

  250

  Shortfall

  …

  −400

  −300

  —

  —

  −100

  −400

  Adjustment to 1973–74 out-turn prices and relative price effect

  …

  865

  890

  −25

  −10

  −35

  855

  At 1973–74 outturn prices

  Total

  …

  32,348

  32,804

  −876

  −339

  −1,215

  31,589

  Percentage increase (+)/decrease (−) on 1973–74:

  %

  %

  in total expenditure (cost terms)†

  …

  + 1·8

  −2·0

  in purchase of goods and services (volume terms)

  …

  +2·9

  −3·7

  *This figure embodies assumed shortfall of £100 million.

  † Excluding Investment Grants.

COMPLAINT OF PRIVILEGE
Mr. Skinner: You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that when I raised this matter at Question Time I mentioned a dinner in the City concerned with the raising of sufficient funds for those Members of Parliament who attend the Strasbourg Assembly.
I referred to an article in the Observer yesterday by Iain Murray on the plight of our Strasbourg MPs. He referred to the fact that 100 City bankers were guests at the Banqueting Hall in order to assist those Members. They were addressed by the Secretary of State for Defence, Lord Carrington. The article said:
"The burden of his message was that our men and women in the European Parliament were, what with one thing and another, finding it difficult to make ends meet"—
notwithstanding the fact that they get £25 a day tax-free, with expenses on top—
"and their task would be greatly eased if the City could see its way clear to providing the odd £100,000 for each of the next four years."
Perhaps the most important point, which should concern you, Mr. Speaker, is that the article went on to say:
"The explanation was that, because the Labour Party persists in its stubborn refusal to send MPs to Strasbourg, it would be both embarrassing and inexpedient for the Conservatives"—
and, one assumes, the Liberals and the hon. and learned Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taverne) as well—
"to ask the House of Commons for cash, particularly at a time when the Government is trying to cut back on public expenditure."
980
I am not moved to raise points about breaches of privilege when they concern individual Members, but I am concerned about breaches of privilege which affect the ability of an Opposition to carry out a policy that they believe right. Therefore, since £100,000 is sought to be raised from the City for people who attend Strasbourg, since they would be taking action as a result of the determination of Labour's policy, and since we are supposedly to debate a Companies Bill some time, although the Government seem rather loth to get around to it, which may well have more than an indirect effect on the City and its relationship not only with hon. Members with with people outside, I suggest that this article needs your close scrutiny, Mr. Speaker, and should be examined to ensure that what takes place between the City and those hon. Members who attended that dinner does not result in a breach of privilege.
Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Member said that he was relying on a report in a newspaper—
Mr. Skinner: I usually do.
Mr. Speaker: Will he bring it up? [Copy of newspaper handed in.] I am obliged to the hon. Member. I will rule in accordance with practice on his point tomorrow.
Mr. English: Further to that point of order. When you are ruling, Mr. Speaker, would you also take into consideration my related question, asked last Monday and not yet answered, as to why, apparently, the Civil Aviation Authority

981
is operating a special plane at a rate lower than it licenses—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not detect any question of privilege in that matter.

ECONOMIC SITUATION (DEBATE)
Mr. Wellbeloved: On a point of order. You said, Mr. Speaker, that hon. Members who were called to put questions to the Chancellor might find their chances decreased of catching your eye in the two-day debate. May we take it that other hon. Members who were standing and did not catch your eye have increased their chances?
Mr. Speaker: There is another factor. It may depend upon how much noise is made from a sedentary position.
Mr. C. Pannell: On a point of order. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether you will reconsider your earlier statement. I think it is out of character of the Chair that it should issue anything which either stops a Member from asking a question or impedes him, or which might indicate that the Chair has any reservations. The Chair must surely face the debate at the time. With great respect, I wonder whether you, Mr. Speaker, will reconsider that statement.
Mr. Speaker: With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I consider very carefully the number of times hon. Members have spoken, the extent to which they have taken part in Questions and sometimes, also, the kind of interjection which they have made from a sedentary position. Those are all very relevant matters when the Chair is exercising its discretion.
Mr. Wellbeloved: Further to that point of order. On the question, Mr. Speaker, of your taking into account sedentary interruptions, may I ask how they are assessed? You implied that I myself had been guilty of making a sedentary interruption today. If you did not, I accept that my chances are very good in the two-day debate. But now that you have told us that you take into account such interruptions, I wonder whether you will enlarge upon how you make an assessment. Speeches and questions are
982
all recorded and can be accurately assessed from the OFFICIAL REPORT. But I wonder how those who advise you judge the other matter of interruptions from a seated position.
Mr. Speaker: I rely upon my own faculties. This is all very interesting; and decibels sometimes have an effect upon my judgment. May we continue? Presentation of a Bill—
Mr. Kelley: On a point of order—
Mr. Speaker: I do not think there is a point of order. What point of order is the hon. Member seeking to raise?
Mr. Kelley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Chancellor of the Exchequer failed to record in his remarks the fact that the main instrument of inflation in the world today, particularly in this country, is the massive expenditure—
Mr. Speaker: Order. It cannot possibly be a point of order as to what the Chancellor failed to put in his statement. That is not a matter of order for the Chair.
Mr. David Stoddart: On a point of order. Arising from your statement, Mr. Speaker, about people who ask questions, am I to assume that in future any Member who gets up to ask a question to elicit information which may be of use to him in making a speech in a subsequent debate will be ruled out?
Mr. Speaker: Certainly not. I did not say that that governed my decision. I said that it was a factor which I took into account, particularly if it related very much to a debate which was about to take place. It is very much a matter of judgment.

BILL PRESENTED

  CROFTING REFORM (SCOTLAND)
  Mr. Secretary Campbell, supported by Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith, presented a Bill to confer new rights on crofters and cottars to acquire subjects tenanted or occupied by them; to confer rights on crofters to share in the value of land resumed by landlords; to make further provision as to financial assistance for crofters, cottars and certain owner-occupiers of crofts; to amend the law with respect to common grazings: to

  983
  extend the powers of the Scottish Land Court; to make provision for pensions and compensation for members of the Crofters Commission; and for connected purposes: and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 53].

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  LAND TENURE REFORM (SCOTLAND) BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  LAND TENURE REFORM (SCOTLAND) BILL
    Clause 3

      EXTENSION OF PART I TO GROUND ANNUAL AND OTHER PERIODICAL PAYMENTS FROM LAND
      4.53 p.m.
      The Lord Advocate (Mr. Norman Wylie): I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 22, leave out 'This Part' and insert 'Sections 1 and 2'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L Mallalieu): With this we will take Government Amendments Nos. 2, 10 and 11.
      The Lord Advocate: These amendments are all interrelated, as the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray) may agree.
      Mr. Ronald King Murray: Yes, I agree.
      The Lord Advocate: These are drafting amendments which are consequential on the insertion of new Clause 4 in the Bill, which was inserted during the Committee stage. As originally drafted, Part I of the Bill dealt only with the future prohibition in deeds executed after the commencement of the Act of feuduties, and similar periodical payments, of more than a nominal amount. Clause 4, however, relates to the right to redeem existing feuduties, etc. This is an optional right of, for instance, a proprietor. The references which are being amended all relate to Part I in its original form, and the purpose of the amendments is simply to disapply these references from Clause 4. In other words, this is really a series of amendments consequent upon the introduction of the new clause.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 2, in page 2, line 23, leave out "it applies" and insert "they apply".—[The Lord Advocate.]
      The Lord Advocate: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 29, after 'some', insert 'continuing'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we will discuss Government Amendments Nos. 9 and 14.
      The Lord Advocate: These amendments are all in the same vein. The purpose of Amendment No. 3 is to prevent the employment of a device to evade the limitation on the creation of perpetual obligations imposed by Clause 3. As the Bill is at present drafted a person selling, for example, a house could specify a periodical payment to defray some cost incurred by him, such as the cost of road works. Such a person might himself meet the initial cost by payment of a capital sum and then seek to recover his outlay, perhaps several times over, by imposing on the purchaser a periodical payment over a long period in the name of defrayal of "some cost related to the land". The insertion of the word "continuing" has the effect that a periodical payment may be imposed to defray only such costs related to the land as are themselves of a continuing or periodical nature; for example, the maintenance of amenity ground.
      I should explain that a large part of this Bill is geared to preventing outlets or ways around the basic statutory provisions. I do not lay tremendous stress on the introduction of this one word, but I have been advised that it would be of advantage to the Bill if this series of amendments could be inserted for the reasons I have given. I am not suggesting that any developers would use these devices to get around legal provisions, but from a technical and drafting point of view it is advisable that this amendment should be incorporated in the Bill.
      Mr. Ronald King Murray: I think that we should welcome this amendment, but I would ask the Government to reconsider the point that was made in Committee. Is it appropriate to have an omnibus clause somewhere in the Bill, excluding any device which is calculated to reinstate on land a continuing charge which is equivalent to feuduty? There is a lot to be said for an omnibus clause of that kind, but I am content on behalf of the Opposition to accept this amendment so far as it goes.
      The Lord Advocate: I have considered the point of the hon. and learned Member. It is not an easy matter to decide, but
      986
      we have reached the conclusion that it is better to tie up these ends as we go along. This amendment ties up one of those ends, and I commend it to the House.
      Amendment agreed to.
      The Lord Advocate: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 2, leave out lines 32 to 34.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we will take Government Amendment No. 12.
      The Lord Advocate: Amendment No. 12 is consequential upon Amendment No. 4. Both of these amendments are entirely drafting and, like the ones which I have just moved, are consequential on the addition of new Clause 4. The purpose of both of these amendments is to transfer the definition of "land obligation" from Clause 3 to Clause 5. Before the addition of Clause 4, the only reference to "land obligation" was in Clause 3, and it was appropriate in those circumstances that the expression should be defined in that clause. It is normal drafting practice that where an expression arises in a clause it is dealt with in that context. However subsection (8) of Clause 4 also refers to "land obligation", so it is appropriate to include the definition in Clause 5(3), which relates to Part I of the Bill as a whole. It does not make any substantial difference to the Bill.
      Amendment agreed to.
      5.0 p.m.
      The Lord Advocate: I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 2, line 37, leave out 'after Whitsunday 1974'.
      This is not a drafting amendment. It is a substantial amendment. Its purpose is to enable any proprietor of property who wishes to do so to take advantage of the provisions of what is now Clause 4 to redeem his feuduty at Whitsunday—that is, 15th May—1974. As the clause is at present worded, redemption of a feuduty is permissible at any term—Whitsunday or Martinmas, which is mid-November—after Whitsunday 1974.
      However, the Committee made considerable progress with the Bill and it become apparent—I should like at this stage to acknowledge my obligation to the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray) and his

      987
      colleagues as well as to my hon. Friends, for contributing to the speedy passage of the Bill in Committee—that the progress of the Bill would make it possible to advance the commencement date of the Bill from 1st May, which was at first thought the most probable date, to 1st April 1974.
      This is a very significant change because it means that it will be possible for a proprietor to give the necessary one month's notice under subsection (3) on 15th May 1974 of his intention to redeem his feuduty at Whitsunday instead of having to wait another six months until Martinmas 1974, which is the middle of November. The amendment seeks to achieve this by deleting the words "after Whitsunday 1974". This is obviously a desirable amendment and one which I know that the House will support.
      Mr. Ronald King Murray: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the kind words he has spoken, and on behalf of the Opposition I welcome the amendment. As he said, it is a substantial improvement on the Bill as originally drafted.
      Mr. William Baxter: Now that that has been more or less accepted and agreed by both sides of the House, may I ask what powers are now vested in a superior that are not possessed by a local authority with regard to the planning and the development of a particular area? It should be clearly defined as to what the exact position is in law with regard to the feu charter making certain stipulations of one kind or another that are outwith the ambit of the Town Planning Act 1947 as it applies to England, Wales and Scotland. Some elaboration on this is necessary so that those who are owners of land and are seeking to establish feus will know clearly what their powers are vis-à-vis the powers vested in the local authority under the Town Planning Act.
      The Lord Advocate: The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Baxter) raised this matter on Second Reading, and I was grateful to him for so doing. My mind goes back to the Planning Act 1969, which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, supercedes the 1947 Act. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out on Second Reading, it is perfectly true that local
      988
      authorities have wide powers with regard to planning control at all levels.
      In one sense, I was very sorry that the hon. Gentleman was not a member of the Standing Committee, because I would have welcomed his contributions to the debates in Committee. One thing which has emerged from our discussions very clearly is that local planning authorities do not want to take over, though they have always had power to do so, the kind of detailed and minutiae of controls that small developments, particularly private developments, are subject to under feudal charter regulations.
      I know the hon. Gentleman's sincere interest in this matter. I can assure him that I believe, the Government believe, and the last administration equally shared this belief, that there is a rôle for private planning control in this area. I personally should not like to see that go. It is the retention of these controls which has introduced some of the complications which hold up the comprehensive change which I think undoubtedly not only the two sides of the House but all parties in the House would like to see.
      One thing which is clear is that local planning authorities feel that they have quite enough on their hands. This has emerged from the discussions we have had. They do not feel that they want to take on that kind of desirable planning control. This is one of the reasons why this administration, like the last, feel that it would be desirable to preserve some kind of planning control in the feudal system.
      I do not know whether that exactly answers the hon. Gentleman's question. I am perfectly willing to give way so that the hon. Gentleman can follow this matter up, because I know of his genuine interest in the matter.
      Mr. Baxter: It has not been my experience on a local authority and on a planning committee of a local authority that the authority was of the opinion that it was better that the land superior controlled these minor issues as against the local authority controlling them. However, if it is necessary in Scotland that a land superior should have this power why is it not necessary in England and in Wales?
      The Lord Advocate: What we are all seeking here is a change from the person who exercises this type of control. We are all agreed that the autocratic nature of the existing system should be changed. This was in the last administration's White Paper. We entirely accept it. The criticism of the present system is not the fact that there is a rôle for private planning control, which is quite clearly laid out in the last administration's White Paper and in our own Green Paper.
      What we have to look to here is—in the absence of a superior, when the change takes place who and by what means will these controls be enforced? I should be very glad to discuss this matter with the hon. Gentleman if he wishes to do so. All I am saying at this stage is that we feel, as did the last administration, that there is a rôle for private planning control. That cannot indefinitely be enforced by the superior, because we are all agreed that that is not the proper way to do it. The problem is finding some other way of enforcing it. In other words, as one hon. Member said in Committee, what we want to avoid is throwing the baby out with the bath water. This is worth preserving. Local authorities do not want it. They cannot cope with this. We all have to find some other way of enforcing it rather than by the rather autocratic whim, as one might say, of the superior as at present.
      Mr. Norman Buchan: I do not wish, in making my maiden speech in detail on the Bill, to prolong the discussion on this point. The element in the last administration who was responsible for this aspect is undergoing a certain amount of rethinking on the second Opposition back bench this afternoon.
      It is worth reminding the Lord Advocate that there will be a change in the nature of local authorities. The experience and views of the existing local authorities will not have relevance after 1975, and the rôle of the district authorities may have something to do with social planning in place of the individual planning.
      The second point is this. This has been my predominant puzzle in my absence from the House over the past few
      990
      months where I feel I may have been a little like Banquo in Macbeth—
      "Never shake
      Thy gory locks at me."
      Why has it taken the Government three and a half years to make up their minds? If they were intent on following our lead in saying that private control should be retained, why has it taken three and a half years to solve the problem of how to do it?
      The Lord Advocate: That was a problem the complexity of which was fully recognised by the hon. Gentleman. It was the kind of problem which prevented him from accepting the sort of change which I advocated on future feus. The hon. Gentleman may recollect that Mr. James Davidson, who formerly represented Aberdeenshire, West, recommended redeeming the existing feuduties.
      I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has raised this matter. These changes cannot be made until we are in a position to change the whole system. This is a difficult operation. I make no secret of the fact that I would personally have liked to do that but it is not through lack of will that we are unable to change the whole system.
      Although one would have liked to be able to change the whole system at one go—nothing is more complicated than land law reform—there is a great deal to be said for progressing slowly, by stages. I have no doubt that this will be noted outside the House.
      Apart from the other difficulties which have arisen, and the declared interest I have already made about trying to do the whole thing in one go, it would have been rather dangerous to try to do the whole thing in one gulp. This worries me a little because the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) made a point about the change in structure of local government making some difference to the proposition set out in the White Paper.
      Paragraph 32 of the previous Government's White Paper "A Plan for Reform" stated:
      "Although it is true that the rôle of such conditions has to some extent been taken over by modern planning and similar legislation, the Government believe that they are nevertheless useless, as a complement to statutory controls, in enabling citizens to safeguard the

      991
      value, amenity or usefulness of their property and in helping to achieve harmony among neighbouring proprietors on detailed questions of common responsibility for the upkeep of property."
      I am positive that if the hon. Gentleman was standing at this Dispatch Box he would now be saying exactly the same thing. I do not believe that it would happen, but if there was a change of Government at the next General Election I hope that a Labour Government would not scrap the system of private planning control inherent in the feudal system. I will not be here then. The machinery, the process, and the people who enforce it may be altered, but we must not, for Heaven's sake, change the basic principle.
      Amendment agreed to.
      5.15 p.m.
      The Lord Advocate: I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 3, line 2, leave out 'redemption is required' and insert:
      "the feuduty is to be redeemed.".
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment it will be convenient to take Government Amendments No. 7 and No. 26.
      The Lord Advocate: These are essentially drafting amendments which deal with conveyancing technicalities. It is incorrect usage to refer to a debtor as "requiring" redemption of the creditor, because it is the debtor who does the redeeming. The amendments are simply drafting improvements intended to give effect to the idea that the proprietor who wishes to make use of the provisions of Clause 4 of the Bill is not "requiring redemption" but is rather making known his intention to redeem.
      Mr. Ronald King Murray: I wish to put forward a point which arises from doubts which have been expressed to me. These amendments qualify Clause 4 insofar as proprietors are seeking to redeem feuduties. This throws us back to the definition of a proprietor as contained in Clause 5 of the Bill. From my reading of that clause "proprietor" in this sense is clearly contrasted with "superior". I should like the Lord Advocate to confirm that that is his reading of the clause.
      The right hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate that a layman reading it, particularly when reading about the defi-
      992
      nition of a proprietor, might take it to also apply to a superior. There is some doubt among laymen whether the intention of Clause 4 is to allow superiors to have an option to require their vassals to redeem feuduty.
      The Lord Advocate: That is not the intention, nor is it my reading of the clause. I shall read the report of what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said, and if there is anything in the point it will be taken up by letter.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No 7, in page 3 line 4, leave out from 'proprietor' to 'pay' in line 6 and insert:
      'redeeming a feuduty under this section shall, at the term of redemption,'.—[The Lord Advocate.]
      The Lord Advocate: I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in page 3, line 20, leave out
      'be bound, if so required by the proprietor, to.'
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we can discuss Amendment No. 27.
      The Lord Advocate: Amendment No. 27 is an appropriate amendment to group with Amendment No. 8, and I am obliged for your suggestion, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      As at present drafted, Clause 4(6) prescribes that:
      "the superior shall be bound, if so required by the proprietor, to grant a receipt and discharge …"
      on redemption of feuduty. The purpose of these amendments is to put a statutory obligation on the superior to grant the receipt and discharge in every case. I have no doubt that, under the present wording of the clause, most proprietors would in any event ask or require the superior to grant a receipt and discharge, but these amendments would remove an unnecessary, or what might be thought an unnecessary, complication from the proprietor's point of view.
      Amendment No. 8 has the effect of putting an absolute obligation on the superior, and Amendment No. 27 makes a consequential adjustment in the wording of the form of notice of redemption. A proper discharge of redemption money is in the interest not only of the proprietor who redeems the feuduty, but also of future owners of the property, because the recording of the receipt and discharge

      993
      will have the effect of making the redemption of feuduty binding on all persons having interest.
      Mr. Ronald King Murray: This is an improvement on the clause as drafted. In view of the fact that the Bill is to be strengthened by requiring a superior to grant the necessary discharge and receipt, can we have a reassurance that vassals will not find that they have to pay a comparatively small capital sum, say about £30 or £40, on redeeming feuduty, only to have a substantial bill from the superior's solicitors—say, £100—for doing it. The amendment helps to counter any flavour of exorbitant charges on the vassal. Perhaps the Lord Advocate will tell us what is the Government's thinking about these expenses.
      The Lord Advocate: I am subject to correction on this, and perhaps I should hesitate to say anything. At the moment my understanding is that the probable cost for registration would be about £1. It is not a large sum. It is clearly desirable that when a change of this kind is being made the change should go on the register, as the hon. and learned Member will appreciate. In an earlier amendment, considered in Committee, he suggested a 50p limit. I remember that we looked at this, and the information I had was that on current charges it would be about £1. It would not be excessive in any event.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 9, in page 3, line 39, after 'some', insert 'continuing'. [The Lord Advocate.]

    Clause 5

      TRANSITIONAL AND SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS RELATIVE TO PART I
      Amendments made: No. 10, in page 3, line 44, leave out 'this Part' and insert 'section 1, 2 or 3'.
      No. 11, in page 4, line 8, leave out 'this Part' and insert 'section 1, 2 or 3'.
      No. 12, in line 15, at end insert:
      ' "land obligation" has the meaning assigned to it in section 1(2) of the Conveyancing and Feudal Reform (Scotland) Act 1970; '.—[The Lord Advocate.]

    Clause 6

      PROPERTY LET UNDER LONG LEASE, ETC., NOT TO BE USED AS PRIVATE DWELLING-HOUSE
      The Lord Advocate: I beg to move Amendment No. 13, in page 5, line 1, after 'Act', insert:
      ', "lessor" and "lessee" mean any person for the time being holding the interest of lessor or lessee (as the case may be), and '.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we can also discuss Government Amendments Nos. 20 and 21.
      The Lord Advocate: These are basically drafting amendments. They are designed to spell out for the avoidance of doubt what is meant by these technical terms. There is an unwritten rule—there is no statutory sanctity behind it as far as I know—that when dealing with very short leases one talks in terms of "landlord" and "tenant" but when dealing with longer leases one tends to use the expressions "lessor" and "lessee". [Interruption.] Why? It is one of those things. I would not, in my last months or years in this House, want to change practices that are time-honoured in this way. It is precedented, and I know that that will appeal to Labour Members. It is the language used in the Long Leases (Scotland) Act 1954 when a somewhat analogous situation arose and a somewhat similar solution was proposed.
      Amendment No. 13 provides definitions for "lessor" and "lessee" for the purposes of Part II. This is to remove any doubt which might arise about the application of Part II provisions to a person who is not the original lessor or lessee in a lease. It could happen—I understand it has—that the term "lessor" and on occasions the term "lessee" will be restrictively interpreted to refer only to the original contracting parties.
      In these circumstances it seems wise to put the matter beyond doubt and the definition in the amendment makes it clear that the provisions of Part II apply to anyone who, for the time being, enjoys the rights of lessor or lessee under a lease executed after the commencement of this Act. That is irrespective of when he acquired the right. The other two amendments carry that definition forward to Clause 8.
      Mr. James Dempsey: I want to raise a point in connection with the words used by the Lord Advocate. I wonder whether the Lord Advocate and the legal profession have any regard for the layman who is sometimes called upon to consider documents of this nature. I would have thought that "lessor" and "lessee" mean little to someone like myself who is not a lawyer while they mean quite a lot to a lawyer. I often wonder whether these words are used so that we might engage lawyers to interpret them for us.
      Does the Lord Advocate not realise that while this terminology may have been used for hundreds of years there are other words and other expressions which have been altered during this time and so that a modern-minded person can understand the implications of a sentence containing such terminology? Why should this change not take place in legal terminology? Sometimes there are occasions when a document has been signed and it is the dickens of a job trying to interpret the names represented on it and to see what type of person the owner is, possessed or dispossessed. I have been a justice of the peace for 20 years and that sort of work is the most difficult I have experienced. I would far rather try the most complicated case in a court than try to understand some of the terms in these documents.
      The Lord Advocate has indicated that he is leaving the House. We are sorry about that because he has always been the essence of courtesy and kindness. He might have gone down in history had he eliminated these words and replaced them with terminology understandable to the average lay person.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 14, in page 5, line 5, after 'some', insert 'continuing'.—[The Lord Advocate.]

    Clause 7

      CONSEQUENCES OF USE AS DWELLING-HOUSE OF PROPERTY SUBJECT TO LONG LEASE
      The Lord Advocate: I beg to move Amendment No. 15, in page 5, line 30, after 'lease', insert
      'executed after the commencement of this Act.'
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we can also discuss Amendments No. 16 and No. 18.
      The Lord Advocate: Although these amendments may not be strictly, necessary the view was that they would make the provisions more clear, particularly if any of these clauses were taken out of context. This is exactly the point that the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) was making. We want to make clear what the provisions of a Public General Statute are. If hon. Members will look at Clause 6(1) they will see spelled out there in the clearest possible terms—and this is the basic provision of Part II—what are the limitations on long leases for residential use. It says:
      "It shall be a condition of every long lease executed after the commencement of this Act."
      These three amendments, one relating to Clause 7 and the others to Clause 8, are meant to spell out in the clearest possible terms that the provisions relate only to arrangements made after the commencement of this Act. Although they may not be strictly necessary and the provisions would be judicially interpreted in the way we intend them to be, it is desirable that we should spell matters out in these clauses in the interests, for example of the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie and the kind of point he made.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 8

      MODIFICATION OF SECTION 7 WHERE LEASE SUBJECT TO SUB-LEASE OR HERITABLE SECURITY
      Amendments made: No. 16, in page 7, line 17, after 'sub-lease', insert
      'executed after the commencement of this Act'.
      No. 18, in page 7, line 17, at end insert 'so executed'.—[The Lord Advocate.]
      5.30 p.m.
      The Lord Advocate: I beg to move Amendment No. 19, in page 7, leave out line 18 and insert—
      '(2) The pursuer in an action under section 7 of this Act shall give such intimation thereof as the court may direct—'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we can also discuss Government Amendment No. 22.
      The Lord Advocate: These amendments relate to technical matters of court procedure. As drafted, Clause 8(2) might possibly give rise to some doubt. It will be appreciated that this is a Bill of considerable complexity and we are always trying to simplify matters. I am not at all sure that we have finished that process.
      What we are trying to do in this Bill, as the hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) will understand, since his Bill in 1970 was complex enough, is to keep it as clear and as simple as possible.
      Two doubts could arise on Clause 8(2) as it stands. The first is whether, in a case where the lease is subject to a sublease or a heritable security, an action of removing under Clause 7 could be brought at all if all the persons listed in subsection (2) had not received intimation of the action. For example, this could arise if some of them were untraceable. The second problem is whether intimation of the action was of itself sufficient to give the person receiving the information the right to appear and plead in the action, or whether the intimation was merely intended to afford that person an opportunity to initiate his own arrangements for safeguarding his own position.
      The amendments are designed to meet these two possible difficulties. I am not saying that they would necessarily arise, but they could conceivably arise. Amendment No. 19 removes the first doubt by giving the court a clear discretion about the method of intimation to be adopted. This is always a satisfactory course to follow. Where there is doubt about tracing interested parties it is always desirable to give the court discretion as to what should satisfy the requirements of intimation.
      Amendment No. 22 deals with the second possible difficulty by stating quite explicitly that a person having any of the interests listed in the subsection has the same pleas open to him as has the defender in the action. This whole clause is highly technical, and I extend once again the invitation which I extended to the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray) in Committee—that if he should wish to discuss these amendments to the clause with me at a later stage, I would be glad to do so.
      Mr. Ronald King Murray: I welcome these amendments. I think they are a definite improvement.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 20, in page 7, line 28, leave out from 'to' to 'lessee' in line 29 and insert 'be the'.
      No. 21, in page 7, line 30, leave out second 'of' and insert 'the'.
      No. 22, in page 7, line 31, at end insert:
      'and any such creditor or lessee as aforesaid shall, subject to the provisions of this section, be entitled to plead in the action any defence which could be pleaded by the defender in the action,'.—[The Lord Advocate.]
      The Lord Advocate: I beg to move Amendment No. 23, in page 7, line 34, at end insert 'derived from that lease'.
      This amendment stands on its own. Its purpose is clarification. It does not alter the basic meaning of Clause 8(3), the effect of which is to ensure that the defence provided under Clause 7(4)—namely, that residential use of a long lease had been approved by the landlord—is to be available only to persons having the actual right of occupancy of the residential property in question.
      This meaning is already sufficiently apparent in the context of Clause 8 taken as a whole, but the difficulty is that if subsection (3) is quoted out of context in the form of notice to terminate residential use—and in Schedule 3 there is reference to the quoting of Clause 8(3)—it might not be quite so apparent. Amendment No. 23, therefore, is really a drafting amendment to make the provision perfectly clear, even though it is only quoted out of context in the context of the schedule to which I have referred.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 17

      PROVISIONS FOR CONTRACTING OUT TO BE VOID
      The Lord Advocate: I beg to move Amendment No. 24, in page 12, line 4, after 'constituted', insert:
      ', which is made after the commencement of this Act.',
      This amendment again is made necessary by the addition to the Bill of Clause 4, which gives proprietors the right

      999
      to redeem existing feuduties. Apart from that, the Bill was concerned only with future feuduties. The purpose of Clause 17 is to prevent contracting out of the provisions of the Bill. This is apt and desirable in relation to the Bill as originally drafted, because the generality of these provisions relate to future feuduties, long leases, and so forth. It is not entirely apt, however, in the new context of Clause 4, and it is to make perfectly clear that this provision relates to arrangements made after the commencement of the Act that this small amendment, which is essentially drafting and consequential on the new Clause 4, is made.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Schedule 1

      FORMS PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 4
      The Lord Advocate: I beg to move Amendment No. 25, in page 13, line 9, leave out 'and designation'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: It will be convenient to consider at the same time Government Amendments Nos. 28, 29 and 30.
      The Lord Advocate: These four amendments are designed to simplify the provisions of the Bill in relation to the redemption of feuduties. It is felt unnecessary to require the designation of a superior or a proprietor to be included in any of the notices or statements prescribed in the Bill. Such a requirement might cause some confusion, particularly to proprietors acting without legal advice, and we have been anxious to try to gear this legislation in such a way and on such a plane that it will be possible for proprietors to take advantage of the provisions of the Bill without seeking technical legal advice.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 26, in page 13, line 12, leave out 'require the redemption of' and insert 'will redeem'.
      No. 27, in page 13, line 16, at end insert:
      'On such redemption, a receipt and discharge is required in terms of that section.'.
      No. 28, page 13, line 22, leave out 'and designation.'—[The Lord Advocate.]

    Schedule 2
      STATEMENT REFERRED TO IN SECTION 5(1)(b)
      Amendment made: No. 29, in page 13, line 44, leave out '(designation)'.—[The Lord Advocate.]
    Schedule 3
      FORM OF NOTICE PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 7
      Amendment made: No. 30, in page 14, line 12, leave out ' and designation'.—[The Lord Advocate.]
    Schedule 4

      AMENDMENTS OF LAW RELATING TO REGISTRATION OF LEASES
      The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, Amendment No. 31, in page 15, line 15, leave out 'May' and insert 'April'.
      I think that this amendment is self-explanatory. It is consequential upon the amendment made in Committee to Clause 20(2) by virtue of which the date for the coming into operation of the Bill was advanced from 1st May to 1st April 1974. The effect of the amendment is similarly to advance to 1st April 1974 the date at which registration of a registerable lease will compel the real right of a tenant and establish a preference over the right of any party to an unrecorded lease granted after 1st April 1974.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time. [Queen's Consent and Prince of Wales's Consent (in respect of the Principality and Stewarty of Scotland) signified.]
      5.39 p.m.
      Mr. Ronald King Murray: This is another milestone on the long and tortuous road to abolition of feudal tenure, The milestones have been many, and measure many dreary miles. We must, nevertheless, welcome progress, although it has been slow.
      In the Bill we witness a remarkable about-turn by the Government, which I welcome. They started with the view that it would be impossible to allow the

      1001
      kind of right of redemption now embodied in Clause 4 until we have arrived at a formula acceptable to both sides in the process of completely abolishing feudal tenure. They have seen that that is not necessary.
      I welcome the initial step that has been taken, but it would be wrong if I did not express extreme disappointment that we are not at the stage of the full abolition of feudal tenure. The sooner that stage can be reached, the happier the Opposition will be.
      Although we have made progress—very slow progress towards a goal that both sides of the House accept as desirable, we must acknowledge that even a Bill of this kind creates certain problems, one of which has been drawn to my attention since the Committee stage. I do not put it foward as a serious obstacle to progress, but it envisages the kind of difficulty that may crop up between the enactment of the Bill and the abolition of feudal tenure. The moral I draw from this example is that the shorter that interval can be made the better it will be for all concerned and the less injustice is likely to be generated.
      The example is that of retired people of modest means, especially self-employed persons, who have chosen to ensure their income for retirement purposes by the puchase of feuduties. I imagine that only a handful of people in Scotland are in that position, but they are a handful who have served the community well and who, on the best advice they obtained at the time, took the course of pulling their money in that very secure, as it appeared, investment of feuduties.
      Such people retain security; the Bill does nothing to take it away from them. But let us take the case of a person with a moderate income of about £500 or £600 a year from his feuduties. Suppose the Bill is enacted as it stands and half his vassals decide to exercise their right of redemption and the other half do not. He will be left with a very unsatisfactory capital sum from which he derives his income. It is possible that, in such cases a measure of social injustice will result.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) took this subject very seriously. He had in mind various proposals, which he may tell us about, for
      1002
      overcoming that sort of difficulty. One solution would be for the Government to have power to step in and take over feudal rights. Where hardship would otherwise be created, they could take an intermediate position as an honest broker and enable such cases to be dealt with fairly and equitably. We cannot do that in the Bill, but this seems to me to foreshadow the kind of difficulties we may well find are generated by the Bill. It is not a reason for not continuing with the Bill, but it is a reason for every haste in getting on with the job, in finally abolishing feuduty and replacing it with a modern form of land tenure that meets the reasonable requirements of all the interests in land.
      Having welcomed the Bill, I want to sound a more sombre note. In Committee the Lord Advocate undertook to inform hon. Members of the effect that various multipliers might have, following through the formula embodied in Clause 4 for redemption of feuduty. He kindly did this, up to a point, but he did it belatedly. It may be that that is a result of the bringing forward of the Report stage and Third Reading to today. The result is that my hon. Friends and I received only by hand delivery today the letter embodying the various multipliers. The information is useful, but it cannot be used, as Opposition Members desired to use it, for the purpose of consulting local interests to discover the general feeling. That obviously cannot be done in a way that can affect the passage of the Bill through this House. Only if my hon. Friends have friends in another place will anything come of such consultations. It is unfortunate that the perfectly reasonable desire to get the Bill through quickly has led to this result.
      I also believe that the Lord Advocate said in Committee that he would do a little more arithmetic than he has done. I think he indicated that he would work out examples with typical feuduties so that the public could see what the impact would be. I hope that he will do so, because there is not the same argument about urgency, as the Bill has further stages to go through in another place. It would be very satisfactory if, before the Bill appeared there, the other parts of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's undertaking were fulfilled. It would be of great assistance to the general public to know

      1003
      what their rights are to be under the Bill.
      In Committee my hon. Friends emphasised the desirability of the general public's being fully informed of the new rights which vassals are to have under Clause 4. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes) in particular made that point. I repeat what was said in Committee, namely, that the Opposition are most anxious that the public should know that as feuars they are entitled to redeem their feuduties when the Bill is enacted. It should be known that they can do it and how they can do it. It is also important that feuars should realise that no great expense is involved. That is important, because many feuars are old-age pensioners, people who are infirm and living on their own, who are just a bit afraid of bureaucracy, people who will take no action unless steps are taken to bring the advantages of the Bill to their notice.
      I welcome the Bill, and urge the Government to proceed apace with the final abolition of feudal tenure.
      5.47 p.m.
      Mr. Buchan: I made a maiden intervention on the Bill earlier, but in a sense this is my maiden speech on it. It was rather difficult to wait at a distance while the Bill went through. I think that it would be appropriate if I said a word or two now, because I gave up three years of my life to the topic. The Government have made a mess of the three years which I left to them.
      Today the Lord Advocate made much of what he referred to as difficulties mentioned by the previous administration—in other words, mentioned by me. He also made much of them in Committee. But there is a mighty difference—a difference of three and a half years. That which was seen as difficult when we were moving at great speed into the beginning of our implementation of these provisions is rather different after three and a half years have passed. I cannot equate any difficulties I might have mentioned then with the difficulties that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has mentioned now, three and a half years later.
      I left the Lord Advocate with only one main problem to solve—how to deal
      1004
      with private land conditions when a feudal superior is abolished. I accept that it is a big problem, but it is one of principle. The Government do not require three and a half years to make up their mind on a principle. I do not believe that the Civil Service requires three and a half years to work out the details. Therefore, I cannot accept that there is such an equation as is suggested or that there is in it a proof of the Government's intention to carry out the abolition of feudalism with speed, as they said in their election manifesto.
      It is an ironic comment on history that today we are discussing the abolition of feudalism when earlier this afternoon we saw another demonstration of one of the final crises of capitalism. It is an extraordinary concurrence of events.
      In the debate in 1970, the present Secretary of State for Scotland said:
      "Because feuduty is at present an integral part of the system it cannot disappear altogether, except as part of a major reform. We shall ensure that, in this complex field, reform is carried out in a fair and orderly way."
      That was said in the course of a speech when the present Secretary of State was lambasting me, as to a greater or lesser extent and with greater or lesser effectiveness all hon. Members opposite did, because I was not then abolishing all feuduties. The right hon. Gentleman said that he accepted that feuduty was such an integral part of the system that it could be abolished only as part of a major reform, and that the Conservatives would ensure that that was done in an orderly way. In fact, they have done precisely the opposite. By introducing Clause 4 they have abolished feuduty without continuing the major reform.
      Mr. Speaker: Is the hon. Gentleman complaining about what is not in the Bill?
      Mr. Buchan: On the contrary, Mr. Speaker; this extremely important provision—Clause 4—was introduced in Committee. It offers the possibility of redeeming—or as we would say in our vernacular, North of the Border, abolishing—feuduty by payment. It is very much in the Bill, although I am not surprised by your surprise because it was not in the Bill when first introduced to the House.
      Mr. Speaker: It sounded as though the hon. Gentleman was complaining about something not being in the Bill.
      Mr. Buchan: I am not complaining at all; I am drawing attention to the fact that that which it was said was not possible to introduce except as part of a reform, and therefore the abolition of the whole structure, has in fact been so introduced. To add to your astonishment, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that it was not even introduced before you, but in the late stages of Standing Committee. I make the comment because we are left with the important fact that Clause 4 is included so that the abolition of feuduty is included but the system itself remains.
      It was to the system that I referred when, three years ago, I said of the Conservative Party:
      "What they want to do is to wipe out the system of feuduties by some kind of compensation, while retaining the superiority written into the system. What they say is that they will wipe out the cash relationship, but the whole injustice of feudalism will remain. This is the position at which they have arrived. It is one which I find slightly contemptible and which should, perhaps, be dismissed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Grand Committee, 19th February 1970; c. 67–71.]
      I still find it slightly contemptible and it should, perhaps, be dismissed.
      In other words, at that time it was possible to say that the Conservatives Intended to abolish the cash aspect but retain the superiority that is written into the system. That is what they have done by the Bill, and there are one or two comments that must be made. They have not made clear what the future is to be. They leave in the right of the feudal superior and they have not solved the basic problem by a fresh approach, by deciding whether there should be private conditions—and, if so, how—or social conditions. That is where there must be an element of re-thinking.
      After the kind of statement that we had earlier this afternoon, for example, with the comments made by the Chancellor about land and earlier remarks about the unacceptable face of capitalism, there is a re-thinking on the part of those who were closely involved in the Labour administration on the question whether we were right to say that conditions should remain in private hands instead of passing into public and democratically-controlled
      1006
      hands. That is an important question to which we require an answer.
      In Committee the Lord Advocate said:
      "If it is as simple as they say, why did not the last administration do it in 1970? … One could simply abolish the system at a stroke"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, First Scottish Standing Committee, 4th December 1973; c. 126.]
      That was an unfortunate choice of phrase, but I shall not pursue it, for the Prime Minister has already suffered sufficiently for it.
      The Lord Advocate knows that the pledge was to abolish feudalism. The Government have had three and a half years to do it, but they have failed utterly. They have left vassals having to pay to avoid payment of feuduty, but the vassal has gained nothing more for that payment in terms of control over his own land.
      For instance, what happens to a vassal who owns an acre on which he redeems feuduty? Is he then entitled to sell half of that land? The feu and the control will remain in the hands of the superior. The basic right to do with the land what he likes, within planning permission, is not to be given to the vassel; that freedom has not been extended to him.
      We all received the figures this morning. I understand that they came from the Under-Secretary, who attempted to give an analysis to show the equivalent cost of redemption over the past few years. The figures varied between 11 and eight times the annual feuduty. That has to be set against the fact that we are in a period of roaring inflation and no one in his senses would want to redeem a feuduty when the cost is drastically diminishing from year to year. Anyone would be stupid to do so when inflation is roaring at more than 10 per cent. and when the pound has fallen by more than 20 per cent. in the past two years and he cannot get anything in the way of improved conditions.
      I vividly remember the present Secretary of State saying that he was champing like a warhorse to abolish feuduties. After three and a half years, he is still champing. We achieved something in 1970, however—the setting up of the Land Tribunal, which could cope with existing conditions.
      When I introduced that measure, the present Lord Advocate accused me of

      1007
      expropriation. He was quite right. I took without compensation the right of the feudal superior to demand money in return for waiving certain conditions, and in that sense I was an expropriator. But it was a form of expropriation of which the Scottish people approved. That is why they did not fight it. Those Opposition Members who are afraid of radical policies should remember—
      Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is going rather wide now. This is a narrow debate.
      Mr. Buchan: It is my maiden speech on the Bill, Mr. Speaker.
      What efforts have the Government made to publicise the use of the Lands Tribunal? As I understand it, between 90 and 100 cases have been brought before it, but certainly more were expected. I understand that one of the difficulties is the time taken to deal with cases, but there should be no need for delay.
      This was meant to be a simple and direct form of the use of the Lands Tribunal, and it was meant to wipe out the sort of case that was discussed in Committee when we heard of the instance of Lord Vestey and others using their powers to determine whether hotels should have licences. If people in Scotland do not know of this method, the legal profession in Scotland is failing to advise clients that the system exists and may be used without recourse to the legal profession.
      I hope that the Lord Advocate, who is the leading Law Officer for Scotland, will make it known to members of the legal profession that we expect them to advise their clients that they do not need to enter into negotiations about the cost of a waiver but that a waiver can be achieved without the payment of compensation, at the Lands Tribunal. In the case described in Committee, Lord Vestey and similar people used the system as a means of preventing competition to their own enterprises.
      In giving my blessing to this minuscule mouse of a Bill, which takes us half an inch further forword on the road to the abolition of feudalism, I ask the Lord Advocate to do all in his power to ensure that the importance of the Lands Tribunal is made known to his profession and to the people of Scotland, who are suffering,
      1008
      and perhaps will continue to suffer after the passage of the Bill, from the worst aspects of feudal superiority.
      6.11 p.m.
      Mr. J. Grimond: I thank the Lord Advocate for dealing with the question of skat. We had a short exchange on this matter on Second Reading and, in case you think I am out of order, Mr. Speaker, I would point out that there is reference to skat in line 25 of page 2 of the Bill.
      Although I always speak with a certain amount of diffidence about anything to do with the law, particularly Scottish law, I understand that those who pay skat will have the opportunity of redeeming it on certain terms. I agree with the hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) that it may be a very bad bargain to redeem one's feu in times of inflation, but as skat is founded on such peculiar calculations as the price of lispunds of butter, which may arise now that we are in the Common Market, it may not be such a bad bargain to redeem skat.
      I thank the Lord Advocate because, since I have been a Member, he is practically the only Lord Advocate who has addressed his mind seriously to Udal law and the vestiges of Scandinavian law which exist in my constituency. I am glad to think that this totally indefensible impost may be in its last days.
      6.13 p.m.
      Mr. Tam Dalyell: I should like to put to the Lord Advocate a question which we are all being asked in our constituencies, namely, what next? The Lord Advocate will not be in the next Parliament and therefore I wonder whether he will throw away that caution which behoves Law Officers and let us into the secret of what he would recommend as a timetable for the next stage—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that it can possibly be in order on Third Reading to ask what further legislation is contemplated.
      Mr. Dalyell: Having put the question which we are being asked, I shall not pursue the matter.
      6.14 p.m.
      Mr. Dempsey: I have been asked to raise certain matters. The Bill refers to the abolition of feuduty, which plainly

      1009
      will take some time. What will be the Lord Advocate's attitude in the interim period? Chartered surveyors advise me that when dealing with a feuduty that was fixed some time ago a general settlement is based on 10 years' capitalisation of the amount of the feuduty.
      Some documents were handed out to one or two Members who served on the Standing Committee. I am sorry that I did not have the opportunity of studying them. In one document the Lord Advocate mentioned a formula of 8–11 years capitalisation. First, does he look favourably on the practice, which is being adopted more and more by chartered surveyors, of buying out the feu on a capitalisation of 10 years?
      Secondly, once feuduty has been abolished what will happen to the feus owned by local authorities? One of my town councils owns quite a number of feus in the town and draws revenue from them. Authorities purchased the feus at the expense of ratepayers. They wish to know whether, in the event of abolition, they will receive compensation. I should be grateful if the Lord Advocate would advise me on that matter.
      To err on the safe side, I draw the Lord Advocate's attention to the fact that in the County of Lanark there are feuars who suffered drastically as a result of the old legislation when the feu ran out and when the property or structure erected on the feu reverted to the superior. Owner-occupiers of houses which had been built at their expense found that their houses were in danger of reverting to the superior—to the land owner, for example—and they were on the brink of losing their all.
      Have adequate steps been taken in the legislation to ensure absolute security for property owners against avaricious superiors who, when the lease runs out, take over the property on the feu? This is a burning issue in my part of Scotland and I should like to be assured that there is no possibility of any superior being in such a legal situation that he could confiscate the houses of people who had spent their lives in them.
      The Lord Advocate: An amendment was tabled in Committee by the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) on the irritancy of a feu, to which the hon.
      1010
      Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) has just referred. I had hoped that it would be possible, in the de minimis area in which we are operating with the 1p feuduty, to abolish the right of irritancy. I was advised, and I have satisfied myself, that we cannot do that while retaining the feuduty system. Until we can make the major change we cannot make changes of this kind.
      We introduced a provision in the Bill whereby the period of two years in which one had the right to irritate the feu after two years non-payment of feuduty, which was incorporated in a statute of 1597, was altered to five years. I gave the assurance that by that time the present administration or their successors on this side of the House would be able to abolish the system. Therefore, for practical purposes, the problem of the irritancy of the feu with regard to the nonpayment of feuduty has been solved.
      We are dealing with the land law of Scotland. The Scottish system of land tenure extends back almost for a millennium. No one who knows anything about it would suggest that one could readily or carelessly make changes in the system. The matter must be carefully considered before changes are made. As I said from the benches opposite when we discussed the 1970 legislation, the terminology does not appeal in this day and age, but not everything about the system of land tenure is bad. It has many advantages over any system of long leasehold tenure which obtains elsewhere in the United Kingdom. There are many aspects of the feuing system which recommend it.
      Mr. Robert Maclennan Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland) rose—
      The Lord Advocate: I shall give way later to the hon. Gentleman. I know that he is interested in this matter.
      We came to the conclusion some years ago that the system had to be changed. The hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) never accepted that. When, in Committee in 1970, I said that on the Opposition bench, and when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said the same, no one believed it. The hon. Member for Renfrew, West kept on saying that it was not true. Even today, he still casts doubt on the intention of the Conservative Government to abolish the

      1011
      system. I use "abolish" advisedly. I do not mean to modify, change or reconstruct but to abolish the system of land tenure known as feudal tenure. We have all along been committed to that policy.
      The hon. Gentleman will remember that in Opposition we had a working party looking into this matter long before the 1970 Bill was introduced. We have been among the first to recognise that the 1970 legislation was an invaluable contribution to resolving the problems of the Scottish feudal system, but it in no way fundamentally altered it. It made provision for the allocation of feuduties, but that is a technical matter that I need not go into now. It imposed on the Lands Tribunal for Scotland a discretion to vary or quash land conditions in the exercise of an equitable jurisdiction. The Opposition supported the Labour administration in that.
      As did the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leigh (Mr. Ronald King Murray) in Committee, I should like to express on behalf of the Government my appreciation of the work done by the Lands Tribunal for Scotland, in particular by its President, a leading Queen's Counsel of the Scottish Bar, who has made an enormous contribution. The hon. Member for Renfrew, West said that more should have been done, but the work of the president of the tribunal merits an assessment on a four-fifths basis. It is very nearly full-time. As I said in Committee, it will abviously go full time. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman for the legislation which he introduced, which was valuable. The machinery which has been implementing it has had full support from the present administration, and I know that great care has been taken about the nominations that have been made to the membership of the tribunal.
      Mr. Buchan: The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to my doubt of the intention to abolish the whole system and said that a working party had been in existence before 1970. The documents from that working party, as published by Conservative Party headquarters and which I quoted at great length in the Second Reading debate on the 1970 Bill, made us doubt it. I quoted today what the Secretary of State said at that time—that feuduty could not be abolished without abolishing the whole system. In fact, that has been done. What I predicted in
      1012
      1970 has taken place. I am pleased about the inclusion of Clause 4, but what I predicted then in doubting the intention is exactly what has taken place.
      The Lord Advocate: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. We have not abolished feuduty. We cannot abolish feuduty. We have retained the 1p nexus for the very reasons the hon. Gentleman gave. I do not want to introduce controversy, because both sides of the House are at one. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we could have done this, and if he is saying that if the Labour Government had been returned at the last election they would have abolished the system in 1971—
      Mr. Buchan: Not before the end of 1971.
      The Lord Advocate: Yes. The hon Gentleman, who handled the Committee stage of the 1970 Bill, was given two invitations, one of which came from myself about the 1s. feuduty. He said that there was a danger of a run into long leasehold tenure if we did that. I have always doubted that, but it is a difficult view and I, no doubt, have had the same advice that he had when he was Minister. Secondly, Mr. James Davidson, who was at that time the Member for Aberdeenshire, West, inserted a new clause advocating the redemption of existing feuduties. For the same reasons the hon. Member for Renfrew, West said that that could not be done until we were able to change the system as a whole.
      Basically, I accept that that is right. If the hon. Gentleman, or his right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), thought at that time that within a year or 18 months there would be a major reform, there was no reason for rejecting either of those two propositions. There would not have been a run into long leasehold tenure in such a short space of time. Had that opportunity been taken about 11,000 people a year since then who are paying feuduty today would not be paying it.
      Governments always tend to be overcautious, and I well understand that. We are all under the same pressures. I do not believe that within 12 or 18 months there would have been a risk of a run into long leasehold tenure in Scotland following a provision for a redemption of existing feuduties to a nominal value

      1013
      and following a restriction of future feu-duties to 1s. nominal value. That is what we are doing here. With the lapse of time we have been able to work out the highly complicated statutory provisions to deal not only with long leasehold tenure but also with the associated problem of standard security. The right hon. Gentleman cannot claim that as a reason for not doing it in 1970. He had not spotted it then either.
      Mr. William Ross: I am sorry that I have not heard the earlier part of the debate but, for obvious reasons, I was committed elsewhere. The right hon. and learned Gentleman misses the point that the Bill we are dealing with today is not the Bill that we dealt with on Second Reading. The redemption of existing feuduties was argued against on Second Reading because it was said that it could not be done. It suddenly appeared in Committee as an amendment.
      The Lord Advocate: The right hon. Gentleman—whom I rather like—cannot have it both ways. He cannot say, as he did on Second Reading, "If the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate will do his best to improve the Bill, we will give him every support" and in the next breath say that because we have done that it is rather shocking. I am perhaps more flexible than was the right hon. Gentleman in handling the 1970 Bill. I believe—and I say this advisedly—that many of the essential changes contained in this Bill could have been done in 1970 without the risks that the right hon. Gentleman and others advised us would be run. There is nothing wrong with flexibility.
      I acknowledge my indebtedness to the hon. Member for Dundee, West and the hon. and learned Member for Leith. Amendments were tabled dealing with the major change in the Bill—the optional redemption. I am not sure how much it will be used, but I hope it will be used widely. I agree entirely with what the hon. Member for Renfrew, West said. We shall make every possible effort to advertise and publicise the effects of this legislation and of his legislation in 1970 with regard to land conditions. One rarely comes across problems on land conditions. It is feuduties that worry most people. Where land conditions inhibit
      1014
      development, as in the example given by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), it is desirable that the public should know of the existence of the Lands Tribunal and the provisions of the 1970 Act.
      Mr. Maclennan: Will the Lord Advocate take this opportunity—which he has not taken at any earlier stage of the Bill—to explain to the people of Scotland why it is that they should take his assertion today that he intends to go on with the total abolition of the feu-duty system any more seriously than they took the assertions made by the Conservative Party before the 1970 election? He has today given some clue as to the possible time scale he has in mind—it is to be within five years. We have now had three and a half years of Conservative Government during which time this matter could have been dealt with. The right hon. and learned Gentleman emphasised the enormous difficulties of tackling this problem and, apart from saying that the system has lasted for a thousand years, he did not explain where the difficulty lay. Is it an intellectual difficulty on the part of the Lord Advocate in retaining this aspect of feudalism, or is it a problem of resources, advice, or interest? Unless the Lord Advocate gives an explanation the people of Scotland cannot be blamed for not taking seriously the Government's assertions.
      The Lord Advocate: This raises a point which was also mentioned by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). I indicated on Second Reading the kind of time scale which I thought would be possible. I said I thought that it was possible to deal with the final stage of the problem of land tenure within the course of the next one or two years I said that there were competing commitments. There is the problem of land registration and registration of title. The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock will remember raising this matter in his opening speech on the 1970 legislation. It is important that we should go ahead with registration of title. This involves an evenly balanced argument whether one alters the basis of title before dealing with the machinery of registration. There are arguments both ways, but one or other of these competing requirements should be dealt with within the next one or two years. I cannot go further than that.

      1015
      As an outgoing Member of Parliament, I should not be too glib in the undertakings which I give. I repeat that enormous difficulties are involved. The hon. Member for Renfrew, West must have been fascinated by these intellectual problems, and I appreciate that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland will not accept that there are problems. But the House must accept from me, as Lord Advocate, that serious legal problems are involved. I am not basing this statement only on my position as Lord Advocate, since we have been advised by the most eminent advisers—and the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock will know who I mean—including the leading authority on land tenure in Scotland. The Government have been given the most expert advice on these complicated matters.
      I wish to record my appreciation of the general reception given to the Bill. Criticism was predictable on the lines, "Why have you not done more?" and also, "We would have done it so much quicker." But we have heard that all before. The main thing to bear in mind is that we have made a massive stride forward—not just a small step—to reform land tenure in Scotland. It is sufficiently material to make it impossible to stop at this stage, for various technical reasons, and this process will have to be completed by the next Conservative Government. I have every confidence in recommending the Bill to the House.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS BILL
Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS BILL
  Clause 6

    EXTENT
    6.28 p.m.
    Mr. Brynmor John: I beg to move, in page 3, line 12, at beginning insert:
    '(1) This Act shall bind the Crown'.
    I shall at the outset briefly review the progress of the Bill and its terminology. To obtain any international treaty at all is a difficult problem, and in terms of chemical warfare and biological warfare the two matters have to be separated. It was thought at the earlier period when this matter came up for consideration—and this view has not been weakened by the Minister's letter written to me on 13th December—that the reason biological weapon procedures were able to be progressed related to the difficulty of delivery. But any international treaty is met with some degree of suspicion because in international affairs there is a generalised climate of suspicion.
    Both in the treaty to which the United Kingdom assented and in this Bill there is a great vagueness, which is the price of any agreement that is difficult to enforce and which contains shadowy lines. By Article IV of the treaty the signatory States undertook to enact, according to their own constitutional processes, a treaty to give efficacy to these provisions within the territory of the State concerned.
    During the debate that led to the treaty certain assurances were given on behalf of the British Government, and those assurances were repeated in Committee. The United Kingdom gave a solemn undertaking that we had never produced or possessed biological weapons and that we would never do so, but when we are enacting legislation in this House, we must look at the matter in terms of what people outside the House will think when they examine our domestic legislation.
    We understand that many Governments will have a vested interest in trying to

    1017
    suggest that the provisions of legislation are not being properly enacted or observed by the United Kingdom. It suits the convenience of many countries to pay lip service to disarmament but to take measures that effectively bar steps to disarmament. We see from the Bill that it bans any person from developing, producing, stockpiling, acquiring, or retaining biological weapons, but that it does not bind the Crown. This was made clear by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department in an answer in Committee. He said:
    "The Bill does not bind the Crown specifically, but the hon. Member will recall the undertaking on Second Reading that there is no intention of contravening the Bill in any way in any Government establishment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 11th December 1973, c. 34.]
    If that is the case, there is no reason why the binding of the Crown should be left out of the Bill.
    6.30 p.m.
    If it is really the Government's intention under no circumstances to produce or to stockpile these weapons, it is easy for them to include a provision in the Bill saying, as we say in our amendment, that this Act shall bind the Crown. Although we have speculated about the private development of such weapons, the letter which I received this morning from the Minister makes it clear that the main producer of these weapons is the Crown—any Government. Therefore, to exclude the Crown from the list of bodies bound by this Act is fatally to weaken it. It will indicate to the person looking from outside that Britain is prepared to pay pious lip-service to the idea of international disarmament but that in the one crucial area where the Government could declare firmly their intentions by saying, "We, as a Government, will not do this", they stop short and say, "We must not bind the Crown. We shall give an undertaking, but we shall not bind ourselves by legislation."
    That is not good enough. It is not good enough to reassure other nations at a time when we hope to progress to chemical warfare disarmament. It will not reassure those of our countrymen who are concerned about the Government's involvement in the manufacture of these agents of destruction and disease. It will not reassure the person in another
    1018
    country who is looking for a half-excuse for failing to abide by the treaty himself. Therefore, I believe that the non-inclusion of the Crown as being bound by the treaty will make a great difference unless the Government accept the amendment.
    The second reason that I adduce in support of the amendment is that I am not sure whether the Government have carried out the terms of Article IV of the convention in the way in which they have drafted the Bill. I quote from Article IV because it is important. It says:
    "Each State Party to this Convention shall, in accordance with its constitutional processes"—
    that is, this Bill—
    "take any necessary measures to prohibit and prevent the development … of (biological) agents, toxins … within the territory of such State, under its jurisdiction or under its control anywhere."
    Mention is made time and time again in the convention of "the State". If the State—in this case the British Government—is to say in its own constitutional processes that it will ban the production, and so on, of these weapons by private citizens but will not bind itself, as a State, to give up their production, development and stockpiling, I beg leave to doubt whether the Government are carrying out the terms of the convention. If they are doing so according to the letter of the convention, they are certainly not doing so in accordance with its spirit.
    The Government can transform the doubt that we have and the attitude which others are likely to take of the Government's adherence to the treaty through this Bill by adopting the amendment. I hope that the Minister will consider it sympathetically.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Lane): I have considered this matter carefully and sympathetically since it was raised in Standing Committee last week and especially since the Opposition tabled this amendment.
    I hope that the Opposition will accept that the Government are as concerned as they are that our acceptance of the convention and its implications leading up to this Bill is watertight in the sense that we intend fully to honour all our undertakings as a Government in subscribing to the convention.

    1019
    I believe that the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) exaggerated the doubts and suspicions which might arise elsewhere when he said that if these words were not written into the Bill it would fatally weaken the credibility of this country in this context and that some people might allege that the British Government were merely paying lip-service to it. However, I see the spirit in which the hon. Gentleman moved the amendment. I must advise the House against accepting it, but I hope that I can reassure the Opposition and any others in this House or outside who may have doubts.
    On behalf of this country we as a Government have already undertaken in Article I of the convention
    "never in any circumstances to develop, produce, stockpile or otherwise acquire or retain"
    these various agents or toxins, first, and the various weapons, equipment, or means of delivery, second. That is written as plainly as it could be in Article I, and that is the convention to which we have subscribed as a Government on behalf of this country.
    The undertaking is clear from the convention, and it is not necessary to write it in further in the Bill. But there is a further and second disadvantage. It is that the Bill basically is creating a new criminal offence of developing, stockpiling, and so on, these various weapons. I ask the House to consider, if the criminal offence is also theoretically to be committed by a Government, what will be the penalty for a Government trying to enforce the law against themselves. Apart from the reason that the words are unnecessary because of our adherence to the convention, if we accepted them we should land ourselves in a complete nonsense for the reasons that I have just given.
    I said on Second Reading, and I repeat today, that we shall make sure that no Government establishment involved in this work infringes the Bill in any way. Again as I said on Second Reading, the Government do not produce or stockpile biological or toxic weapons and have no intention of doing so. In other words, nothing that is going on or that may go on in the future at Porton in any way constitutes, or will constitute, a breach of the convention.
    1020
    As the hon. Member for Pontypool reminded us, in Article IV we were obliged to carry out our obligations under the convention through our constitutional processes; that is, to
    "take any necessary measures to prohibit and prevent the development, production, stockpiling, acquisition or retention of the agents, toxins, weapons, equipment and means of delivery specified in Article I …".
    In our view, it is not necessary nor is it in accordance with our normal constitutional processes to bind the Crown in this instance.
    There is the further point which was raised when the hon. Member for Pontypridd mentioned the problem at the end of the Committee stage, and it relates to Crown liability and civil law. Since the enactment of Section 2 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 the Crown is no longer exempt from liability for civil wrongs, and this liability is determined by the general rules of the law of tort. Nothing in the Bill makes the Crown any less liable for damages which might be caused by activities in a Government establishment. I hope that that further assurance will set at rest any doubts on that aspect of the Crown's involvement.
    In view of that explanation and my repeated undertakings and assurances, I hope that the House will agree not to press the amendment. We believe that not only is it unnecessary but possibly it would cause confusion.
    Mr. John: Generally I must confess that I am not convinced by the Minister's explanation. We regard the Bill as a step forward. The point which I have tried to make is that it is not as great a step forward as it might have been, because of the Government's reluctance to bind the Crown. The Minister does not deny that it is possible to bind the Crown and that to do so would be efficacious, subject to the amendment of the penalty clauses.
    Although the Government are not bound, Service men are under certain penalties in the Army Act and in the Navy Discipline Act. Clause 5 makes it clear that a Service man might well be punished for what his Government can legitimately order him to do. That seems fundamental and complete nonsense. The Minister is right to say that an assurance is given. He has given an assurance in

    1021
    terms as clear as he is able to use. Although he gave an undertaking about weapons, he has not given an undertaking regarding the research which is necessary to continue to produce biological agents and the weapons which transmit such agents. They can be conventional weapons. There is no need with present technology to have to develop special weapons for the transmission of biological agents in so far as they can be reliably transmitted.
    I regret that there is not more commitment by Britain to the treaty. However, in view of what the Minister has said and because I recognise that the Bill represents a step forward, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    6.42 p.m.
    Mr. E. S. Bishop: The Opposition welcome the Bill. We have done our best in Committee and at other stages to assist the Government to produce a Bill which we think will be less vague and at the same time consistent with the convention which the Government seek to ratify. It must be appreciated that the Bill is a step on the road to disarmament, and that a milestone came from the Geneva Protocol of 1925. Now, nearly 50 years later, we have progressed towards this measure. We welcome it, but we feel that the Bill is rather vague.
    The Opposition moved various amendments in Committee and we were promised replies. Due to the business of the House being changed today, we may now hope for some replies on Third Reading. I recognise that the Minister has sent the promised letters. However, we have not yet had time to study them. It would be helpful if he could clarify the position by putting his replies on the record.
    This is an important Bill. It seeks to ratify the convention, which seeks to prohibit the production, stockpiling, acquisition and retention of weapons which are detailed in the measure. The value of the measure enacted by the Powers and signatories to the convention—and I understand that there were 110—is that each should have confidence that the measures which it has agreed and the steps
    1022
    being taken by each Power give an international assurance that biological weapons have been banned and their manufacture and use prohibited.
    The impression given by the Bill is one of vagueness. It appears to be a statement of intent. However, let me emphasise that we welcome a statement of intent, such as it is. As my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) said, the Bill is drawn up in rather vague terms. We have sought to strengthen it by amendments wherever possible.
    There is confusion about the terms relating to biological agents. We are told that they mean
    "microbial or other biological agents, or toxins"
    That is rather vague. We hoped that the Minister would accept a restriction. That would be in line with the World Health Organisation's report on biological and chemical weapons, published in 1969. That theme was taken up by several hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Pontypridd and West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). The Opposition feel that there are some dangers in the vagueness with which the definition is couched.
    There is the problem of quantities and specifications which are to be included. Bacteriological substances, the genetic code and the problems of the pharmaceutical industry must also be considered. We feel that there is need for clarification. I recognise that the Minister said in Committee that he felt a little uneasy about that matter. He said:
    "If, through any blinding flash of light, we can see a better form of words that would be more satisfactory and widely understood, we could consider putting it in at a later stage."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 11th December 1973, c.7.]
    It seems that there has not been any blinding flash of light. In fact, there has been little light outside to illuminate our views or the Minister's possible help. We should welcome the Minister's telling us whether he has again considered the matter. Further, it would be helpful if he were to suggest any ways in which our fears may be overcome.
    Some hon. Members have been concerned about single- and dual-purpose materials. The House and the country are entitled to further clarification. We are not concerned only with stopping the

    1023
    wrong use of biological weapons, namely, weapons which in that context would be designed for hostile purposes; we are anxious to protect those who are concerned in research and development and those who wish to continue to produce substances that are necessary for peaceful civilian purposes. Without a more specific definition a danger is posed. it may be easier to define the single-purpose substances which are for hostile or peaceful uses. There is doubt about dual-purpose materials such as tear gas, phosgene, and a wide range of bacteriological substances and chemicals. We want to prohibit one and not the other. We want to prohibit production for hostile purposes. We do not wish not to restrict or hinder production for peaceful purposes.
    The question arises, who is to judge what is right and what is wrong? It was suggested that the Minister might bring in the impartial and expert resources of the Scientific Research Council. The Minister did not agree. He felt that other research councils may be appropriate for the occasion. Many hon. Members feel that there is a need for an impartial and expert advisory body outside the Government. That is important not only to Britain but to other signatories to the convention. There is no point in being party to a convention or treaty if it is not possible to be satisfied that the other signatories and others who say that they support the convention or treaty are not equally bound by it. We must have confidence in its purpose and effectiveness.
    Parliament has the right to know what is going on. We feel that there should be an annual report to Parliament on the working of the measure and the problems and possibilities that are involved. We should be able to debate the measure fully. It is an important aspect of our defence.
    I shall not on this occasion make more than a passing reference to Porton. The fact that it is open to hon. Members to visit the establishment and inquire into what is being done there provides some satisfaction, but that does not go far enough.
    On the matter of seeking expert and impartial advice, it is not that we distrust civil servants and those who advise Government Departments; it is merely that there is a need for impartiality. We must
    1024
    be satisfied that the Government are not judge and jury in their own case.
    Reference is made to the possibility of taking action against any who offend against the code laid down in the Bill. We are told that it will be for the courts to decide whether an offence has been committed. That is all very well, but if Parliament does not know what the measure means one wonders how the courts will be able to decide what Parliament had in mind and whether anyone has offended against the measure.
    In the letter which the Minister has kindly sent to us since the completion of the Committee stage he has said that if the measure is not clear the situation will be helped by sending out an administrative circular. But we know that circulars and notes of that sort are not part of the measure, and therefore the courts will have to go by what the measure says.
    More important than the courts being informed is the need and, indeed, the right of the public and all those involved in research to know at the earliest stage what is right and wrong. Apart from the fact that those who offend against the measure may be punished, as provided for by the Bill, there is the important factor that we want to prevent research and development into and production of certain gases and biological weapons. All those involved in the production of chemicals, drugs, and so on, have a right to know whether they are offending against the measure.
    We are also concerned about the absence of any verification procedure. It seems to be left to the various Governments to decide whether people under their control in their own States are, as the convention puts it, keeping within the confines of the convention. We need some assurance that the verification procedures which have been agreed internationally—that is, if they have been agreed—are adequate to ensure that signatories to the treaty are keeping to the internationally agreed code of conduct.
    The Bill is a little more forthcoming about the action to be taken when it is alleged that an offence has been committed, but this is rather late in the day, and I believe that the House is entitled to know more about the matters to which I have referred today and to which my hon. Friends referred in Committee.
    The Minister claims that the Bill is tied to the convention—and that is so. The hon. Gentleman may claim that it matches the terms of the convention, but in that case the convention is perhaps a little weak in having to satisfy the lowest common denominator of the international points of view that have been put forward.
    The Bill is important. Some may say that in the light of the earlier statement today and the previous measure which the House considered, this Bill is of little importance, but in my view it is of supreme importance, because without international assurances and guarantees of enforcement, nationally, the whole of our population can be endangered. We recognise that in these days of guerrilla warfare, terrorism and hijacking, those concerned in those activities do not sign treaties and are not subject to conventions. There are real dangers. Some substances, in the proper hands, can be used for peaceful purposes, but if used by others they can endanger entire populations in ways which I need not detail. The situation has changed radically in the last few years, and we hope that the Minister will be a little more forthcoming than he has been to date.
    We should like an assurance that the Government are pressing ahead with other countries to make sure that it is clearly understood that although the Bill is a welcome step on the road towards disarmament there is still a great deal of work to be done. We hope that the Government will take the initiative, with other countries, to ensure that when they ratify the convention they pass their own legislation to follow up their ratification of the treaty. We look to the Government to take the initiative, so that we may move further along the road towards disarmament. In the meantime, we welcome the Bill as a step forward, vague though it may be, and basically a statement of intent though it may be. We hope that it will be an incentive to more international endeavour to secure disarmament.
    6.57 p.m.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: Perhaps I may remind the Minister that he owes some of us a letter on a rather complex issue raised in Committee, namely, the manipulation, or potential manipulation of the genetic code, and I hope that
    1026
    he will tell us that he is looking into the matter.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Bishop) said that this is an important matter, and so it is, but I hope that we shall not bathe in the comfortable assumption that we have done a complete job, because the truth is the opposite of that. This is about a very small and—dare I say it?—easier part of a real problem. I do not think that we as a Parliament are in a position to congratulate ourselves. We can congratulate ourselves and start feeling easier in our minds only when we have done something about the more urgent and relevant problem of chemical warfare.
    International progress on that matter has been deplorably slow. Therefore, any congratulations that may be forthcoming from me will have to wait until the Governments of the world have done something about banning chemical warfare, instead of contenting themselves with dealing with the easier half of the problem.
    6.58 p.m.
    Mr. Lane: My reply to the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) is that the Government are not claiming more than a moderate step forward, and I hope that that is clear to the House.
    I thank hon. Members on both sides of the House for making it possible for us to get the Bill through quickly. I am sorry that I have had to advise both the Committee and the House against accepting any of the constructive amendments moved by the Opposition. I know that my replies have not wholly satisfied hon. Gentlemen opposite, but I hope that it will be possible to make equally rapid progress with the Bill in the other place so that we can go ahead and ratify the convention as quickly as possible.
    The hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Bishop) raised two main points. I have tried to cover these in my letter to the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) and perhaps I may summarise what I said.
    First, there is the argument about definition. We have considered this carefully. We have not had a blinding flash of inspiration, otherwise we should have put down an amendment, but, thinking the matter over and considering the alternatives, we felt that the right course was

    1027
    to stick to the broad definition which was originally written into the Bill and which is still there, but to embody in the administrative circular which we shall issue to the courts, to the police, and so on, when the measure is on the statute book some more explanatory words which will be on the same sort of lines as the possible alternatives which we have considered, as a definition.
    It will be something in this form, that "biological agent" means "any microbial or other biological agent which depends for its effect on multiplication and which would cause disease or death in man, animals or plants". Our considered view is to leave the definition broad in the Bill but to give illustrative guidance in the circular which we shall be issuing.
    We considered enforcement and verification in Committee. I do not think that either side of the House is urging that there should be a great paraphernalia of new control spreading over the whole pharmaceutical industry. But we believe that there are quite sufficient supervisions, controls and knowledge over this area of production and research to satisfy all legitimate anxieties about it. I mentioned in Committee the Medicines Act 1968, which provides for ample review of all these activities. We do not believe that we could add anything to the Bill in this context which would increase the prospects of detecting breaches under the Bill. When the Bill becomes law, we shall try to make available all the resources, inside and outside the Government, if there is the slightest suspicion of anything unlawful occurring.
    The last point raised by the hon. Member for Newark was, as he put it, that the Government should not be judge and jury in the same case and that there should be a greater independent element in this matter. I can only remind him that it is possible, in the progress of the convention, for our work under it to be raised in the House at any time by any hon. Member who wishes to do that. Written into Article XII of the convention is a commitment to review the work of the convention after five years. That gives us a long-stop opportunity of independent review in any case.
    I am sorry that the hon. Member for West Lothian has not received the letter
    1028
    which I sent to him last Thursday. Evidently that has gone astray in the post. I tried to deal clearly in that letter with the hon. Gentleman's point about the manipulation of the genetic code. What I said to the hon. Gentleman was, in brief, that we have no alternative here but to go on trying to preserve the distinction between chemical substances and biological agents, but, as the boundaries of scientific knowledge are extended, we shall obviously have to look at this matter again on an international basis. All we can offer at present is the prospect of making progress in similar agreements in relation to chemical substances whose development cannot be justified for peaceful and related purposes. When that progress has been achieved the position of animo-acids will presumably be put beyond all doubt. That is our hopeful forecast of what it may be possible to achieve.
    We are seeing this as only a first step. That is what the convention said in its preamble. It is a first possible step towards the achievement of agreement on effective measures for prohibiting the development, and so on, of chemical weapons. Again I confirm that we shall be giving clear advice to the police and to all others who may be concerned about the administration and enforcement of the Bill. It is clear that we cannot get perfection in the Bill. We recognise that it is not a perfect solution, but it is still a very valuable step to take. We shall continue to take initiatives on general disarmament and to make further progress as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Dalyell: Is there real activity by the Government on the question of amino-acids at present?
    Mr. Lane: I hope that we are being active. As the hon. Gentleman has raised the matter, I shall look further into it. We shall do our best to keep up the momentum on this whole work.
    On that basis and in that spirit, I hope that the House will give the Bill a Third Reading.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

IMPORT DUTIES
7.4 p.m.
Mr. Peter Shore: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Import Duties (General) (No. 8) Order 1973 (S.I., 1973, No. 1845), dated 5th November 1973, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22nd November, be annulled.
This afternoon we have had a Budget that failed signally to match the gravity of the hour. Now, just three hours later, we are presented with what is in effect a mini-budget; a budget, moreover, that has more impact on our two major economic problems, the balance of payments and the cost of living, than the Budget which the Chancellor took 45 minutes to present earlier today. However, unlike the earlier Budget, which was largely irrelevant to the problems that we face, this one, as I hope shortly to demonstrate, is actually perverse in its effects. It will impose taxes on our food and it will worsen further the balance of trade.
Certainly we need an import order today, but an order entirely different from that which we are discussing. What we need now is an import control or import quota order to arrest the flood tide of imports which now threatens our ability to earn our living and defend our currency.
The size of our trade deficit, which is the background to the order, is indeed calamitous. So far this year we have chalked up a trade deficit of nearly £2,000 million. With every passing quarter the gap has widened. It was minus £360 million in the first quarter, minus £410 million in the second and minus £550 million in the third, and it has reached an almost unbelievable minus £625 million in the last two months.
If there had been no Middle East war and no overtime ban in the pits—and neither of those events is reflected in these appalling trade figures—we should be faced with the need for urgent and severe action to begin what is bound to be a long and arduous effort to earn once again our keep and to pay our way in the world. But we have not got an import quota or import control order. Instead, we have an order, a vast volume, which unbelievably seeks further to relax trade barriers between Britain and the
1030
European Economic Community and, with the conspicuous exceptions of Commonwealth trade and trade in food, to lower tariffs generally, although moderately in relation to the rest of the world.
The folly of a further cut now in our tariffs with the EEC in particular will be evident to all those who have followed the course of our trade with the Continent since the Treaty of Accession was signed just under two years ago. Our trade deficit with the Six in 1971 stood at £180 million. In 1972, partly anticipating entry and the effort by both Continental and British exporters, the deficit grew to £499 million. That is trade with the Six alone. In the first 11 months of this year, following the first 20 per cent. tariff cut in April 1973, our trade deficit has reached £1,036 million. Comparing 1973 with 1971, our trade with the EEC Six will have deteriorated by the end of this year by a full £1,000 million.
What does the Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs expect in 1974? It is no good for him to emulate the Chancellor of the Duchy and tell us about the growth of Britain's exports to the EEC and at the same time fail to tell us about what is happening to our imports from the EEC as a whole. Indeed, the Minister fell into that error in a speech which accompanied the release of the order. In that speech he pointed rather proudly to the fact that Britain's exports to the Six in the first 10 months of this year totalled £3,235 million, an increase of 35 per cent. over the same period last year. That was the theme to which his right hon. Friend spoke in the debate we had not long ago about the astonishing successes that have followed Britain's membership of the EEC. Against that 35 per cent. increase in Britain's exports, I must now inform the House that the increase in imports is not 35 per cent. but 50 per cent. during the same period. That is why the gap, great and grievous as it was in 1972, has grown and continues to grow so calamitously in 1973.
From the succession of heavier quarterly deficits that we are revealing, all the signs are that, unless something new and additional, far beyond the measures announced by the Chancellor today, is introduced, 1974 will be even worse than 1973. It is no good Ministers comforting themselves with the thought that we have

1031
a competitive power. Yes, indeed, we have—and that has brought some grave problems of a different kind as well.
But the policy of floating the pound started in the summer of 1972. We have now had 18 months' experience of floating the pound. I am afraid that it has not produced, nor begun to produce, any sign of improvement in our overall trading position—that is, in the balance between our exports and imports. That being so—and it is undoubtedly so—what the House will want to know from the right hon. and learned Gentleman is why Ministers have come forward at this particular time with an order which seeks to relax further the trade barriers between Britain and the rest of the world.
I know partly the answer to the question. This measure has been introduced not because it relates to any need or development within the British economy but because it is part of a pre-set timetable, a timetable worked out in the Treaty of Accession nearly two years ago, a timetable which Ministers feel they must slavishly follow even though circumstances have changed so radically in the intervening period.
But even if one allows for the constraints of the Treaty of Accession and for the diffidence of Ministers in seeking to alter it at so early a stage, I am surprised that no reference has been made in any ministerial announcement about the possibilities that exist for changing the timetable. Let me refer the right hon. and learned Gentleman in particular to Article 26 of the Rome Treaty, the underlying document to which all our commitments relate. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman looks at it he will find that
"The Commission may authorise any Member State encountering special difficulties to postpone the lowering or raising of duties …"
on commodities in relation to third countries and to the common external tariff. "Postponement" is written into Article 26. That would help to postpone or avoid the great bulk of changes written into the Import Duties (General) (No. 8) Order 1973. It would not deal with the effects of lowering tariffs between Britain herself and the EEC.
1032
There are other procedures under the Treaty of Rome which the Minister could seek to employ. Article 108 says:
"Where a Member State is in difficulties or is seriously threatened with difficulties as regards its balance of payments …".
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that he is in difficulties, or is likely to be in difficulties, in the balance of payments? If he does and that is so, the Commission is supposed to investigate the position and make recommendations. There is the possibility of the provision of mutual assistance, again within Article 108, which says:
"During the transitional period, mutual assistance may also take the form of special reductions in customs duties …"
to the other members of the Community. In other words, they could lower their customs duties in relation to Britain on a more favourable timetable as against the scheduled reductions that this country has to make against the EEC.
Lastly, Article 109 of the Rome Treaty says:
"Where a sudden crisis in the balance of payments occurs …"—
perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman might accept that if it is not "sudden" it is at least a crisis—
"… the Member States concerned may, as a precaution, take the necessary protective measures."
Even the Treaty of Rome envisages that there are certain circumstances and situations in which import quotas—that is precisely what these special measures refer to—can be introduced. What I want to know is whether the Government have considered these procedures and whether, in the otherwise somewhat fruitless dialogue that went on in Copenhagen earlier last week, or in the continuing series of meetings in Brussels, all these matters have been touched on, or whether any of them have been raised? I say it with some emphasis because I am aware, and I do not think any right hon. and hon. Members on either side of the House can fail to be aware, that the order of magnitude of the figures we have been discussing, grave as they are, is likely to be enormously increased in the year ahead.
Even if there was no serious interruption in oil supplies, the price of oil is now going to rise to a really formidable

1033
degree. Even in the last month the price of oil has doubled, to take the October and November price increases unilaterally announced by the oil sheikhs and other Middle East producers, which means that Britain's oil import bill of £1,000 million in 1972 is bound to become, without any increase in quantity, about £2,000 million in 1974. I say doubled, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows full well that the availability of oil, or rather its price, is likely to be very much higher than the increased levels which were posted by the Middle East and OPEC countries only a few weeks ago.
The free market price for oil, if the figures quoted in Iran are anything to go by, could be three or four times as much as it was in the first half or the first three-quarters of this year. When we talk about the overriding need for doing something about our balance of payments situation, we are not overstating the seriousness of that situation. But to have, on the same day, a so-called Budget which has no new proposals whatever directly related to this most serious problem for the British economy, and to find ourselves discussing three hours later an order which seeks to liberalise trade further between Britain and one of its major deficit trading areas, is an astonishing combination and, indeed, a disastrous one.
My quarrel with the order is not simply based upon the balance of payments and what I fear to be its effects. It is also based upon what I see as its second major defect—that it will give a further twist to the cost-of-living spiral and in the most sensitive area—the price of food. The November food index stands at 207, compared with 174·3 in November 1972. So in one year the price of food has risen by 19 per cent., and this during a period which includes five months of total freeze, six months of severe restraint in phase 2 and the first month of phase 3. I can think of no comparable increase—I doubt whether any other hon. Member can either—in peace or war in my lifetime.
What does the order do to the price of food? It imposes new taxes on food beginning on 1st January 1974 where previously either no taxes or lower taxes have operated. It imposes them in the
1034
form of customs duties and tariffs levied on imported food. I will not weary the House by itemising all the foodstuffs whose prices will be increased. That would take a very long speech. But I will mention three main categories of foodstuffs that will be particularly hard-hit.
The first is the whole range of fresh fruit and vegetables which form so important a part of the national diet. It is true that on 1st January our tariffs on EEC horticultural products will be lowered by 20 per cent., and against that we have to harmonise upwards our tariffs on horticultural imports from third countries by 20 per cent. on the same date. But only about 27 per cent. of our fruit and vegetables come from the EEC, on which the tariff is to go down, whereas 73 per cent. come from those third countries whose exports will now have to pay higher tax. So there is no joy for us there.
The second category where tax will bite is on tinned foods of all kinds but particularly fruit, fish and meat. We eat more canned fruit and, I believe, canned fish than any other country in Europe. All of us who remember the well-stocked shelves of the local grocers' shops, with their tins of pineapples, grapefruit, apricots and peaches, with labels from Israel, Spain, South Africa, Canada, Australia, and all around the world, will realise that this national habit of eating tinned fruit is firmly established. Much of it, as I said, comes from Commonwealth countries, and upon their imports a tax equal to 40 per cent. of the common external tariff is to be imposed on 1st January.
I should like to give one or two illustrations, not even from a Commonwealth country. I have here some of the tariff changes which will affect our imports from Israel, a country which supplies us with a great deal of canned fruit of all kinds. Grapefruit from Israel, which is not unknown on the British breakfast table, at present has a nil tariff, but on 1st January it will be 6 per cent. On orange juice there is a nil tariff and on 1st January it will become 7½ per cent. Tinned grapefruit has a nil tariff and on 1st January it will be 4¾ per cent. On tomato juice there is at present a 5 per cent. tariff, which will rise on 1st January to 11 per cent. The tariffs on melons and oranges will rise from 5 per cent.

1035
to 7½ per cent. on 1st January. This is from Israel, a country which has not enjoyed the Commonwealth preference, the nil tariff régime, which most of our Commonwealth food-supplying, and particularly fruit-supplying, countries have so long enjoyed.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be interested to know that most northern working-class families at Sunday evening tea have tinned salmon with salad followed by tinned peaches and tinned cream. That is a traditional working-class Sunday evening tea, and it is precisely what this Government's policy will hit.
Mr. Shore: I am glad that my hon. Friend has made that point. These, of all the taxes—and there has been a whole series of them—will reach into every family in the land. Families will really feel this, and they will rightly feel resentment that these taxes should now be imposed upon them.
I have mentioned fresh fruit and vegetables and canned fruits, fish and meat, but the third category is the tax on meat. There is a tax on beef of 4–5 per cent., but that may not be noticed so much because the levies have already affected the price of beef and the free market allows our meat to go surging into the Community, where prices are so much higher. That has already been felt.
But where it will be felt most dramatically is on mutton and lamb, In 1972 we imported £105 million-worth, according to the overseas trade statistics, of which no less than £102 million-worth came from New Zealand and Australia. Apart from a small specific duty, our lamb imports have been tax-free until now. From 1st January they face a tariff of no less than 8 per cent. There will be an 8 per cent. tax on the leg of lamb and on the shoulder of lamb that we have enjoyed as very much a part of our national diet.
It should be remembered that all this is only the first step in a series of price increases which will go on year in and year out, unless there is a new Government with the will to alter the procession of events, until the end of 1977.
The direct effect will be an ever-increasing burden of tax on the nation's imported
1036
food but the indirect effects will be serious, too. Taxes on imported food and the threat of the extension of the CAP are forcing our traditional suppliers to diversify away from the British market. This point was made in the short debate on the motion moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. David Stoddart) last week. Those who made this point were absolutely right.
Only two months ago, in October 1973, the New Zealand Meat Board Market Development Committee, an official body, recommended that 23 per cent. of lamb exports should be diverted from the United Kingdom market. It aims to sell instead to Greece, to North America, to Japan, to Germany and other European countries. Australia, too, following Mr. Gough Whitlam's visits to Tokyo and Peking, is planning to conclude trade pacts with those great and populous Asian countries. All this is bound to increase the price of food in Britain.
What makes the whole thing so scandalous is that these increases in our food prices come on top of other specific measures to drive up the cost of our food.
Mr. E. Fernyhough: I agree with my right hon. Friend that what makes these measures so indigestible is that they come on top of other food price rises. But what makes them repulsive is the fact that when the money has been collected we have to send it across the sea to the EEC.
Mr. Shore: My right hon. Friend has put his finger on one of the most sensitive points in this whole arrangement. One of the most offensive parts of the Treaty of Accession is the part which enables the authorities in Europe to take the revenue from these taxes as though it were their own, under the shameful provisions which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs did so much to cram down our throats a year or so ago. But it would take me far beyond the scope of the order if I pursued that aspect now.
To come back to the question of food prices and the effect of this order, I was saying that what was so scandalous was the fact that it came on top of all the other measures to put up the cost of our food. It will be noted that, with the exception of beef, none of these categories

1037
of foodstuffs which are to be taxed on 1st January is included in the common agricultural policy. Those covered by the CAP are separately taxed by the system of variable levies on imports, coupled with intervention prices and intervention boards inside the EEC. These new taxes have from 1st January, also come on top of the appalling effects of the Government's economic mismanagement which has devalued the pound in the last two years to an unprecedented extent.
The effect of this on our food bill needs to be stated. I said that lamb from New Zealand and Australia will be taxed at 8 per cent. from 1st January. But in the two years since the Smithsonian agreement, when the pound was fixed against the new parity régime which was established at that time, it has devalued against the New Zealand currency by 24·7 per cent. and against that of Australia by 23·8 per cent. The effect of that change in the value of the pound has been inevitably, immediately and automatically to raise the price of our imported food from Australia and New Zealand to the extent that our currency has been devalued.
In the way the pound has floated against the currencies of our principle food suppliers in the last two years, we can see one of the main causes of the increased food prices in Britain. We devalued by 11 per cent. against the United States, by roughly the same against Canada, by the same against the Argentine—which still provides us with a good deal of our beef—by the same against Israel, by 21 per cent. against Spain, by 24 per cent. against South Africa and by something over 20 per cent. against the countries of the EEC, with the sole exception of Italy. The right hon. and learned Gentleman and his right hon. Friends talk about world prices as the main cause of Britain's rising food prices. I have never sought to conceal, either from my friends or from myself, the fact that world prices have been a great problem in this last year—of course they have But if I am prepared to face the reality of world prices, let the Government also face the reality of what the devaluation of the pound has done, together with the common agricultural policy levies and all the specific and measurable food taxes that are being imposed upon food brought into Britain.
1038
What makes the whole situation ludicrous is the fact that the Government are still supposed to consider inflation as their priority problem. The Minister of Agriculture himself, in the Agriculture Council meeting in Brussels on 11th December, barely a week ago, when discussing the reform of the CAP—he has not put forward any proposals for the reform of the CAP, as such—called upon the EEC to reduce the common external tariff on selected farm and food products as part of the fight against inflation. In other words, the Minister of Agriculture has proposed to the Agriculture Ministers in the EEC that they should do the very opposite of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman is trying to get this House to do tonight. He is demanding that we impose the CET on a wide range of foodstuffs which have never previously been taxed, while his right hon. Friend is suggesting to his colleagues in the EEC that they should do precisely the opposite. It really is bedlam.
I have a third and main objection to this order—not just to the effects on the balance of payments, not just to the effects that it will undoubtedly have on prices, but to the new pattern of preference which this order establishes in our trading relationship with the rest of the world. First, and most notable, this order marks the end of the Commonwealth preference system. I was tempted at one point to say that I feared it would mark the beginning of the end of the Commonwealth itself, certainly as we have known it in the post-war years, but I do not say it and I must make plain to the House my reason for not saying it, because it may give some encouragement to many of our people, many friends of the Commonwealth, on both sides of the House.
I put down a Question to the Minister in which I asked him whether, now that Britain was imposing the CET against Commonwealth countries to whom we had previously afforded preference, they, in turn, on 1st January, would impose taxes to an equal extent on those British exports to them which had previously enjoyed preference. I was delighted to learn from the Minister that only one country—New Zealand—was even considering doing so at the present time. I find this a remarkable and admirable restraint on the part of Commonwealth

1039
countries. It shows that there exists in many parts of the world the hope and belief that this absurd policy of turning against Commonwealth trade will yet be reversed before damage is done.
It will be clear to anyone who has glanced at this order that so long as it continues the Commonwealth will be divided into two. The Commonwealth of Nations now becomes C1 and C2 in column 5 of this order. First, there is C2, the so-called associable countries—those of Africa and the Caribbean—which have the opportunity under the Treaty of Accession to negotiate some form of association with the EEC. For the time being, at least, their trade remains unaffected by this order. But on the far larger part of the Commonwealth, including the 700-odd million people of the Asian Commonwealth and the 40-odd million inhabitants of the old Commonwealth countries of Australia. New Zealand and Canada, about whom no agreement has been made, we now have to impose duties equal to 40 per cent. of the difference between what they now pay and the full burden of the common external tariff of the EEC. So let there be no doubt that this is a very damaging measure. It not merely discriminates against the Commonwealth; it divides the Commonwealth into two for the purpose of trade in the future. I fear that if we cannot reverse it soon great damage will inevitably be done, in spite of the forbearance of our friends.
Secondly, this order makes it clear that as old preferences are withdrawn new ones are to be granted for countries with whom we have no particular connection—for example, the countries of French Africa and of the Mediterranean—who are parties to favourable trade agreements with the Six. Thirdly, and very important, the British generalised system of preference is to be merged with that of the EEC. That is the third change in the new pattern of trade which this order seeks to impose.
This is a very complicated order to interpret, and I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will give us a little assistance when he speaks. Am I right in my belief that the generalised preference system does not appear in the order at all; further, that it will not be made the subject of a separate order to come before the House, but that—I think
1040
I quote from the Ministry hand-out—it will be largely implemented by directly applicable Community instruments not under United Kingdom legislation? Is that so? Are we being told that our trading relationships with the third world are to be determined without the knowledge of the House—we have not yet had even a statement—without debate on it, and with the need for only a ministerial decree at Brussels? Is that so? I hope that the Minister will answer.
We should also like the Minister to give us answers about two of the Asian Commonwealth countries whose trade is much affected by the loss of preferences in the United Kingdom market and also possibly by the GPS scheme. First, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us whether the tobacco we import from India—which accounts for 25 million dollars a year, or 10 per cent. of total Indian exports to the United Kingdom—will be allowed to continue at the present low preferential rate of 2·9 per cent., or is it to be raised to the 6 per cent. or indeed, as I have sometimes read, the 10 per cent. of the EEC on 1st January?
Second, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us whether jute-manufactured goods from Bangladesh and India will continue to be duty-free in the United Kingdom or whether, on 1st January, we shall have to impose a tariff upon them? These who are at all involved in the affairs of the Asian Commonwealth will know that jute and jute goods are of enormous importance to the countries that I have mentioned. Indeed, jute and jute products account for an unbelievable 80 per cent. of Bangladesh's total export earnings. Bangladesh is one of the poorest countries in the world. How can we withdraw duty-free access from such a country at such a time—and to whose benefit?
I invite the House to reject the order. The crisis that we face today will not be eased by anything within it. On the contrary, it will make our problems still more difficult as the balance of trade moves further against us and as inflation is stoked up still more by the need to tax hitherto untaxed food.
When we consider the number and scale of the misfortunes that we have experienced since we entered the EEC less than 12 months ago, the sheer necessity for the fundamental renegotiation of

1041
the terms that were negotiated becomes plain even to the most obdurate Marketeer. We cannot allow our people to be taxed year after year by the levies of the CAP and by the duties of the common external tariff. We must reopen the British market to our traditional and low-cost food suppliers in New Zealand, Australia, Canada and elsewhere. We must not allow VAT, and we shall not allow VAT, to be imposed upon our food, and we shall decide for ourselves whether we have a VAT at all.
Above all, we have to take back the powers of regulation over the British economy, so that we can do what now so clearly needs to be done in the national interest—control the great surge of imports into the United Kingdom and control the outgoing tide of investment and money from Britain into Europe, and we must have the power to pursue lax, price and subsidy policies to help to counter the great evil of inflation from which we suffer.
None of these things can be achieved unless we break the bonds of the Treaty of Accession. Nothing can be done unless we renegotiate fundamentally its terms. By voting against the order we are not only fighting against unnecessary taxes on food and against an unnecessary hurt to the Commonwealth. We are also taking the first step towards economic sanity.
7.45 p.m.
The Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): The right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore), in the breadth of his denunciation of the order, did no more than echo his familiar opposition to the entire case for accession by Britain, on any terms whatever, to the European Communities. The nature of the demand with which he closed his speech—for the breaking of the bond established by the Treaty of Accession, for total freedom in relation to tariffs, subsidies, and each and every aspect of our policy; the denunciation into which he launched, not merely of the common agricultural policy, with which I know that he is not over-friendly, but also of the entire concept of the common customs tariff and the common external tariff—was so far-ranging that it cannot possibly commend itself to any hon. Members who have with any con-
1042
sistency at all supported the case for accession by this country to the European Communities. [Interruption.] I know that some of my hon. Friends may take a different view.
I want the House to have this matter in perspective. The nature of the right hon. Gentleman's opposition goes far beyond an analysis—even if it were an accurate one—of the consequences of the order, and takes us right into total opposition to membership of the Community. That is not a case which I think the House should accept. The right hon. Gentleman seeks to reopen the long argument about the pattern of our trade and the changing balance between our trade with Europe and our trade with the Commonwealth—a change that he knows perfectly well has been taking place for many reasons in different ways for a number of years, a change in the pattern that was taken into account in the consideration of the case for joining Europe in the first place.
Then the right hon. Gentleman sought to launch his two-pronged attack on the central provisions of the order by reference to its effect on food prices—I shall deal with that in a few moments—and also to the place which it should take alongside today's economic measures. It is important that the House should have that in perspective as well.
I do not question the gravity of the overall situation which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequor described in his statement to the House today. Nobody questions, as the right hon. Gentleman put it, the overriding need for measures to accommodate that situation. Nobody questions the need to do so by facing reality. We recognise that one of the measures advanced to meet that case could be a demand for import regulation—import controls—of the kind that the right hon. Gentleman described and of the kind I recollect the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) producing in 1964. But other measures can also be judged appropriate to deal with that central economic situation—measures which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor described today.
That is not the subject of this debate. All I am contending is that there are many ways in which to respond to the economic situation. The Chancellor has outlined effective and appropriate ones,

1043
and it is certainly consistent with his proposals to conclude that it would not be right, quite apart from membership of the Community, to embark upon a far-ranging pattern of import control.
I was grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to Articles 26, 108 and 109 of the Treaty of Rome, because it demonstrated that even in his eye the treaty is not as rigid a strait-jacket as he would once have had us believe.
These measures can perfectly well take their place alongside the measures proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer today to improve the economic situation. The right hon. Gentleman asks, for example, what the measures contain which seek to deal with the pattern of the balance of trade, import and export. He will surely not overlook two simple measures which the Chancellor outlined, namely, the imposition of controls on credit and hire-purchase terms, which are likely to have a direct effect, as the Chancellor said, on the inward movement of consumer goods, and the export of consumer goods manufactured in this country—a relevant measure, acceptable as an alternative to those for which he argues.
The right hon. Gentleman has surely not overlooked the impact of the change in the balance of demand in the economy as a result of the other measures announced by the Chancellor. These are both measures which relate to the necessity—if necessity it is—for making more goods available for export and reducing the likelihood of such goods being consumed on the home market. They can take place happily alongside the broader provisions of the order.
Mr. Fernyhough: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman saying that the British people are now living so well that it is very desirable, when we are fighting inflation in every sphere, to put up the cost of food, at a time when workers are being told that their incomes will be down because of short-time working, and when everybody has in every way to tighten their belts? Is he saying that at a time when incomes are to fall it is sustainable policy to take action to put up food prices?
Sir G. Howe: I am not saying anything of the kind. I shall in a moment explain
1044
what I am saying about prices. I shall demonstrate to the House that on prices the net effect of the order will probably be downwards rather than upwards. I shall come to that in a moment, but I should first like the House to look at the order in a broader perspective.
The order is an essential part of our progress of accession to the European Communities. It must be looked at in that way and as part of the general case for doing just that. It should not be looked at as achieving only a movement in one direction or another on given tariffs. It is part of the longer case in favour of joining the larger European Economic Community. If one looks at the effects of any aspect of it one can produce a curious variety of analyses, as the right hon. Gentleman did. The net short-term effect is not very substantial in any event. On prices, the effect is downwards rather than upwards.
It is part of the longer-term fulfilment of our obligation to join the Community in pursuit of the longer-term opportunities which lie there. If we were to react today or any other day by casting aside this step in that progress we could lose out on the longer-term as well as the short-term opportunities of membership. We could, for example, lose out on the prospect of European Community markets outside our own being more rather than less buoyant than our own. The prospect for expansion in the light of the measures taken by the Chancellor is good.
The right hon. Gentleman returned to the familiar case about the pattern of trade between this country and the Community. It is right to point out that our imports from the Community in the first 11 months of this year had risen as he said by 50 per cent. although I think it is 47 per cent.—over the corresponding period of last year.
Mr. Shore: From the Six.
Sir G. Howe: In that case the figures may be slightly different. Our exports to the Community have been rising significantly faster than have those to the rest of the world—by 37 per cent. to the Community as against 24 per cent. to the rest of the world. That is an important factor, demonstrating the importance of the Community market as one in which trade should be expanding.

1045
It is right, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that in value terms our balance of trade with the Community has deteriorated by the figures which I have indicated—but we should look at the position in terms of volume. Imports have risen at about the same rate as exports—probably less. It always takes time for changes in parities to be fully reflected in increased prices for the exports we are making and before there is any long-term improvement.
Mr. Douglas Jay: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the balance of trade depends on value, not on volume? Does he deny that in the first 11 months of this year our visible trade with the Six has shown a deficit of about £1,000 million, whereas three years ago it was almost balanced?
Sir G. Howe: I appreciate that the figures I have been presenting relate to percentage growth in the deficit in the overall balance of trade between this country and the Community. I accept that trade depends on two factors, namely, the volume of goods and the price at which they are sold, and the balance comes out in cash terms as the value of the goods sold. But it is not unimportant that during the period of entry the volume of export trade with the Community has been growing at least as fast as imports. The picture provided by the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends—of a flood of consumable goods entering this country from the Community, with this country selling nothing to the Community—is a false one, which many people seek to present. We are exporting a volume of goods which is growing as fast as the volume we are importing. Prices have risen and have to rise still further in the light of parity changes. The picture is not as black as it has been painted.
Mr. Shore: That may be so, but can the right hon. and learned Gentleman carry the analysis a bit further? Is it or is it not the case that imports of the consumer goods he has mentioned have increased? Has our trade balance in consumer goods—for example, the motor car trade with the Six—improved or grown worse during the entry period?
Sir G. Howe: It is right that we have been importing a growing excess of certain
1046
consumer goods—motor cars among them—from the Community. That is one of the reasons why the economic effect of the Chancellor's measures today will help to reverse the trend. One of the other factors to be borne in mind is that we would be in a far better position to see expanding exports of cars from this country not just to the Six but to the whole world if we were able to get away from the industrial strife which has inhibited and impeded the growth of our motor car industry. The dominant cause, to use the simple phrase of an American motor manufacturer whom I heard on the radio the other day, is the availability and non-availability of motor cars.
Mr. Shore: Too much demand.
Sir G. Howe: Availability and non-availability are primary factors. The case for joining and being part of the Market with larger expanding opportunities remains as strong as ever it was.
Mr. Norman Buchan Mr. Norman Buchan (Renfrew, West) rose—
Sir G. Howe: I cannot give way again. I must get on.
Mr. Buchan: It is a simple question, from a simple man.
Sir G. Howe: On that incredible premise, I shall give way.
Mr. Buchan: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman saying that things are good because the volume of trade has increased, giving a deficit of almost £1,000 million? If the volume of trade is to continue to increase will it not increase the deficiency which we already have? Have I got it wrong?
Sir G. Howe: I am saying that alongside the measures taken with respect to the balance of demand in our own economy it is perfectly sensible and consistent to be pursuing the case that has always been argued from the Conservative side of the House in favour of accession to a larger market in which to sell more. It is a larger market with better opportunities, and we have every reason to expect that we shall sell more. The extent to which goods will sell or not sell within our own economy depends to some extent upon the balance within this economy. It certainly does not weaken the case for lowering tariff barriers and

1047
expanding trading opportunities within a larger European Community.
I come now to the effect of the order on the various rates in question. This takes the second step towards the customs union by the further 20 per cent. cut in duties on goods from member States. It is the first cut in duties in the horticultural sector and the second for industrial products, making an effective 40 per cent. cut in the internal level of duties. Secondly, it preserves existing duty-free entry for Denmark, Ireland, the associable Commonwealth and most goods from the old EFTA.
Thirdly, it reduces duties on goods from the associates of the Six when the United Kingdom's full rate is being reduced. Otherwise it keeps them where they were and makes the first move towards the common customs tariff for imports from third countries by reducing the gap between present United Kingdom rates and the common customs tariff by 40 per cent.—20 per cent. on horticulture.
The order does not deal specifically with rates for countries outside EFTA with which the Community has agreements; for example, in the Mediterranean area. They will be dealt with by separate orders. Nor does it deal—the right hon. Gentleman was correct about this—with the main concessions under the Community's new generalised scheme of preferences because they would be effected by directly applicable Community legislation.
Mr. Shore: As I recollect it "directly applicable" means that it will be a sort of Section 2 (1) procedure whereby no order will come through us. If this is so, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman find some way of at least informing the House of the proposals and what changes affecting Britain's trade with the larger part of the Third World have been agreed or are to be agreed before the act is done?
Sir G. Howe: I have answered some questions about that. I will try to deal with it a little later on. It is not a consequence of an order under Section (2) (1). It is a consequence of Section 5 of the European Communities Act, from which it was clear that once we had completed the transition into the CCT
1048
the level of duties would be determined by directly applicable legislation.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Is the right hon. and learned Member aware that for three consecutive Thursdays the Leader of the House has replied to questions about this? Early Day Motion No. 88 also refers to this and asks the Leader of the House to ensure that there is a debate on the matter before a decision is reached in Brussels. The right hon. Gentleman has said that there will be time for this. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that there will be no opportunity to debate it on an order which he would lay. Does he not think that it would be most appropriate for a debate to be held under the auspices of either himself or the Leader of the House so that we can debate this subject?
Sir G. Howe: I will draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend what the hon. Member has said. I cannot say more than that.
The other matters that do not appear in this order are the changes in the protective elements in revenue duties. Those are the subject of separate orders, three of which are already before the House and have already been considered by the merits Committee.
The other effect of the order is to deal with the classification of goods in relation to tariffs, and it completes the adoption of the CCT nomenclature begun last February. The old United Kingdom descriptions have been inserted into the new and longer Community nomenclature. Without that there would have been an impossible task of averaging duties, and it is that transitional complexity which accounts for a lot of the bulk of the order and which will largely disappear at the end of the transitional period.
The apparent complexity is in a sense a consequence of the gradualism involved in having a transitional policy. It would have been technically easier to have adopted the Community system completely and immediately.
I come to the effect of tariff levels on particular goods. The CCT for industrial goods is generally lower than the level of the United Kingdom full rate, so that will tend to move down on 1st January.

1049
But some things will go up and some down. Duties within the Community will move downwards. Supplies from the developed Commonwealth which were previously duty-free will now bear 40 per cent. of the CCT. But those are not very important sources. Goods from the developing Commonwealth are largely duty-free under either the GSP arrangements, which are still being negotiated, or under the standstill. I will return to this as it affects the Mediterranean countries, such as Israel, later.
When we turn to foodstuffs the matter is not as simple as the right hon. Member sought to argue. It is important to get the perspective right. Only about half our total imported food and drink is in any event subject to duty, and of that amount, for a variety of exceptional reasons, a large proportion bears no duty. Duties on food from the Six will be going down, and that is an important area affecting many horticultural products. It was concern at the downward price movement of that kind which led us to establish a long and generous transitional arrangement for horticultural products.
For the associable Commonwealth, duty-free access is also maintained. With the new GSP scheme we have been able to obtain a number of arrangements, to which I shall return, for continued liberal access without anything like the full rate of duty on a range of commodities, including coffee, cocoa butter and pineapples.
The examples given by the right hon. Member taking Israel as an example serve to show how easy it is to be misled about these things. For the Mediterranean States, with which association agreements exist, agreements either have been, or are being, worked out to apply to this country the existing agreements which they had with the old Community. Insofar as those have not yet been completed, they will all be the subject of a standstill order so that no change will take place on 1st January. For example, the agreements with Israel would be subject to a standstill on duty increases for the time being until they have been finalised.
Mr. Shore: I accept that. We all understand that in the past month there have been grave difficulties in negotiating with the Mediterranean countries, including
1050
Israel. But surely the order of magnitude for the figures I gave—assuming that negotiations can be resumed in a fairly reasonable time—is correct, together with the increase in prices which I have outlined.
Sir G. Howe: No. With respect to the number of commodities from countries where we have association agreements or where there will be such agreements, the figures are not likely to be as high, or generally as high, as the right hon. Gentleman is saying. In a number of cases—I would not want to give a general answer, because sometimes it will be up and sometimes down—there will be preferential rates established, varying from country to country. These will be better rates than those arising from alignment towards the CCT. This is why we have to look at the totality of the changes to see the overall effect of them.
Beef is not dealt with by the order. It is subject to the levies anyway, and any change takes place by different arrangement on 1st April. It is right to acknowledge that with lamb a change is being made.
But when one looks at these matters in total and tries to establish the overall effect, one finds that most individual changes will be relatively small. In any event, some increase will be absorbed by overseas suppliers anxious to hold on to their markets. Some decreases will benefit overseas suppliers. The net across-the-board effect ought to be downward. Within this, food prices might rise marginally, but it is impossible to be precise. However, it is estimated that the effect of this step towards the common external tariff on 1st January in relation to food is likely to be no more than ¼ per cent. to ½ per cent. I emphasise that that is on the food price index. The effect will be about 0·1 per cent. on prices altogether. Thus, if we set the upward trend in the food prices affected alongside the downward effect in the movement of other prices involved, we find that the net effect is likely to be downwards rather than upwards. That is why it is so wrong for the right hon. Gentleman to present this order as a monstrous taxing exercise. It is quite the reverse.
Mr. Jay: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman sure that he is right in saying that the order does not make any change

1051
in the case of beef? On pages 9 to 12 there appear to be a number of changes in relation to various types of beef.
Sir G. Howe: I believe that I have given the correct answer. The point raised by the right hon. Gentleman may not lead to the conclusion that he suggests, but I will look at the matter and he will get his answer. I am not speaking without having tried to analyse the situation. What I have said reflects what I believe to be the position.
Mr. Richard Body: While I accept that the order will have the net effect of reducing the duties on food imported from the rest of the EEC itself, does it necessarily follow that it will have the effect of reducing the prices of that food? Once the duty is reduced, it will displace imports from third countries which could send the food to us more cheaply.
Sir G. Howe: I hesitate to make such a simple observation to my hon. Friend, but my critics cannot have it both ways. If they say that placing a tariff on imports which would otherwise come in free will mean an upward trend in prices, it follows that the opposite course must have a downward effect. The reduction of tariffs in general is likely to lead to a reduction in prices.
What is the broad pattern of change of the GSP? The Summit directive looked forward to:
"… improvement of generalised preferences with the aim of achieving a steady increase in imports of manufactures from developing countries."
Our objective has been maximum access for the products of the developing countries. We have been particularly anxious to safeguard the interests of developing Asian Commonwealth countries—those covered by the declaration of intent and not eligible for associate status.
We accept that the scheme of the Nine first of all took account of the interests of the original members with their different traditions, and that we, therefore, have to secure adjustments in that as we come alongside it. We have achieved a number of improvements in the original scheme. We hope that the new scheme will provide additional opportunities to the developing world as a whole, and the Asian Commonwealth in particular.
1052
One hopes to see further improvements in the years ahead because the matter will constantly be available for renegotiation and there will also be opportunities in the multilateral negotiations.
The main difference between the two schemes is that the Community scheme produced access for some industrial products limited by quotas with restrictions on the quota share effected by "butoirs", while the United Kingdom scheme has a general safeguard provision. We have a wider coverage of agricultural products but exclude textiles and hydrocarbons.
In the course of negotiations, substantial concessions have been negotiated in the Community's scheme. For example, we have been able to produce special arrangements in relation to plywood, which is of particular interest to Malaysia. We have been able to secure arrangements in relation to cocoa butter, soluble coffee and canned pineapple in our case for larger tariff quotas, with the lion's share of the quotas coming to this country.
We have obtained a number or smaller concessions—for example, on coconut oil, cashew nuts, prawns, shrimps and so on. We are hoping to secure further improvements, for example, for tobacco, which is of importance to the larger countries in the Indian area. In the Community there is now agreement on a commercial agreement. Jute from India is included in the GSP and we have the continuance of duty-free entry to the United Kingdom. That is likely to be extended to Bangladesh.
Mr. Shore: Did the right hon. and learned Gentleman mean jute or jute manufactured goods?
Sir G. Howe: Both jute and jute manufactured goods. We have secured the same pricing pattern for the protections which already exist and no additional ones. Parallel arrangements are being worked out with Bangladesh.
We must not, in our reaction to the economic news of the last week or so, overlook the longer-term objectives and opportunities to which the House and the country have been committed in Europe for a number of years, in our membership of the EEC. The changes to be made in

1053
that direction are to be taken as a series of steps. What we are dealing with tonight is one step, but an important step, in the process of achieving that customs union which is part of the objective of European economic integration. We shall be helping to lay the foundations for that in favour of which we in this House voted so decisively two years ago. It is upon that basis that I commend the order to the House.
8.19 p.m.
Mr. Alfred Morris: The Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs must have felt extremely lonely as he spoke. There are as many dour opponents behind him as there are facing him from the Opposition benches.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman's reply to the compelling case made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) was totally inadequate. The right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke evasively and at times even flippantly. His speech will rank as not only the most curious but also the most indefensible by a Minister for Consumer Affairs. He spoke much more like a lapdog than as a consumers' watchdog. We are not impressed by his clever manipulation of statistics. In any case, my right hon. Friend was not speaking only of the import duties in this particular order but of the whole objectionable system of which they form part.
In this debate, as my right hon. Friend has amply shown, we are dealing with more important causes of the present crisis than anything to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred this afternoon. My right hon. Friend spoke of the huge losses on our balance of payments in direct consequence of membership of the European Economic Community. There is the further and related scandal, to which my right hon. Friend also referred, of the Government's blanket acceptance of the common agricultural policy of the EEC. It is that scandal to which I wish principally to refer.
We must now act to stop paying prices far above those at which food can be economically produced. The whole of the Government's policy on food prices is a dangerous nonsense. Its effect is to trap the British economy in a vicious
1054
circle. The more we pay for the food we import, the more we worsen our balance of payments and further gravely weaken the pound. The more we devalue our currency by sinking the pound, the more we pay in sterling for the unnecessarily high-priced food we are forced to import.
Where he is not evasive the right hon. and learned Gentleman simply repeats the Government's lame excuses for failing to deal with the staggering increase of 44·8 per cent. in food prices since the General Election. As everyone knows in his heart, most people in all parties now want urgent and drastic changes in the EEC's food and farming policies. They are heartily sick of subsidising the EEC's butter exports to Russia and of all the other absurdities to which we have become subjected. Why on earth should the already harassed British housewife have to subsidise food exports to the point where Russia now has to pay only 5p a pound for EEC butter? The right hon. and learned Gentleman has no real answer, but housewives throughout the country are demanding an answer and an end to the price explosion. There have been more than 30,000 price increases since the General Election. That is the appalling extent of the Government's failure to keep their election pledge.
If the Minister wants to compare rises in the price of food in Britain and Norway—whose people at least had the chance of voting to stay out of the EEC—he can consult a recent parliamentary reply to one of his hon. Friends. Between 1972 and 1973, food prices in Britain went up by 15·1 per cent. and in Norway the increase was only 5·2 per cent. Norway is not the only country to be compared with Britain in that reply. For Switzerland the increase was even less—at only 5 per cent. In Sweden it was only 5·8 per cent. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) intervenes to remind us, they are all countries outside the EEC.
The reply to which I referred was received by the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body). It fully documents the case we have been making in the House about the effect on our food prices of our membership of the EEC. The reply came from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food to her hon. Friend.

1055
Her figures are much more eloquent and convincing than the right hon. and learned Gentleman's apologia tonight.
I appreciate that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was unable to refer to sugar. Nevertheless, there are those of us on both sides of the House who are deeply anxious not only for the future of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement but for the very existence of the International Sugar Agreement. It was put to me only today that there is great anxiety among our friends in the developing Commonwealth countries about the EEC's attitude to the new administrative ISA. I ask the Minister to ensure that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster makes a statement to the House at the earliest possible opportunity on the EEC's present attitude to the new administrative International Sugar Agreement.
Far from exaggerating, my right hon. Friend spoke with studied moderation. I hope that the House as a whole will take all his points much more seriously than the Minister did. We must put an end to unnecessary increases in food prices. The import duties before us are part of a whole system which those of us on both sides who object to the conditions negotiated for British entry to the EEC want to dismantle. The need is urgent. Indeed, urgency has never been more urgent.
8.26 p.m.
Mr. Neil Marten: I support what the hon. Member for Machester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) said about the International Sugar Agreement. The point he raised very briefly is most important.
With regard to what the hon. Gentleman said about the increase in the price of food as between the EFTA members and the EEC members, there was another Written Answer—I think it was in HANSARD last week—which I received from the Minister and which showed that food prices in the Common Market have risen about three times as fast as those in EFTA, if we exclude the associate member, Finland, as I think we can, and Iceland, which is a very new member and has a particular problem about fish.
Mr. Alfred Morris: I must consult the reply given to the hon. Gentleman. For the guidance of the House, I should like to say that the reply to which I referred
1056
in my speech was given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) on 9th November, and appeared in Volume 863 of HANSARD, at column 290.
Mr. Marten: I am grateful for that intervention, because it allows me to explain that when I saw that answer I did not think that the dates for which my hon. Friend asked were quite the best. I asked about the rise in prices from 1st January, when we joined the Common Market. I worked out from the answer that Common Market food prices rose three times as fast as those in the genuine old EFTA club to which we belonged, and to which I wished we still belonged.
I return to the Prayer. Many of the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) covered my feelings about the whole question. What he said about the balance of trade with the Common Market is true. Many hopes that were held out to those who were encouraged to vote for entry are now falling flat on their faces. They are not materialising. It may be out of order to quote the word used in the front page headline of The Guardian today—[HON. MEMBERS: "No; it is a good word."] It was a good word, but I ask hon. Members to read The Guardian to save me the embarrassment of quoting that extraordinarily apt description of the Community.
I want tonight to speak on a limited theme. I take it as an example, but the argument follows what the right hon. Member for Stepney said. I wish to refer only to the 8 per cent. tax on imported lamb. My hon. Friends and I have been fighting to prevent this tax, and Motion No. 48 has been signed by 30 right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Government side of the House objecting to that 8 per cent. tax on imported lamb.
Paragraph 15 of the consultative document of the Government's counter-inflation policy clearly sets out that pay increases for the group should be 7 per cent., yet the Government themselves propose a tax of 8 per cent. on imported lamb, and that must be outside the spirit of phase 3. In many households, when they can afford it, lamb is the traditional Sunday lunch. When short of housekeeping money, which is fairly often

1057
these days, my wife, when I ask for beef on a Sunday, says that it would be much cheaper to have lamb, and we have some excellent New Zealand lamb when we can afford it. But there are other families who cannot always afford a joint on a Sunday and it is absurd that an 8 per cent. tax on lamb should be imposed at this very time when the Government are trying to keep down the cost of food. This tax is especially important for families like that.
I hope that the Government will frankly admit that this tax is entirely the result of our membership of the Common Market. The population of this country must be made to realise that that is the cause of this extra tax.
Some time ago, I asked the Prime Minister why we had to impose this tax, and he straightforwardly replied that it was because of the Common Market.
On 13th November I had the opportunity to catch Mr. Speaker's eye and I was able to ask the question again, and my right hon. Friend then replied that the tax was being considered. Some of us were rather pleased about that and thought that perhaps our questioning and pressure were beginning to take effect. We thought that, if not at the summit meeting, at some lesser meeting of the Council of Ministers, our Ministers would be fighting for the British housewife and the British family and to stop this 8 per cent. tax.
I should like my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to say—he may not know the answers—what was done when the Prime Minister said that the matter was being considered. Was the Common Market approached? If so, when and who was approached? Did we ask specifically, and is there a record anywhere of the possibly secret meetings of the Council of Ministers to show that we asked to be relieved of this tax in view of our domestic circumstances? Did we try to renegotiate this aspect and finally did we say that whatever the Council of Ministers said we should not impose it? Did we take a tough line for the housewives of Britain? I fear that the answer may be that we did not go as far as that, and the reason for that was that we had already lost our sovereignty in that respect.
1058
When they know that they have to pay 8 per cent. more, or however it works out, the housewives of Britain will be angry. Speeches will be made about it, so that they will know that it is entirely due to our joining the Common Market. It is curious that it should be imposed at this very moment, because for the past few months if the Government have done anything, they have done their best—with little ammunition—to make the Common Market popular in this country. It is, as every poll tells us, very unpopular and is getting more unpopular almost every day. The Government wish to make it popular, but in fact they make it more unpopular with every housewife.
Hon. Members will know—because I have mentioned it in the House before—that the Conservative Central Office is joining in the propaganda to show what a splendid thing the Common Market is. Each week it publishes—and it now acknowledges that it publishes it—a "Europoint". It says, "Joining the Common Market was a jolly good thing: here is a point". One or two matters have not been presented in fairness, and I have written to the Chairman of the Conservative Party and to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster about the matter. It is said that the steel industry has been given a loan of £13·4 million and that £3·5 million has been given for the development of something else. One would imagine that that was very good for this country. But we are not told that we have had to contribute £45 million in return. The full commitment is a contribution of £225 million to the European banks. This is very bad business.
All I am trying to illustrate is the strong desire of many Members on the Government side of the House, who mostly support the Government, except on the Common Market issue, that this "Europointage" should be presented absolutely fairly. I therefore hope that Europoint No. 10 will be about the 8 per cent. tax on lamb.
If I vote against the order—and I hope that the Government Whip sitting on the Front Bench has noted that—I make it clear that I shall do so simply because I oppose the imposition of an unnecessary tax on food, particularly at this time. I have made that clear in my constituency, and I must be as good as

1059
my word to my constituents. The Government must be aware of my attitude because of my questions to the Prime Minister and the motion on the Order Paper. It will therefore come as no surprise to them if I vote against the order.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: The hon. Gentleman will be in good company, because I remember reading the Prime Minister's election address, in which he said that he would cut prices, particularly food prices. Therefore, will not the hon. Gentleman be supporting the Prime Minister's excellent statement that if he were returned to power, as he was, he would cut food prices?
Mr. Marten: I cannot see my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister voting with the hon. Member tonight, but I know that he would find it agreeable.
The Government are aware of my opposition to the Common Market and to the food tax on lamb. My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs recognised that the opposition to the order was logical for those who oppose entry to the Common Market. I appreciate that and I am grateful for it, because throughout the debates on the Common Market we have been well treated by members of the Government Front Bench, who have accepted that our opposition comes from the heart and is for the best of motives for our country. That has always been the spirit in which our debates have been conducted. I hope that if I vote against the order tonight my vote will be taken in a similar spirit.
8.39 p.m.
Mr. Douglas Jay: I can help the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) in one respect. He asked whether there was any reason other than the Common Market for imposing the food taxes included in the order. It is stated on the first page of the order—this is one of the clearest things in it—
"This Order does not increase duties of customs other than in pursuance of a Community obligation."
That makes it quite clear, and it might perhaps be included in one of the Euro "fables" put out by the Conservative Central Office.
The Minister's speech made it easier for us all to understand why the country is in such a disastrous situation. What
1060
an incredible moment this is for the Government to introduce the widest series of new food taxes that we have known for generations past.
There is no defence for these new and increased taxes. They have no purpose other than fulfilling a Community obligation. Their only effect will be gratuitously to force up the cost of living and make any fair incomes policy unacceptable. We are being asked in a mere three hours' debate to abandon the policy of untaxed food that has been broadly in force with all-party support for 100 years and more. Perhaps we might rely on the Members of the Liberal Party, who were here in depth earlier but have not stayed for an answer or to exert their full strength in the lobby—
Mr. Arthur Lewis: In my constituency I have a Liberal opponent who tells me that the Liberals are anxious to bring down the price of food and the cost of living. Is my right hon. Friend saying that by their support of entry into the Common Market Liberal supporters are responsible for the increase in the price of food?
Mr. Jay: My hon. Friend knows how the Members of the Liberal Party voted in all the crucial Divisions two years ago. I should be out of order in pursuing that too far, but I am in order in advising my hon. Friends to observe how any Liberals present in the House may vote this evening.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: They are not here.
Mr. Jay: I know they are not here, but they might conceivable be somewhere else in the building.
Let everyone realise that the new import duties on food included in the order are additional to the levies imposed on these and other foodstuffs in ways other than by the order. The increases are introduced not for a good reason connected with British interests but because of the Prime Minister's abject surrender to Mr. Pompidou. That is why these import duties and levies on butter and cheese amounting to 50 per cent. are being imposed. Nor is it any excuse to say that the duties on some foods included in the order are going down while others are going up. Taxes on essential food should not go up, whether or not others

1061
are going down. No such tax should be in force, least of all at a time like the present. There is no substance in what the Minister said about there being a net fall on balance. The House will observe that he found it impossible to apply that remark to food. He admitted that on food there would be a net increase.
It cannot be said that the increases are trivial or that they apply only to secondary foods. Although the Government may hope to conceal the reality by the vast and confusing complexity of the order, it is instantly damaging in itself and contrasts with the relatively simple import tariffs which we have had until now. The reality is that on a whole series of essential foodstuffs new and increased tariffs are imposed by the order on our supplies from virtually the whole of the old Commonwealth, from parts of the Asian Commonwealth and even in some cases from other EFTA countries.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman appeared to say that there was no increased tax on beef. If the order does not impose an additional import duty on beef either in January or March next year the Minister is introducing into the House an unintelligible order, but no doubt he will explain that later.
As I see it, a new tariff is imposed on beef supplies coming from the old Commonwealth, starting at 4 per cent. and due to rise eventually to 20 per cent. That applies to imports from Australia, which is an important producer and exporter of meat, and whose importance as a meat-exporting country is increasing. On mutton and lamb there will be a tariff of 8 per cent., plus a specific duty that before long will rise to 20 per cent. It seems to me to be an act of near insanity in economic policy deliberately to deprive the British consumer of low-cost supplies of lamb from Australia and New Zealand, since those countries are the world's most efficient producers of mutton and lamb. Furthermore, those commodities are not produced or consumed on any substantial scale in EEC countries. The only purpose of this provision will be to force up lamb prices in case people eat mutton and lamb instead of beef—as a result of which, horrible to relate, the price of beef might come down! That is the only purpose I can see for this extraordinary new tax.
1062
For fish of almost all kinds there is to be a new tariff apparently affecting in some cases even supplies from EFTA countries and associated Commonwealth countries. Perhaps the Minister will explain the purpose of an increased tax on fish supplies from EFTA or even associated Commonwealth countries. The same can be said of eggs, potatoes and most other vegetables, where apparently there are also to be increases applying even to some EFTA countries. There is also to be a new tax on bananas and oranges as well as on tinned fruit—bananas and oranges previously being tax-free. In other words, there is to be a new tax on all supplies from outside the EEC and associated countries. Can the Minister confirm that there will be no tax on bananas from the Caribbean Commonwealth countries?
Will the Minister also explain why apparently some categories of tea from the Asian Commonwealth will have to pay a new duty? Can we at least assume that the vast bulk of normal tea supplies from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Ceylon will continue to come into the country tax-free? This is a commodity that is not produced in the EEC countries and is not consumed on the Continent in anything like the quantity in which it is consumed in the United Kingdom. Therefore, it is difficult to imagine any purpose in imposing an import tax on tea.
May we be told why certain categories of maize imported into this country will attract duty when we know that the high price of feeding stuffs is now imposing a great burden on the British farmer and is forcing up prices generally? What is the purpose of that duty?
If all these matters were contained in a Finance Bill, no doubt we should be spending hours, and indeed days, in probing each individual commodity and finding out what was happening. Instead of such an exercise, we are being asked today to judge 770 pages of tariff changes in only three hours. On top of all these items margarine is to bear a 10 per cent. import duty. Is this to ensure that the consumer will be able to find no alternative to buying the dear butter that is available in the Community? If there is some other reason for taxing margarine, perhaps we shall be told.

1063
In addition, there are to be new duties on manufactured meat and fish products, sugar confectionery, malt extract and even salt, apart from a number of other secondary foodstuffs. The prices of all these foods will be forced up not by world prices, as we are told so often, but by the deliberate decision of the Government in introducing this battery of taxes on essential foods. To my mind, it would be almost impossible to imagine a more reactionary, more divisive and more stupid policy than to introduce a gratuitous régime of dear food enforced by taxation at this of all moments.
When the Prime Minister makes his appeals for justice, fair play and national unity in his TV appearances or even in this House he does not mention that behind his back he is deliberately introducing a dear food policy. This order undermines and disproves entirely the sincerity of the right hon. Gentleman's appeal for national unity.
I am a believer in a fair and workable incomes policy, but I am not in favour of enforcing anything like stage 3 and at the same time introducing this order. The order alone would justify organised groups of workers in resisting stage 3, and that is why the Prime Minister never mentions these food taxes in any of his speeches.
This House could contribute to the economic recovery of this country if it took its opportunity tonight to throw out this order root and branch. People are beginning to talk a good deal about subsidising food. But what is the sense of taxing food and subsidising it at the same time? Let us at least get rid of the food taxes and levies first. After that we can talk about food subsidies. Let us begin by throwing out this indefensible order.
8.53 p.m.
Mr. Ronald Bell: This order is the first instalment of the imposition of duties upon foodstuffs entering the country in accordance with the EEC Accession Treaty. We have already come to live with levies, intervention boards and all the consequences flowing from them. With the order we start upon a new path, that of direct entry taxes on food.
1064
We have known for some time the general shape of the Community agreement, but when we look at some of the taxes in the order—those on lamb, margarine and fish products—we are not considering taxes which are self-evidently imposed for the protection of some intra-Community activity. We shall not get lamb from the Community, nor fish products, nor margarine, which is in its origin a tropical product. Therefore, the duties can only be imposed at best for some indirect Community purpose progressively to shut us off from these sources of foods in order that we may concentrate our consumption on those which are produced in Western Europe.
When considering and assessing the overall effect of the order, my right hon. and learned Friend must bear in mind that there is a lack of substitution. We are not raising the price of lamb from New Zealand and replacing it with lamb from France. If the price of lamb from New Zealand is raised, either people will pay the full amount of that increase or they will have to buy beef or another product.
My right hon. and learned Friend must also remember that one of the disadvantages of this procedure is that we cannot pick upon particular items, as we could in the Finance Bill, and say "Yes, there are some good things in the order but we do not like some matters." We are asked to take approximately 800 matters and pass them all or reject them all. It is a bit much for my right hon. and learned Friend to say that we must set off one against the other, make a final addition and pass the order. That may be the result of the procedure, but it should not be.
The order, on the face of it, is made in the execution of Community obligations. My right hon. and learned Friend deprecated any reliance upon an argument which was inconsistent with the obligations which we assumed on accession. When the European Economic Community Bill was passing through the House we were assured over and over again that the sovereignty of Parliament was not being taken away from us and that ultimate sovereignty would remain with Parliament.
When we asked whether we would be hauled before the Community Court for

1065
breach of our obligations if we did not agree with some of the Commission's proposals, we were told repeatedly that we did not understand the spirit of the Community. We were told that that was not the way in which it worked. We were told that everything was sweetness and light, that there was tolerance and understanding. We were told over and over again that we could not be forced to do anything which we did not want to do. That phrase was heavily relied upon, and I rely upon it tonight.
If it were true, as we were assured by people whom we had every right to believe and trust, that sovereignty would remain with Parliament and that we could not be forced to do anything which we did not want to do, now is the occasion to put those assurances to the test. I have no access to the inner records of the European Community, but I have no doubt—and my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) asked the question—that our Ministers were beavering away trying to persuade the Community not to require an 8 per cent. duty on lamb. What British Government would want an 8 per cent. duty on lamb? Why would they want it? Why would they want such a duty on margarine or on fish products such as herrings and tomato sauce?
British Governments do not want duties on anything like that. Of course, the Government argued that duties should not be imposed; they were unsuccessful. They have a lot of things to ask for and they cannot have them all. This is rather near to the Ark of the Covenant for the real Marketeers of the Continent. They do not want to do it.
My intention tonight is to help to do for the Government something which the Government would find it embarrassing to do themselves. It is in that spirit of helpfulness and co-operation, at a time when co-operation of that kind is more called for than ever before, and upon an assessment of the priorities which I am sure will commend itself to my right hon. Friends, that I shall take the step that I propose to take tonight.
I was a little sorry that my right hon. and learned Friend sought to minimise, or perhaps I should say lessen, the importance of the short-term problem in relation to the long-term opportunities.
1066
I have a slight advantage over my right hon. and learned Friend, in that I do not believe in the long-term opportunities. I insist that the problems facing this country, and which preoccupied us earlier today, are relatively short term. Some may say that they will be with us for three months, others may say that they will last for a year, and others again may argue that they will be with us for two years. But it is the short term with which we are essentially concerned and which ought to have complete priority. It is in that spirit of helpfulness, and that estimation of priorities, that I shall vote in favour of the motion tonight.
9.1 p.m.
Mr. E. Fernyhough: When the Minister replied to my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore), his attitude towards the decision that we have to make tonight was very much in keeping with his attitude when he was pushing through the Industrial Relations Bill. The right hon. and learned Gentleman used to tell us that once the Bill became a statute everything would be lovely, peaceful and happy, and there would be no more turmoil.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman tried tonight to tell us that these new regulations—these new impositions—will have an infinitesimal effect on food prices. He says that it will amount to between ½ per cent. and 1 per cent., but he has not told us what ½ per cent. or 1 per cent. means in total, and until we know that we cannot measure how injurious the result will be.
But what we know is that today the Chancellor made a serious statement to the House. The Chancellor is concerned about inflation, and so concerned and determined is he to fight it that he is prepared to stand up to the miners, the railwaymen and the electricians even though the bill to get them working full time again would not be one-quarter of what these regulations will cost the country. The Government's sense of priorities is fantastic. They could settle our industrial troubles for one quarter of the amount that they are to impose upon the British people on 1st January by way of extra food taxes.
The Prime Minister told us last Thursday, in a speech that was as amazing as the Chancellor's today, that from 1st

1067
January people will be working on short time, for three days a week. What a marvellous way in which to get the workers to co-operate! Their wages are to be cut, and their food is to be taxed. In other words, their food bills will go up while their incomes go down. What did the Minister say? This is what the Government want because it will provide the necessary export capacity. We take things from our own people and send them abroad.
If I could ask for one power, it would be the power to make the right hon. and learned Gentleman read the last speech that I made before we signed the Treaty of Accession. It would do him a world of good. Every forecast that I then made has proved correct. Every forecast that the Minister then made has proved to be wrong.
As the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) said, it is not only that we apparently never have a victory or never get our way; it is the marvellous manner in which every Minister who defends these defeats turns them into victories. We have had only one victory. That occurred last week. The Minister of Agriculture was able to prevent the EEC putting over the idea that to use up the butter stocks we should insist on butter being put into ice-cream. That is the greatest victory that we have had. That was the one time when we stood and said what the contents of a particular commodity shall be. Our Minister said "No butter", because that would have been an impossible position for him to defend. He can defend an 8 per cent. increase in the price of lamb and increases in the prices of tinned salmon and tinned fruit without qualms or difficulties. But we put up a great fight on the question of the content of ice-cream.
In relation to the source of these regulations, we had a Summit conference last weekend. The Prime Minister attended that conference. What was the Prime Minister talking about in Copenhagen? I am sure that he must have discussed Britain's immediate economic problems. Why was he not telling the representatives of the eight other EEC countries that we could not accept this kind of thing, particularly at present? Just as Ministers bring nothing back from Brussels except defeat for the British
1068
public, it seems that the Prime Minister lost on every issue in Copenhagen. We were to have had a £l,500-million-a-year regional policy. The latest figure has dropped to £50 million. We can be almost certain that we shall get nothing out of it.
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman really believe that this debate, which is likely to be widely reported, will help to sweeten the soured industrial situation at a time when, as a result of the mismanagement of the economy, the Government are trying to place all the responsibility for the economic situation on the miners, and at a time when the overwhelming majority of trade unionists in Britain believe that they have not had a fair deal from the Government? Does the Minister believe that this is the time for him to announce that another few hundred million pounds will be added to the food bill next year? Does he believe that the public will enjoy paying that bill all the more when the money will not be spent in Britain because when we have collected it we shall have to send it across the water to the EEC?
To impose taxes upon our people but for us not to have the right to say what shall be done with the money when it is collected, to impose taxes at the ports on any imports and not to have control of those taxes, is giving away not only the rights of Parliament but the rights of the British people. I tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that if he and his colleagues continue with a policy of this kind, the difficulties that Britain face today will be the bigger the longer the Government stay in office.
9.10 p.m.
Mr, Roger Moate: Any order which imposed an 8 per cent. tax on imported lamb from New Zealand would be objectionable. But today, as many hon. Members have pointed out, it is extraordinary to seek to introduce an order of this nature.
Earlier today the Chancellor of the Exchequer told the House and the nation of the many sacrifices that we shall be called upon to make in the coming months. Within a few hours of that statement the Government are seeking to introduce an order imposing an 8 per cent. tax on lamb. It is an extra burden to be placed on the British people,

1069
leading to the inevitable effect of increasing the cost of the Sunday joint.
What is extraordinary is that it is an avoidable burden. At a time when the Government, rightly, have been saying that the higher food costs are the direct result of world prices, we are introducing something that is avoidable. My right hon. and learned Friend sought to show that the Government were taking into account the advantages and disadvantages and that the order might be beneficial to our cost of living. That may or may not be the case.
Mr. Peter Rees: Is it, or is it not, the case?
Mr. Moate: If my hon. and learned Friend had heard my right hon. and learned Friend—
Mr. Rees: I did.
Mr. Moate:—he would know that there is a substantial area of doubt. There is no doubt about the positive effect on the cost of food in that respect. The Government have made it clear that the cost of food, as a result of the order, will go up by ½ per cent.—[An HON. MEMBER: "Or 1 per cent."] Indeed, perhaps by 1 per cent.
Sir G. Howe: Since the error has been repeated, the figure I gave was ¼ per cent. to ½ per cent.
Mr. Moate: I accept my right hon. and learned Friend's correction. I am pleased that he was able to furnish the figure because, when I tabled a Written Question exactly to that point, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—
Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is it not the case that Ministers' figures are always proved wrong? We were continually told that there would never be a 15p loaf—that it was never possible. Their figures are always wrong.
Mr. Moate: It is obviously difficult to quantify these matters, but what is not in dispute is the fact that this order, certainly as it applies to lamb and other foodstuffs, will create an increase.
The Government are seeking to impose the order at a time when we should be avoiding increases of this nature. If the rest of the order were beneficial, and
1070
that were the single adverse point, I would still say that it was objectionable on that basis. If the Government say that that is unreasonable, I say that the procedure that brings forward an order of this nature, 722 pages long, incorporating many items of an objectionable nature, is also unreasonable. I do not think that the Government will be surprised to learn that many hon. Members on their side of the House cannot vote in support of something that imposes food taxes at this time.
The right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) pointed out earlier the effect of the order on New Zealand. The New Zealand Meat Board Development Committee has given instructions to the meat producers to divert their supplies to other countries. It is possible that a major diversion would mean that the net price increase to housewives in this country would not be felt in the short term, but that is hardly an attractive alternative—on the one hand being faced with a price increase of 8 per cent., rising to 20 per cent.—that should not be overlooked—or, on the other, diversion of our traditional lamb supplies to other countries, including Japan, other parts of the Far East and other European countries. This diversion conforms with the direct public instructions of the New Zealand Meat Board Development Committee. I do not believe my right hon. and learned Friend's heart is in defending this order.
If that were the sole objection to the order, it would be enough for the House to reject it. But I also do not think that we should overlook the general significance of the order in its implications for our industrial tariff policy. We are moving towards a situation which is fundamentally objectionable to the philosophy that we have been pursuing for some years.
My right hon. and learned Friend argued that a reduction of tariffs was very beneficial to us in our trade with Europe, and that it would help us expand our opportunities within this large market, but if that is true for Europe, why is it not also true of the other markets with which we have habitually traded? Why are we using this opportunity to raise industrial tariffs—a fact that my right hon. and learned Friend cannot deny—on imports from many other countries?
Mr. Ronald Bell: Will my hon. Friend also bear in mind that the initial effect of the lowering of tariffs between ourselves and the Community countries has been the emergence of an enormous deficit in our balance of trade, and that, presumably, lowering them even more will exaggerate it?
Mr. Moate: I shall not dispute that it is often advantageous to this country to reduce the level of protection, but no country faced with a massive deficit of £1,000 million, with very poor prospects in the coming months, would reduce tariffs against that market at this time. Yet we are forced to do so by the obligations into which we have apparently entered. I would argue in general terms that this commitment to raise tariffs against many of our traditional trading partners, as embodied in the order, is objectionable.
We should recall the attitude of the French Government in the recent negotiations leading up to the preparation of a position for the GATT talks. An American objective was then stated, that we should work towards zero tariffs. This, broadly, fits in with the philosophy of our Government. But the French made it clear that the tariffs should not be allowed to fall below a minimum level because they had a political as well as an economic purpose.
So we have a broad clash of philosophy between the British position, which, broadly, is a belief in reducing international tariffs, and the French, who wish to see the common external tariff retained as an important foundation of the EEC. At some point this clash has to be resolved, and it must be resolved in our favour, not just because it is a British interest but because it is a world interest to try to bring down the level of industrial tariffs.
I regret that the Government have introduced the order. I had hoped from the reply of the Prime Minister that, in the situation of crisis that we are facing, the Government would say that they would not persist with this imposition at this time. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend must understand that those of us who have been pressing for some months on this question, particularly the tax on lamb and the general imposition of increased food taxes—
1072
which is what the order is about—could not be expected to support the Government in the Lobby tonight.
9.18 p.m.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: It is a coincidence that this debate follows upon the announcement earlier today. But I fear that it may not be generally known in the country that if the order is passed it will subject the British public to considerable taxation. We have heard about 8 per cent. on lamb and an unknown percentage on beef. My calculations show that the tax on tinned foods will total about £4 million—not an inconsiderable sum.
Any Government supporters who vote against the motion and, therefore, for the order will, if the time comes shortly—some people think that this is what the Government are at least manoeuvring for—have to show their constituents why they voted for increased food taxes in the Christmas Budget of 1973. That Budget will probably go down in British history as a turning point.
Some time ago, when the Prime Minister was interviewed on ITV before the Common Market decision had been taken, the interviewer asked:
"Will the people be able to earn more to pay for the extra food costs which we expect under the Common Market?"
In his inimitable way, the Prime Minister replied:
"Yes, people will have the opportunity of earning more."
The word "opportunity" falls very easily from the lips of many hon. Members on the Government benches. Many people have the opportunity of getting a prize from Premium bonds, but that does not mean that the odds in favour of their doing so are very high. But now, rather than having the opportunity to earn more in 1974 to help pay for increased costs, it seems that the reverse will be the case.
Mr. Peter Rees Mr. Peter Rees rose—
Mr. Spearing: I shall not give way, because time is short. The hon. and learned Gentleman voted for the impasse in which we find ourselves, and he has not been present during the whole debate. The Minister, in opening, said he thought that there would be an increase to ¼ per cent. to ½ per cent. in the cost of foodstuffs. He did not give a

1073
global sum in pounds, and I hope that in concluding the Under-Secretary will do so, because it is essential that the Government should tell us their estimate of what extra housewives will have to pay after 1st January. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that his estimate depends upon certain prices going down. He expects that the benefit of cuts in tariffs on imports from the Common Market will be passed on to the consumer. Does he not know the principles of his own supporters on a free market in food? If the cost of imports goes down because of a cut in tariffs, the saving will not be passed on to the housewife. The middleman will benefit, or it will be absorbed in extra costs. Therefore, I suspect that the estimate of an increase of ¼ per cent. to ½ per cent. is much too low, and I hope that the Under-Secretary will in due course provide us with a table showing how it is calculated.
A lot of us believe that this policy of the Government has been in preparation for a long time. The last election was fought partly on the issue of food prices, and the Prime Minister pledged to cut them. A lot of people gave him the benefit of the doubt and believed that that was a sincere objective. But I have here a publication of the Conservative Political Centre, entitled "The Farming Future", which was published in January 1970. It deals with the future of food prices and on page 13, under the heading "Eggs", it states:
"But the cost of competitive foods like meat and cheese will also be increasing and are likely to lead to compensatory increases in egg prices."
The author of that article was none other than Mr. Joseph Godber. So it appears that the Government were well aware that price increases were coming, particularly in proteins. We have to consider not merely increases in costs, but the impact of those increases on alternative foods.
We know that the prices of tinned food—if we can get the tin—will be increased under this order, due to the tariffs to be imposed upon goods coming in from what have been tariff-free Commonwealth countries. I understand that we import approximately between £50 million and £60 million worth of tinned salmon every year, two-fifths of which is Canadian. A 5 per cent. tariff is to be imposed in
1074
January, amounting to approximately £600,000, rising to 13 per cent. m 1977. I also understand that approximately £15 million worth of corned beef and tinned steak comes from Australia. Either on 1st January or in April, a 5·2 per cent. tariff will be imposed, amounting to £1½ million. Approximately £50 million worth of tinned fruit is imported, and on 1st January tariffs amounting to £1½ million will be imposed, rising to 16 per cent. in 1977, so that approximately £4 million worth of tariffs will go direct to the EEC on 1st January in respect of tinned fish, tinned meat and tinned fruit alone. The Minister must acknowledge that my figures are roughly correct, because they were quoted last Monday in a speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. David Clark) and were not quarrelled with at that time.
Finally, the right hon. and learned Gentleman produced something of a triumph, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) referred—a triumph of reducing the duty on pineapple. As I understand it, Malaysian pineapple was to be charged a tariff of 24 per cent. by 1977. My information is that this has now been reduced to 12 per cent. Therefore, instead of 4·8 per cent. on 1st January we have to pay only 2·4 per cent. This has been put to us tonight as a triumph. If this is being put to us as a triumph, the failure of the Government in their total policy in this respect is abysmal indeed.
9.25 p.m.
Mr. Eric Deakins: This has been a very dry subject to debate. Nothing could be more technical than the subject of import duties. However, it has not been a very dry debate. It has been very emotional, particularly on the vexed question of food prices. It has been emotional also because what we are concerned about is the nation's very lifeblood as a trading nation unlike any other nation.
We have been concerned with the biggest change in duties for 40 years, perhaps the biggest change since the abolition of the corn laws. Mention of the corn laws reminds me that the Liberals have not spoken in this debate. The Liberals are the party of free trade. I hope that, though they have not spoken, the Liberals will be able to support us on this issue in the Lobby tonight.

1075
The debate has been overshadowed by the Chancellor's statement this afternoon. Yet at the same time the debate has been made all the more relevant and urgent as a result of that statement. As Dr. Johnson said—I am sure that this will be known to hon. Members—
"Depend upon it, Sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully."
This debate has concentrated our minds wonderfully, because the order comes into effect in a fortnight and involves fundamental changes in Britain's pattern of duties and of trade.
A number of hon. Members were unable to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker. I sympathise with them, because I know from experience that many of the best speeches in the House are those which are never made because of shortage of time. Nevertheless, all those who spoke, from both sides, were against the order. I hope that they will forgive me if I do not directly at this stage allude to food prices, which had a very good airing from everyone who spoke.
I want to consider first whether the changes in the order are desirable. There are several areas of concern. The first, which has been alluded to by a number of right hon. and hon. Members, is the effect on Commonwealth countries. Commonwealth countries are to lose part of their preference in our market. Does not this mean a likelihood of our losing the preference we had in their markets? Is that good news for British exporters? Is it desirable to weaken trade links which help bind together the world's only multiracial community outside the United Nations? I think not.
What of the very serious issue of the Asian Commonwealth countries? This was one of the difficult problems during the negotiations, and it was postponed to be dealt with after we had become a member. Then in the Treaty of Accession we had the Joint Declaration of Intent in January 1972. However, so far as the House is aware, discussions are still continuing and have still not been finally resolved to the satisfaction of the countries concerned, as we were promised during the debates on the European Communities Bill last year.
This is an important matter, because an examination of the order and of the duties on a number of sensitive products
1076
for these countries gives cause for worry. I will mention just a few—plywood 5·2 per cent.; footwear 8 per cent.; tinned fruit 6·4 per cent.; tea in small packets 2 per cent.; shellfish, especially prawns—of great interest to Malaysia—8 per cent. All of these products have nil duties at present on entry into this country.
On this issue I have two questions to ask the Minister. Of the first, which is about tobacco, I have already given him notice. The order shows a nil duty on tobacco, but the Common Market in its document on the first stage of implementing the Joint Declaration of Intent, which is dated 24th October, claims that the duty into this country ought to be 10·3 per cent. on tobacco, but for the first year as a special concession it has suggested that the duty should be only 6 per cent.
I do not understand why no duty is shown in the order. There may be a rational explanation, but it is perfectly clear that, whatever it is called, the amount of tax on non-manufactured tobacco from the Asian Commonwealth countries is to be raised, and it will undoubtedly hit tobacco exports, as the tax will hit other exports from those poor countries. Can the Minister assure us that duties will not be imposed on products from Asian Commonwealth countries pending a satisfactory outcome of the discussions on the joint declaration of intent and on an improved generalised scheme of preferences? If the Minister cannot give this assurance, the imposition of the order will definitely harm the trade of those poor countries, and we are completely opposed to that.
There is concern about the generalised scheme of preferences. Evidently the order takes account only of the existing United Kingdom scheme. This is an important matter for Common Market trade relations with poor countries generally, and particularly for the Asian Commonwealth countries. Both the existing Common Market scheme and the possibly improved scheme, discussed in recent months, are based on quotas, which were roundly condemned at the recent United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, held in Santiago. It is stated in a resolution from the conference that the countries should:
"provide duty-free and quota-free entry to imports from all developing countries under the generalised system of preferences ".

1077
That motion was accepted by our Government, yet they are now to adopt the generalised preferences scheme as members of the Common Market. This runs completely contrary to the resolution of the conference.
Moreover, the Common Market generalised preferences schemes—both the existing scheme and the improved scheme—are much less generous, as the Minister has admitted, both in the range of agricultural products and in other areas. Is this the time to be contemplating the imposition of harsher trade terms on poor countries? If a new range of duties will be necessary after agreement with the Common Market on an improved generalised preference scheme, why alter our existing system of entry for products from poor countries?
Another area of concern which has not yet been alluded to is that we are now to become entangled with the Community system of reverse preferences with particular countries, associated States. We find these objectionable. They are a form of economic imperialism whereby the reverse preferences are used to create a network of client States, a trading bloc working completely against the principles which the House holds so dear; namely, fostering and furthering multilateral free trade.
The reverse preference is contrary to GATT, but the Government appear to have ignored or forgotten their GATT obligations. GATT is not dead, and it is time the Government did more than pay lip-service to their obligations under GATT. Reverse preferences were also condemned by the Third United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. A resolution from the conference said, among other things:
"Developed countries shall… accord trade concessions to all developing countries on a strictly non-reciprocal basis …"
There is no doubt that reverse preferences are illegal and immoral. If the Government still support their GATT obligations, why are we making changes in our duties to bring us within the network of trade agreements that run contrary to the letter and spirit of GATT?
Are the changes—irrespective of whether they are necessary—desirable at
1078
present? There has been a lot of reference in the debate to putting taxes on food. We have heard about 8 per cent. tax on mutton and lamb; 6.4 per cent. on tinned fruit; between 5 and 12 per cent. on prepared meats and fish: and 10 per cent. on margarine.
Mr. William Molloy: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Chancellor was speaking to the nation tonight explaining the mess into which he and his colleagues have got things? He said that there would be no harsh taxes to hurt the housewives and so on, but forgot to mention this order, which will do just that. Is this not a form of taxation by deception?
Mr. Deakins: I do not know whether it is deception but it is certainly hypocrisy to say one thing and do another. There is no doubt that any increases in food prices are to be deplored. All speakers have made the same point. They will raise the cost of living at a time when Government policy is to counter inflation. This is surely absurd, particularly when, as we have been told, our Minister of Agriculture is trying to get food levies reduced in Brussels. Here we are putting duties on food.
We want to be able to buy the cheapest food available in world markets. If the Government would try to reform the common agricultural policy in that way they would have the support of the whole House. But they are not trying to do that. What is the advantage to the British people of the new trading pattern towards which we are moving? Great optimism was expressed on this subject by the Labour Government in their White Paper Cmnd. 4289 when they said, among other things, that the balance of payments deficit as a result of entry into the Common Market should be between £125 million and £275 million. This optimism was repeated in the Government's White Paper Cmnd. 4715 when they said:
"The Government do not believe that the overall response of British industry to membership can be quantified in terms of its effect upon the balance of trade. They are confident that this effect will be positive and substantial."
Well, at least they got it half right. It has been substantial but entirely negative.
The third piece of optimism, much more recent, came from the right hon. Member

1079
for Argyll (Mr. Noble), the then Minister for Trade, who, speaking in a Common Market debate last year, and dealing with an amendment to Clause 5 of the European Communities Bill, said:
"The right hon. Gentleman"—
he was referring to my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay)—
"said that we are bound to have to accept more imports from the European Community than we can send it exports. That is his personal view. It is not one that is shared by me, and it is certainly not shared by industry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st June 1972; Vol. 839, c. 525.]
When it comes to economic predictions, perhaps the Government should begin to take lessons from someone like Gipsy Rose Lee.
The fact is that the balance of payments deficit with the Common Market is running at an annual rate of about £1,000 million. Perhaps the Government will blame the weather. Certainly our balance of payments is disastrous, and this order offers no hope whatever of improving it. We have now reached the situation referred to in the Labour Government's White Paper Command 4289 of February 1970 entitled "Britain and the European Communities. An Economic Assessment." These really are words of wisdom. The White Paper said:
"we must recognise that if the total burden on our balance of payments as a result of membership became excessive we might find that we were unable to pursue economic policies which enabled the full benefits of membership to be realised."
Are not those words as true today as they were when they were written? Are they not more true? We on the Labour benches recognise that we have obligations in the Treaty of Accession. We have two points to make on this issue.
First, the Common Market itself has changed very little in its attitude on important topics such as reverse preferences, on getting a generous scheme of preferences at least as good as our own—the improved one is not that—and also on getting the agreement with the Asian Commonwealth countries which is satisfactory to those countries. There has been no improvement in any of these directions.
Secondly, everyone would agree that circumstances have changed radically
1080
since the 1971 negotiations. The balance of payments is worse than expected. The first year of membership has been economically disastrous. We are facing an economic crisis involving a fundamental change in economic strategy, and even if it is desirable—which we do not accept—is this the time to kick our traditional trading partners in the teeth?
The call is for sacrifices, so why cannot the Government make a temporary sacrifice of their own Common Market trade policies, which have been so unsuccessful ? We do not expect the Government to renegotiate the Treaty of Accession. We do not ask the Prime Minister to abandon his obsessive delusion that the Common Market can help resolve our economic problems, although he must be one of the increasingly small minority in the country who believe that. We are asking the Government to seek immediate approval from the Common Market to postpone the operation of these duties. Who can doubt that, in similar circumstances, France would have done so? One does not want to be too unkind, but it might be said that France would have acted first and asked permission afterwards.
We are trying to help the Government. They can make use not only of Articles 108 and 109 of the Treaty of Rome but also of Article 135 of the Treaty of Accession. Surely these articles were designed for the very economic circumstances we are facing today, a serious balance of payments crisis.
We were assured during the negotiations and the debates on entry that the Common Market would be sympathetic to any difficulties facing this country as a result of entry. Surely now is the time to ask the other members. In order to help the Government convince the Common Market of the seriousness of our economic situation, and as a first step, as my right hon. Friend said, towards regaining sanity in our economic policy, we ask the House to support the motion.
9.43 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Grant): My first and pleasant task is to congratulate the hon. Member for Wal-thamstow, West (Mr. Deakins) on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box and his maiden speech there. It was delivered in

1081
a forthright and agreeable style, and I hope that we shall hear him many more times from that position. What was less agreeable was the content of what he said.
Although I agree that this has been a lively debate, I think that it has been an unbalanced one. Quite apart from the fact that we would have liked, perhaps, to hear from the Liberals, we would have liked to hear, perhaps, from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever), the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) and the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. William Rodgers)—to name but a few—who take a very different view of the Common Market from that put tonight by those right hon. and hon. Members opposite who have spoken, whose speeches have covered very familiar arguments that we have heard over many years from those who, quite sincerely, oppose the Common Market.
The hon. Member for Walthamstow, West raised the question of tobacco. Although the common customs tariff duty here is protective, the duty on imports into the United Kingdom is a revenue duty which includes a small protective element. The power to vary it is in the Finance Act. A separate order has been made dealing with this, and it was laid on 28th November. On that part of the duty which is protected—that is to say, not revenue—the generalised scheme of preferences will operate. Indian tobacco will not pay the full duty in the United Kingdom. It will be not 10·3 per cent. but about 6 per cent.
The United Kingdom has consistently opposed any obligation on associated developing countries to give reverse preferences. That will continue to be our view. The GSP scheme generally will come into force on 1st January.
I make one observation on the hon. Gentleman's general point about the Commonwealth. He was concerned about the disappearance of our trade with the Commonwealth, or the way in which it might decline. This is nothing new. It has been going on for a long time—long before the Common Market. British companies have been tending to send more of their exports to non-Commonwealth markets for many years.
The question of food prices has obviously dominated much of the debate. A number of specific questions were put to me, many of them by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay). I cannot possibly go through a long list of foodstuffs, but I will deal with some of his questions. No duty is being imposed on bananas from the Caribbean. The duty on fish varies. Certain fish will go up in price and some will come down, but fish was not duty-free under the EFTA arrangements. Tea will continue to enter duty-free from the Asian producers.
A number of hon. Members, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) were concerned about the increase in lamb prices. It is no use baulking at the fact that there will be an increased percentage on lamb. I was not concerned with the matter, but I know that all the anxieties that my hon. Friend has expressed were brought fully into the discussions. If my hon. Friend wants to pursue the matter further, he will no doubt raise it with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
Mr. Molloy: Does the Minister think that it is fair to the House not to answer points because they are another Minister's responsibility? Is not he speaking for the Government in this debate?
Mr. Grant: Yes, Sir. I was merely saying that I did not have time to give a detailed answer on the exact course of the negotiations on lamb. The House will appreciate the position.
We must look at the net effect of the 1st January changes on food prices as a whole and get the whole matter in perspective, which is what the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing) wanted me to do. The changes in food prices are not likely to be more than ¼ per cent. to½ per cent. That represents about one-tenth of 1 per cent. on the cost of living as a whole. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman, who does not seem to suffer from lack of food himself, wished to challenge those figures, no doubt he would have caught the eye of the Chair.
Mr. Spearing: The Minister has repeated the figure of ¼ per cent. to ½ per cent. I asked him to give the equivalent

1083
in millions of pounds. Will he now do so?
Mr. Grant: I cannot do that at this stage, but I shall gladly do so. That is the best estimate we can give.
The matter must be seen in the perspective of all the other changes. The net effect of duty changes is more likely to be downwards than upwards overall, as my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs said It is misleading to suppose that all duties are going up, as hon. Members sometimes suggest. Duties on food imports from the Six are going down. Duties on food imports from Ireland and Denmark are staying where they are. Some of our external duties are going down.
I regret that my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury has to take the view he has taken. He has been consistent in opposing the Market, but I thought that he might have been prepared to accept that the order was a natural and logical consequence of the decision to enter.
Mr. Marten: May I make one suggestion, which would get the Government out of their dilemma, as I may vote against them, and probably will? If the orders were withdrawn and were then introduced in two batches—one imposing duties, against which we could all vote, and the other reducing them, which we could allow to go through on the nod—the Government would be out of their difficulties.
Mr. Grant: I cannot at this stage succumb to my hon. Friend's blandishments.
The right hon. Member for Battersea, North referred to the complexity of the order, and it is admittedly a formidable-looking document. The complication and the size arise from there being a transitional period. Industry will soon become familiar with the new arrangements. It has adapted remarkably well to other changes this year, as in the past it adapted to the EFTA arrangements, which were by no means simple. My Department and the Customs and Excise will give any help we can in adapting to the new procedure, and we shall make available as much detailed information as we can.
1084
There is one respect in which there is a great need for improvement—that is, in the simplification of trade documents. I accept the complaints that come from United Kingdom traders—particularly small traders, with whom I am concerned—about the number and complexity of documents in intra-Community trade. I assure the House that we are actively engaged, through the Simplification of International Trade Procedure Board, in promoting further simplification, and progress has been made. For example, one single certificate is being instituted for the eight or nine forms originally required, and urgent discussions are taking place with the Commission and our European partners to make progress in this respect.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned beef and pointed out that the No. 8 Order referred to present rates, which were introduced on 30th April last. The reason for repeating the duties and many others in which there is no change is simply to have a complete consolidated order, but that does not affect the issue.
Mr. Jay: The hon. Gentleman does not deny that there is to be a 4 per cent. tariff on beef, and that that is included in this order.
Mr. Grant: No, I do not. What I say is that the next change in beef and veal duties is due at the beginning of the next beef marketing year, probably 1st April, but this order does not affect that.
I turn now to some of the arguments on the balance of payments advanced by some hon. Members and particularly by the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore). It was argued by him, as it was argued by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), elsewhere, that the current world economic and energy problems demanded that we should retain a greater degree of tariff autonomy over import duties. That is purely a short-term argument. The short-term effect of these changes is far less significant than the sort of measures for demand management that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced today.
In the long term, the abolition of internal duties is bound to improve trade within the Community, and this must be the more important judgment in the long

1085
run. What would be wholly disastrous would be a return to the sort of narrow isolationism and protectionism that characterised the period between the wars. Let us not forget that tariff autonomy is forfeited not only by Britain, but by eight other countries trading within the Community.
I remind the House of something said some time ago and of which we should be aware:
"… the long-term potential for Europe, and therefore for Britain, of the creation of a single market of approaching 300 million people, with all the scope and incentive which this will provide for British industry …"
That was the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition in his White Paper. That was the fundamental argument advanced by the Labour Government in support of their application for membership in 1967. Notwithstanding the short-term difficulties, it is as true today as it was in 1967.
The changes in duty provided by the order are fundamental to the enlarged EEC and flow inevitably from our decision to enter the EEC, the whole concept of which was the abolition of internal tariffs and the creation of a common external tariff. The terms of entry which were negotiated embody transitional arrangements, of which this order is another logical step. Those terms of entry were accepted by the House with a majority of 112. They would have been acceptable to the previous Labour Government, if they had the honesty to say so.
If the order were annulled it would be a rejection of the whole concept of the Common Market as a customs union of the Nine. It would be inconsistent with the first step which flowed from the decision to enter, namely, the cut of 20 per cent. on industrial duty on 1st April 1973, which has gone through the House. Industry has made its long-term plans on the basis that duties would be totally abolished within the Nine by 1977 by stages, of which this order is one.
The order also maintains duty-free trade with Ireland and Denmark, and very largely with the EFTA countries. Rejection of the order would throw into total disarray the whole of industry and our principal trading partners. The motion is at best a thinly-veiled attempt to renegotiate the terms of entry, which the wiser members of the Opposition know is utterly impracticable, and at worst an attempt by half the Opposition to take us out of Europe, which is absurd.
The order is exactly in line with what would have been acceptable to the previous Labour Government. The Opposition know that they cannot renegotiate the terms and that they would not renegotiate the terms. I confidently advise the House to reject the motion for the humbug that it is.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 278, Noes 294.

Division No. 24.]

AYES

[9.57 p.m.

Abse, Leo

Bradley, Tom

Davidson, Arthur

Albu, Austen

Brown, Robert C.(N'c'tle-u-Tyne, W.)

Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

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

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

Davies, lfor (Gower)

Armstrong, Ernest

Buchan, Norman

Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

Ashley, Jack

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

Ashton, Joe

Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

Deakins, Eric

Atkinson, Norman

Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Cant, R. B.

Delargy, Hugh

Barnes, Michael

Carmichael, Neil

Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

Dempsey, James

Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)

Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

Doig, Peter

Baxter, William

Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

Beaney, Alan

Clark, David (Colne Valley)

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Bell, Ronald

Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

Driberg, Tom

Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

Coleman, Donald

Duffy, A. E. P.

Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

Concannon, J. D.

Dunn, James A.

Bidwell, Sydney

Conlan, Bernard

Dunnett, Jack

Biffen, John

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Eadie, Alex

Bishop, E. S.

Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

Edeman, Maurice

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Crawshaw, Richard

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

Boardman, H. (Leigh)

Cronin, John

Edwards, William (Merioneth)

Body, Richard

Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Ellis, Tom

Booth, Albert

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

English, Michael

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

Evans, Fred

Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

Dalyell, Tam

Ewing, Harry

Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

Darling, Rt. Hn. George

Faulds, Andrew

Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

Lestor, Miss Joan

Probert, Arthur

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

Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

Radice, Giles

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

Foot, Michael

Lipton, Marcus

Rhodes, Geoffrey

Ford, Ben

Lomas, Kenneth

Richard, Ivor

Forrester, John

Loughlin, Charles

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)

Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Galpern, Sir Myer

Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Garrett, W. E.

McBride, Neil

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

Gilbert, Dr. John

McCartney, Hugh

Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)

McElhone, Frank

Roper, John

Golding, John

McGuire, Michael

Rose, Paul B.

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

Machin, George

Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

Gourlay, Harry

Mackenzie, Gregor

Rowlands, Ted

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Mackie, John

Sandelson, Neville

Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

Mackintosh, John P.

Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

Maclennan, Robert

Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

McMaster, Stanley

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

Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)

Hamling, William

McNamara, J. Kevin

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

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

Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

Hardy, Peter

Marks, Kenneth

Sillars, James

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Marquand, David

Silverman, Julius

Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

Marsden, F.

Skinner, Dennis

Hattersley, Roy

Marshall, Dr. Edmund

Small, William

Hatton, F.

Marten, Neil

Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

Spearing, Nigel

Heffer, Eric S.

Mayhew, Christopher

Stallard, A. W.

Hilton, W. S.

Meacher, Michael

Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

Hooson, Emlyn

Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

Stoddart, David (Swindon)

Horam, John

Mikardo, Ian

Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Millan, Bruce

Stott, Roger

Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

Miller, Dr. M. S.

Strang, Gavin

Huckfield, Leslie

Milne, Edward

Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

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

Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Moate, Roger

Swain, Thomas

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

Molloy, William

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

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Molyneaux, James

Tinn, James

Hunter, Adam

Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

Torney, Tom

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Tuck, Raphael

Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

Janner, Greville

Moyle, Roland

Varley, Eric G.

Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Wainwright, Edwin

Jeger, Mrs. Lena

Murray, Ronald King

Waiden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Oakes, Gordon

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

Ogden, Eric

Wallace, George

John, Brynmor

O'Halloran, Michael

Watkins, David

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

O'Malley, Brian

Weltzman, David

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

Oram, Bert

Wellbeloved, James

Johnson, Waller (Derby, S.)

Orbach, Maurice

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

Orme, Stanley

White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Oswald, Thomas

Whitehead, Phillip

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

Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

Whitlock, William

Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

Padley, Walter

Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

Paget, R. T.

Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

Judd, Frank

Palmer, Arthur

Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

Kaufman, Gerald

Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

Kelly, Richard

Parker, John (Dagenham)

Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

Kerr, Russell

Pavltt, Laurie

Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

Kinnock, Neil

Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

Lambie, David

Pendry, Tom

Woof, Robert

Lamborn, Harry

Perry, Ernest G.

Lamond, James

Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Latham, Arthur

Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

Mr. J. D. Dormand and

Lawson, George

Price, William (Rugby)

Joseph Harper.

Leadbitter, Ted

Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Leonard, Dick

NOES

Adley, Robert

Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Bowden, Andrew

Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

Batsford, Brian

Braine, Sir Bernard

Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

Bray, Ronald

Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

Beith, A. J.

Brewis, John

Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

Brinton, Sir Tatton

Astor, John

Benyon, W.

Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

Atkins, Humphrey

Berry, Hn. Anthony

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Austick, David

Biggs-Davison, John

Bruce-Gardyne, J.

Awdry, Daniel

Blaker, Peter

Bryan, Sir Paul

Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

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

Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

Boscawen, Hn. Robert

Buck, Antony

Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord

Bossom, Sir Clive

Bullus, Sir Eric

1088

1089

Burden, F. A.

Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

Peel, Sir John

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Heseltine, Michael

Percival, lan

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

Hicks, Robert

Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

Carlisle, Mark

Higgins, Terence L.

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

Hiley, Joseph

Pink, R. Bonner

Channon, Paul

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

Pounder, Rafton

Chapman, Sydney

Hill, S. James A. (Southampton, Test)

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

Holland, Philip

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

Chichester-Clark, R.

Holt, Miss Mary

Proudfoot, Wilfred

Churchill, W. S.

Hornby, Richard

Quennell, Miss J. M.

Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

Hornsby-Smith. Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

Raison, Timothy

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

Cockeram Eric

Howell, David (Guildford)

Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

Cooke, Robert

Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

Redmond, Robert

Coombs, Derek

Hunt, John

Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

Cooper, A. E.

Iremonger, T. L.

Rees, Peter (Dover)

Cordle, John

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Corfileld, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick

James, David

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Cormack, Patrick

Jenkin, Rt. Hn. Patrick (Woodford)

Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

Costain, A. P.

Johnson Smith G. (E. Grinstead)

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Critchley, Julian

Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

Crouch, David

Jopling, Michael

Ridsdale, Julian

Crowder, F. P.

Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack

Kershaw, Anthony

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Dean, Paul

Kimball, Marcus

Rost, Peter

Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

Royle, Anthony

Digby, Simon Wingfield

King, Tom (Bridgwater)

Russell, Sir Ronald

Dixon, Piers

Kinsey, J. R.

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas

Kitson, Timothy

Sainsbury, Timothy

Drayson, Burnaby

Knight, Mrs. Jill

Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

Knox, David

Scott, Nicholas

Dykes, Hugh

Lamont, Norman

Scott-Hopkins, James

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Lane, David

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

Elliott, Capt. Walter (Charshalton)

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Shelton, William (Clapham)

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

Le Marchant, Spencer

Shersby, Michael

Emery, Peter

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Simeons, Charles

Eyre, Reginald

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

Sinclair, Sir George

Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

Longden, Sir Gilbert

Skeet, T. H. H.

Fidler, Michael

Loveridge, John

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

Luce, R. N.

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

Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Soref, Harold

Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh, N.)

MacArthur, Ian

Speed, Keith

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

McCrindle, R. A.

Spence, John

Fookes, Miss Janet

McLaren, Martin

Sproat, lain

Fortescue, Tim

Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

Stainton, Keith

Foster, Sir John

Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Maurice (Farnham)

Stanbrook, Ivor

Fowler, Norman

McNair-Wilson, Michael

Steel, David

Fox, Marcus

McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

Freud, Clement

Madel, David

Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

Fry. Peter

Maginnis, John E.

Stokes, John

Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.

Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

Gardner, Edward

Mather, Carol

Sutcliffe, John

Gibson-Watt, David

Maude, Angus

Tapsell, Peter

Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

Mawby, Ray

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

Glyn, Dr. Alan

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)

Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Tebbit, Norman

Goodhart, Philip

Mills, Peter (Torrington)

Temple, John M.

Goodhew, Victor

Miscampbell, Norman

Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

Gorst, John

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

Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

Gower, Raymond

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

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

Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

Money, Ernie

Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

Gray, Hamish

Tilney, Sir John

Green, Alan

Monks, Mrs. Connie

Tope, Graham

Grieve, Percy

Monro, Hector

Trafford, Dr. Anthony

Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

Montgomery, Fergus

Trew, Peter

Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

More, Jasper

Tugendhat, Christopher

Grylls, Michael

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

Gumner, J. Selwyn

Morrison, Charles

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Gurden, Harold

Mudd, David

Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

Neave, Airey

Waddington, David

Hall Sir John (Wycombe)

Nicholls, Sir Harmar

Walder, David (Clitheroe)

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Normanton, Tom

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

Wall, Patrick

Hannam, John (Exeter)

Nott, John

Walters, Dennis

Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

Onslow, Cranley

Ward, Dame Irene

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

Weatherill, Bernard

Harvie Anderson, Miss

Osborn, John

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Haselhurst, Alan

Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

White, Roger (Gravesend)

Hastings, Stephen

Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

Havers, Sir Michael

Pardoe, John

Wiggin, Jerry

Hayhoe, Barney

Parkinson, Cecil

Wilkinson, John

1090

1091

Winterton, Nicholas

Woodnutt, Mark

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Worsley, Marcus

Mr. Walter Clegg and

Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

Wylle, Rt. Hn. N. R.

Mr. Paul Hawkins.

Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

Younger, Hn. George

Question accordingly negatived.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (TREATIES)
10.13 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Anthony Royle): I beg to move,
That the European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (No. 2) Order 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 3rd December, be approved.
This is the third time that such an order has been laid before the House by me. The schedule to the draft order lists each of the treaties to be specified. The texts of all are available to the House either as Command Papers or in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
The first treaty listed, a decision of the member States of the ECSC, provides for the opening of tariff preferences for products covered by the ECSC and originating in Norway. The exchanges of letters with Norwegian and Finnish representatives, shown as items 2 and 7 of the schedule, are ancillary to the main European Community agreements with those countries and concern the opening of duty-free quotas for imports of paper products over the period 1974–83 inclusive.
Items Nos. 3 and 4, both agreements with the Lebanon, are interrelated. The first, a protocol of 16th May 1973, provides for the United Kingdom, Ireland and Denmark to become contracting parties to an earlier agreement on trade and technical co-operation between the EEC, and the original six member States, and the Lebanon. The second, which is in the form of an exchange of letters, renews that earlier agreement until 30th June 1974.
The making of this Order in Council will enable the United Kingdom to give notification that the necessary national procedures have been completed. Neither treaty can enter into force until all the parties have given such notification.
The provisional location of the European Monetary Co-operation Fund in Luxembourg is dealt with in item No. 5 of the schedule. The parent instrument establishing the European Monetary Cooperation Fund is Council Regulation
1094
No. 907/73. But because decisions on the seat of Community institutions are, by virtue of Article 216 of the EEC Treaty, to be adopted by common accord of the member States, the question of the location of the fund could not be dealt with by the regulation. No other aspect of the fund's establishment or operation is affected by decision now specified.
Lastly the schedule includes, at item 6, the ECSC agreement with Finland, concluded at the same time as the main agreement between that country and the EEC. The ECSC agreement, unlike the main EEC agreement, was signed by the member States as well as by the ECSC, and thus under Section 1(3) of the European Communities Act this Order in Council is required to give the agreement the status of a "Community treaty".
My few remarks have been immensely complicated. They were not meant to be so. I hope I have explained to the House the details of this small order. It is an important order. It is the third one which I have introduced.
The draft order follows the precedents set in December 1972 and July last and is in conformity with the terms of Section 1(3) of the Act. There is no doubt that all seven items listed in the schedule are new treaties within the scope of the section.
10.18 p.m.
Mr. Peter Shore: The House will be grateful to the Minister for his admirably brief and lucid exposition of the seven treaties which are dealt with in the order. They are the seven treaties named in the schedule. The Government—and, I am sure, the Minister—will be glad to acknowledge a duty to explain to the House the significance and the justification of these treaties, even those which are of a relatively minor status.
Equally the House has a duty to be vigilant when treaties are being signed and new agreements entered into between the Community and other countries. Before turning to some of the matters which are covered by the treaties, I shall risk one reflection. There is what I have come to feel to be a great anomaly. We have the opportunity, because of the contents of

1095
Section 1 of the Act, to debate and, in the last resort, to vote against certain treaties. While these are not matters of no importance, the House will recognise that these seven treaties are matters of lesser importance rather than of first importance.
Earlier today we debated the subject of trade between this country and the Third World—that is, the trade of this country as it will be changed by adopting the Generalised Preference Scheme of the enlarged EEC—yet no opportunity or procedure is available to enable us to discuss this major matter which affects the whole relationship of this country with a great part of the developing world.
Although we may hope in time to find procedures which might partially mitigate the effects of this kind of self-enacting Community legislation, I can only say how much I regret that provision was not made in the European Communities Act, at the time when it was being hammered out and fashioned, for the House to consider important matters—which is undoubtedly what the future Generalised Preference Scheme of the enlarged Community is—as well as what appear to be, so far at any rate, the minor matters covered in these definition treaty orders.
Turning to the assortment of treaties listed in the schedule, I propose to select one or two for further questioning or comment. One that stands out from the seven as being, as it were, on its own is the treaty which agrees to the location of the European Monetary Co-operation Fund in Luxembourg. Hon. Members will recall the gallant and protracted effort by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to have that fund located in some other part of Europe. Indeed, it must have occurred to the right hon. Gentleman and to some of the Community Ministers too that it was just conceivable that the headquarters of a monetary fund dealing on behalf of the Community with intervention in markets, questions of reserve currency matters generally, and so on, might be located in London, which could be considered as having some advantages compared with Luxembourg. But that is not to be. As we know, it is to be
1096
located in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
I think that there are practical problems about this proposal. I am not sure whether the authorities have enough telephone lines to be constantly in operation if such a fund ever becomes really active in terms of monetary intervention in world markets. I am not sure whether air transport from this country and from other parts of Europe to the Duchy of Luxembourg is as good as it is to some other cities. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman need not become quite so touchy.
Mr. J. Selwyn Gummer Mr. J. Selwyn Gummer (Lewisham, West) rose—
Mr. Shore: No.
Mr. Gummer: As the right hon. Gentleman—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): Order. As the right hon. Member who has the Floor is not giving way, the hon. Member must resume his seat.
Mr. Shore: I must not for a moment allow myself any possibility of humour in the presence of the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Selwyn Gummer).
There is a reference in the schedule to the provisional location of the fund. Does "provisional" mean that this decision will come up again for consideration in the foreseeable future, or has this been decided for all reasonable time in the future?
That apart, the substantial treaties, the treaties between the Community and the countries outside, number six. As I understand it, two deal with Norway, two with Finland and two with Lebanon. The Lebanon treaty raises no questions of great interest. It is a small amount of trade which is involved. It is simply the application of an existing trade and technical co-operation agreement. Regarding Norway and Finland, I note that in the case of the paper products—this applies to Norway and Finland—there is to be a duty-free quota for the years 1974 to 1983. Does this relate to the transitional period which those countries have negotiated with the EEC? Does it mean that at the end of the period, in

1097
1983, there would be a nil tariff anyway between those countries and the Community? Is that the significance of the period 1974–83 in which these duty-free quotas are to be in force? Will there, after that, be no tariffs from the EEC in relation to those countries and, therefore, no longer any reason for a tariff-free quota?
On the ECSC arrangement, which again affects both Norway and Finland, is it the case that no trade in iron and steel products which were previously free of tariff between Britain and Norway and Finland—Norway as a member of EFTA and Finland as an associate member—is to be brought back into tariff as a result of these treaties with the enlarged Community? I think we would all agree that it would be a very retrograde step if any tariff was imposed on goods traded between Britain, Finland and Norway when we had successfully got rid of those tariffs under the EFTA arrangements many years ago.
I hope that the Under-Secretary will give reassurance on these questions. If that is given, the Opposition will feel that they have nothing to do but simply to take note of these treaties.
10.27 p.m.
Colonel Sir Tufton Beamish: The Opposition do not look very much as though they are in a dividing mood, in spite of what the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) has said. I have listened with considerable surprise and astonishment to what he has had to say. I cannot help remembering that he was a leading member of the previous Labour administration, which applied to join the Common Market and which accepted in toto the common commercial policy. The right hon. Gentleman did not think that that was a resigning matter. He thought it entirely proper to remain a member of that Government and to continue to draw a fat salary, because he recognised that the common commercial policy of the European Community was part and parcel of the Community's apparatus. I find it astonishing, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman should make this sort of protest tonight.
I am equally surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should describe these treaties between the Community and Norway, Finland and the Lebanon as
1098
relatively minor. They are not relatively minor at all; they are very important. The first trade agreement that the Community made with any Arab country was the commercial agreement into which it entered with the Lebanon, which has recently been renewed, as the right hon. Gentleman said. This is a significant and important treaty, which is highly valued in the Lebanon.
It cannot have come as a surprise to anyone in the House that that treaty has been renewed. It is part of the common commercial policy of the Community, which has commercial treaties now with all the countries that border the Mediterranean, I think with the exception of only one, and that is Libya. I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman, with all his experience, has been following these matters very closely indeed and must have studied them when he was a leading member of the administration which applied to join the Community and accepted the common commercial policy.
As for Norway and Finland, it was clear when the Labour Government applied to join that we should have to accept the common commercial policy towards those EFTA countries which either did not wish to join or which, for one reason or another, did not join the Community. This applies slightly differently to Norway and Finland. Norway, of course, applied to join, and when it did not join we had to enter into trade relations with her through the Community under the common commercial policy. For many months the question of Finland has been in limbo, in the deep freeze, so to speak, because there was doubt about ratification there. The right hon. Gentleman and the Labour Party had ample opportunity to study this treaty and to raise any aspect of it that they wished.
I do not want it to be thought that I am not in favour of a system of national Parliaments scrutinising, filtering and influencing Community legislation of all kinds, including the entering into of treaty arrangements. I am entirely in favour of that. We have before us and will be debating after the recess the recommendations of the Foster Committee, which have a lot to be said for them—although I do not go along with them all the way. I could not agree more

1099
with the Labour Party and some of my hon. Friends that we should have ample opportunity to scrutinise and influence these things.
We already have some opportunities to do so and they are not insubstantial. I am myself a member of the External Economic Relations Committee of the European Parliament. I shall be leaving on Wednesday evening—if the Labour Party will give me a pair, instead of making things so difficult for me—to discuss trading agreements with other countries. I am in close touch with the Department of Trade and Industry and I get a good brief from it. I am seeking to influence these things in British interests by taking full account of the interests of the Community as a whole.
Les absents ont toujours torts. Why is the right hon. Gentleman making this protest from the Front Bench, with apparently no support behind him, instead of sending a delegation to the European Parliament? Why is the Labour Party skulking on the sidelines? It is ridiculous to see a right hon. Gentleman who was a leading member of the Labour administration that applied to join the Community and accepted without question—we have only to read their White Paper for confirmation of this—the common commercial policy, making this sort of feeble protest about trading agreements which had to be made with Finland and Norway, as EFTA countries or associated countries which did not join, and about the renewal of the trade and technical agreement with the Lebanon, which has existed for 10 years. It is pathetic to listen to that sort of speech when the right hon. Gentleman has so little support behind him.
10.33 p.m.
Mr. Edward Milne: I am sorry that the right hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish), who is a member of the European Parliament—
Mr. Eric Deakins: Assembly.
Mr. Milne: It does not matter what name it is given, because its importance is not heightened by its title.
I am sorry that, with his experience in that Assembly, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman did not use this opportunity to
1100
give us some information about the order. He dealt a good deal with the activities of my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) and the decisions of the Labour Government in 1967, but three factors in the order need consideration.
One point came out clearly in the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's speech—the fact that we in this Parliament and the British people have no control over the decisions taken about this order or about anything else which has flowed or will flow from the European Communities Act 1972. What is important is that the countries mentioned in the schedule to the order—the Lebanon, Norway and Finland—have an advantage over the member countries of the Community because, unlike ourselves their Parliaments can determine what action will be taken in relation to agreements. This is a very important factor to remember when we are dealing with matters of this kind.
We are grateful to the right hon. and gallant Member for Lewes for reminding us that as a result of our having gone through the Lobbies in October 1971 matters such as regional development, the question of the North-East and so on cannot be decided by the representatives of those areas in this assembly and will be determined by the European bodies responsible for them. Does the right hon. and gallant Member want me to give way?
Sir T. Beamish: The hon. Gentleman is very kind indeed in promoting me to the Privy Council, of which I am certainly not a member. But will he bear in mind, when he says that we decided in principle in October 1971 that we should join the Community, that there was another vote in Parliament when a majority of well over 400 voted for the principle of joining the European Economic Community, based on the Labour Party's White Paper, which accepted absolutely the common agricultural policy?
Mr. Milne: I do not need to be reminded of that vote, because I was one of the 62 persons who voted against it. But that does not alter the fact that regional policy matters cannot be determined by the representatives in Parliament. As has already been said, the

1101
attendance in the House is certainly very thin—
Mr. S. James A. Hill: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, in the new regional policy committee that is to be set up, the national member States will still have their own regional policy programmes. The new regional policy committee will be only a supporting fund and will in no way deter the Government here from helping the North-East or any other part of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Milne: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the regional policies which are determined by successive Governments in this country. But there is no guarantee that the member countries will be free to operate regional policies as they have done in the past. Indeed, there is ample evidence in the lifetime of the Community that various countries have had restrictions placed upon their regional development policies. There was intervention by the Community in the case of Belgium and Italy, and the possibility of the spread of Fascism to southern Italy is at the moment being used as an argument against increased aid.
I want to come back to the order itself—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It is all right for right hon. and hon. Members to say "Hear, hear." Those who intervene should not complain if they are answered. That is the purpose of intervention.
The kernel of the order and the lesson that emerges crystal clear from it is that the countries outside the Community and which are mentioned in the order have a greater degree of freedom in determining the decisions taken and explained within the order and the White Papers on the operations, whether concerning paper, coal and steel or anything else, than Britain has at present, because we wrote away such freedom when we went into the Division Lobbies and decided to join the Community.
10.41 p.m.
Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: The right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) knows that I hear a number of his speeches on the question of European affairs and that I always listen to them with the greatest
1102
interest. However, I have detected a falling away, which I think perhaps he has not, in the quality of his speeches lately, because he seems to be coming increasingly out of touch.
The Labour Party as a whole is seen by Socialist Parties on the Continent, and certainly is seen by Conservative Members in the House, to be increasingly ill-informed, provincial and obsolete on European questions. I have a feeling that this is something to do with the absence of Labour Members from the European Parliament, where they would be able to have first-hand experience of the things they are trying to talk about in the House.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke about Luxembourg as though he had perhaps visited it, but I had the feeling that he never had, because, if he had, he might not have said the rather injudicious things he said about the telephone service there. He might have realised also that Luxembourg is becoming a banking centre. Perhaps he is not aware that it is the headquarters of the European Investment Bank which has just made an extremely important investment in South Wales, of which I am very glad.
The European Fund for Monetary Cooperation will, I hope, be established in Luxembourg as soon as may be, because I do not think that it is an entirely happy arrangement that it exists only in a back room in Basle. I hope that this will become an important institution and that it will be of great service to this country. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will try to become better informed about the debates that have gone on about this subject and that he will not, for instance, accuse my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary of having fought against the location of the bank in Luxembourg.
One consideration which I should like to put to the right hon. Gentleman is this. Of all the different capitals of the Community, Luxembourg is the least active politically and, therefore, perhaps the most suitable for a bank, which cannot afford to be knocked around by politicians with whom the right hon. Gentleman might not agree.
I was amazed to hear the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion, which I might have supported but I do not think

1103
many of his supporters on the crowded Labour benches would have liked, that the European Fund should be situated in London. We remember the Labour Party's traditional opposition to the City of London and its intense suspicion of the City's institutions, which earn so much in foreign exchange but so much discredit on the Labour benches.
It is perhaps rather remarkable that a right hon. Gentleman, who is a member of the Labour Party, which nationalised the Bank of England because it did not believe that institutions in London should be free from Government control and did not like the City of London as a place where important financial decisions should be taken, suggested that the European Fund for Monetary Cooperation should have been situated here.
Mr. Selwyn Gummer: Surely my hon. Friend has got this wrong. Surely the hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) is opposed to the fund being in Luxembourg because those living in Luxembourg are not British and the right hon. Gentleman is really opposed to foreigners generally. This is another example of that attitude. Until the right hon. Gentleman starts liking foreigners as human beings, he will not like anything that is going on in Europe.
Sir B. Rhys Williams: That is painfully true. If the right hon. Gentleman heard some of the extremely acid comments of his Socialist brothers in the European Parliament about the refusal of the British Labour Party to take an active part in European affairs, he might be willing to recognise that the stance which he has taken in this House in the past 12 months, of which he is still proud, does him no credit and does not even prove him to be a very fine patriot.
10.45 p.m.
Mr. Anthony Royle: I confess that I have been much enlightened by the interest shown in the order. It is an important order in my view, but all things in life are relative. The importance of the order was underlined by my brief opening remarks. I hope shortly to answer the points raised by the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore). It is right that so many hon. Members should have attended the debate to put forward their
1104
views on rather wider issues than are covered by the order.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) quite rightly mentioned the importance of the treaties. They are small in comparison with the wider issues affecting Europe at present but it is right that the House should discuss them. He made the point, and it is not for me to comment upon it within the narrow scope of the debate, that membership of the European Parliament enables Members of this House to play an important part in the criticism and development of the Community as a whole.
The hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Milne) made an important contribution because he underlined a point which has no truth whatever—that the House of Commons has no influence on the order. It has total influence. If the hon. Member wishes, he can divide the House tonight and seek to defeat it. In no way is he giving up his right as the distinguished representative of the people of Blyth to stop this order going through. I assume he would have to gather a few of his hon. Friends together to defeat the order, but that is his right.
The hon. Member also mentioned regional policy. This again goes rather wider than the order, but, once again, this is not being taken out of the control of the House. Whatever happens to regional policy is discussed, debated and initiated by British Ministers responsible to this House. If the hon. Member feels so strongly that my right hon. and hon. Friends are not doing the right thing by regional policy in the Brussels negotiations, he has every right to speak to his right hon. Friend the Opposition Chief Whip and gather his hon. Friends together in an attempt to defeat the Government. He can do this if he feels that the regional policy which is being negotiated is not in the interests of his constituency or of the country. There is no need for me to comment upon the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams), who made the same point.
Three questions were put to me by the right hon. Member for Stepney strictly in accordance with the order. The first was in connection with the location of

1105
the European Monetary Co-operation Fund. The decision of the representatives of the Governments of member States on 24th July 1973 to site the office of the fund in Luxembourg is provisional, as are the decisions concerning the location of all Community institutions. The situation will be examined in the light of the working of the fund and on the basis of opinions from the Commission at latest by 30th June 1975.
The right hon. Member's remaining two points related to Norway and Finland. He asked whether the order means that the nil tariff will apply at the end of 1983. He is correct in his assumption that it will apply. Secondly, he asked whether he was correct to say that no iron and steel products that were previously free would be brought back into tariff at the end of the period. Again he is correct. Such trade will be free at the end of the period. That answers the right hon. Gentleman's third point.
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman and to the hon. Member for Blyth for sparing the time to take part in this important debate tonight and I am grateful also to my hon. Friends who have made contributions.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (No. 2) Order 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 3rd December, be approved.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (TREATIES)
  ADJOURNMENT
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hawkins.]

EDUCATION (LEWISHAM)
10.50 p.m.
Mr. J. Selwyn Gommer: With great pleasure I raise this evening the question of the continuing problems of education in Lewisham. Naturally, quite a number of the problems there are under the direct control of the Inner London Education Authority and it would be improper for me to raise those problems here tonight, but I should like to draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister to the special problems which arise particularly in my part
1106
of the borough of Lewisham and which are different from those in the rest of London.
London is an area where the size of the school population, particularly the secondary school population, is generally falling, but in Lewisham and certain parts of Wandsworth it is rising and the primary school population also shows a considerable increase. It is therefore likely that there will be continual pressure on the Department to give permission for the extension of existing schools and to establish new ones. It is to ask that the Department should face up to the grave problems which we have that I raise the matter on the Adjournment tonight.
The particular problem which has given rise to this debate is the establishment of the new Lewisham school for which the Department gave permission sometime ago after a considerable campaign by parents and teachers and the then Conservative-controlled ILEA. We were pleased that the King Alfred Girls' School was to be replaced by a new school in my constituency The school has been in two buildings, separated by the South Circular Road. It has grown, and it is an excellent school under the headship of Mrs. Shelton. She has gathered a good staff, all ready for the move to the new school for which the Department has given permission.
Unexpectedly, with no indication to the parents, who came to me for advice, who had chosen to send their children to the new school, it was not opened at the beginning of the new school year, and we have no indication from the Inner London Education Authority whether it will be ready even for next year. It is to that that I ask my hon. Friend to turn his attention.
The King Alfred School was a three-form entry school and the new Lewisham School is to be seven-form entry. For two years the King Alfred School has expanded its intake ready to move into the new premises.
Unfortunately the new premises are not ready, and no notice of this eventuality was given. Until the last moment the people concerned thought that they would be moving into the new buildings in Manwood Road. They have been recruiting pupils and teachers and now find

1107
that they are on two sites, so that a primary school is unable to open for children who desperately need it. This is three miles away from the other two buildings which are still separated by possibly the busiest road in London, the South Circular. One of the buildings now occupied by the King Alfred School is scheduled to be taken over by a primary school. That primary school is fit to burst. We are in grave difficulty in finding enough benches for bottoms, let alone good accommodation and teachers.
When we have a school such as the King Alfred School, which has done so well, with a full complement of staff, even according to the generous staffing allowances of the Inner London area, it is a serious matter for the parents of children who opted to go to that school on the explicit understanding, which I believe my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State also accepted, that the Inner London Education Authority would provide that school in time.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to pressure the authority and demand, as the money for the school is forthcoming from the Government, that we get a date for its completion and that that date is before the end of the current school year. Otherwise, we shall have not merely five forms of children trying to work out their time in a primary school but another intake far too big for the present accommodation, which would be totally unacceptable and would do great damage to this growing school.
Let us picture the situation of a parent in my constituency. He or she might ask me "Should I send my child to the new school?" My reaction would be "Of course. It is a first-rate school with a very good headmistress and staff." But then the parent will ask "Will there be a place for my child, in the sense that there will be a desk at which he will sit?" I will be unable to advise him or her to put the child down for the school, because we do not know whether it will open.
The Department has a responsibility to make sure that its money is being spent properly and to find out why the Inner London Education Authority has so far been unable to explain either why the school is so late or what it will do to make sure that the school arrives on time.
1108
This is a specific example of the problems with which we are faced in Lewisham. We are at the bottom of the list in Inner London. Because of our special problems of an expanding school population, because of being right at the edge of the Inner London Education Authority area, we find ourselves always unable to provide the kind of accommodation, teachers and environment that other parts of London can find.
I have asked my hon. Friend and his predecessors to take a special look at the needs of the area of Lewisham, particularly the need for another boys' school. So far the Inner London Education Authority has refused even to make a recommendation to my right hon. Friend. But when it does recommend that there is a need for another secondary school in Lewisham to replace the present Roger Manwood School to set free a building in Kilmorie Road, rebuilt after the war, for primary education, I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider that recommendation with great care.
We in Lewisham have a further problem, which exacerbates the difficulty of actual places. For many years the Inner London Education Authority's figures have, I believe, been inaccurate. The authority has not been able to say how many school places we need. That is why we have a great shortage at both primary and secondary school level. But now, with a general teacher shortage in London, we are in a particular difficulty.
My hon. Friend will no doubt say, and I will agree with him, that the two background facts to the teacher shortage are that, first, over London as a whole there is a better teacher-pupil ratio than in the rest of the country, and, secondly, that the economic climate must be taken into account. Today is an ideal time to mention it. The Government are pointing out that we must face the fact that in many ways stage 3 is the most generous incomes policy we could possibly have because, with the lack of growth which we now face, particularly owing to the industrial action we are experiencing, we shall find it more and more difficult to increase wages. In those circumstances it would obviously be unacceptable to offer the teachers an agreement which was outside phase 3.
I do not ask my hon. Friend to do that. What I ask him to do is to ensure

1109
that the Secretary of State and her colleagues make the best offer which can be made within the terms of phase 3 to the teachers of London. Secondly, I ask him to do all he can to ensure that, when we move into easier times, at the top of the list of priorities shall be means of providing for teachers working in London the opportunity to earn a salary commensurate with the pressures on them and the cost of living in London.
If my hon. Friend did that, it would be right for him also to ask that the ILEA looks at a number of issues which up to now it has failed to face. He can use his influence to ensure that it does so. First, if the pupil-teacher ratio in London as a whole is as good as I believe it to be, it seems odd that it has not been possible to improve the situation in Lewisham, Wandsworth and one or two other areas. The ILEA must look—my hon. Friend must press it to look—at ways of getting teachers to move to these areas within the general catchment area.
Secondly, my hon. Friend must do all he can in consultation with the Minister for Local Government and Development to ensure that local authorities do more in the provision of housing in areas like mine where the possibility of buying a house is considerably diminished by the activities of the local authority. In Lewisham nearly half the units of accommodation are owned by the Lewisham Borough Council or by the Greater London Council.
Therefore, if there is to be housing for teachers, some of it must come from the general stock of local authority housing. Because of pressures which I have led in my constituency, the local authority has given way and provided some housing for teachers. I would hope that by hon. Friend the Under-Secretary could use his influence to ensure that that pressure will be maintained and that we provide more accommodation for teachers in areas of stress such as the southern part of the borough of Lewisham.
Thirdly, my hon. Friend could do much by way of encouragement and circular to get local authorities concerned with education, particularly the ILEA, to face the issue of the size of schools. A school which serves my constiuency,
1110
although it is not in it, has a school population of over 2,000. It is a good school with a good staff and good headmaster. It would be a better school if its size were diminished. Instead, the ILEA suggested that it should be increased—that it should be a school of 2,500 children. That would be an intolerable burden to place on those who organise and run such an establishment.
It is no good the local authority pretending that this is not at the heart of the problem of bringing teachers to London. If we provide them with an environment in which it is almost impossible to teach, we cannot blame them for going to pastures new. If the only educational change which takes place is not the radical change which I should like to occur but the traditional conservative change of insisting on large schools for children aged from 11 to 18, there will be a lowering of the number of teachers who want to come to London.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary could do a great deal to help in the matter of discipline in schools. If we have a society in which the schools are unable to provide the atmosphere in which academic or any other work can take place, we do not have a society which easily attracts teachers. My worry is that in many areas of London—Lewisham is by no means the only area—there are schools which could be much better if only their size was right and if only we could find ways of improving the teachers' conditions. I do not mean conditions in the sense of bigger staff rooms and the rest, but conditions in which teachers may teach. What worries me is that they are so often non-existent.
I want to see my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend set a standard and bring to the notice of those who are concerned with education the need to provide the minimum of discipline which is necessary if there is to be education at all. The reason why I commend to my hon. Friend the special situation in the new Lewisham school is that in the King Alfred School which it will replace I met that fascinating middle way between discipline which was too strict to provide for the natural exuberance of young people and discipline which was too lax to make it possible to teach. It was a relaxed atmosphere without being an atmosphere in

1111
which no work could be done. That is a great tribute to the staff who worked in very difficult circumstances.
Finally, I ask my hon. Friend to bring his influence to bear upon the ILEA in considering plans for the recruitment of teachers in Lewisham and, above all, to bring home to the ILEA that, if we are to solve the continuing problems of education in Lewisham, we must look at the facts on the ground rather than at the educational theories which so often inform those who make policy at County Hall. This is an area of racial and social mixture in which many young people start with the great disadvantage of a deprived home.
The activities of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mean that in this area there will be pre-primary education of a kind we have never dreamed of before and that primary schools are being replaced. I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to match that with secondary school provision that is sufficient to meet the genuine aspirations of the young people of Lewisham and a teacher supply that makes it possible for them properly to be taught in an area where education means so much.
Many parents in my constituency have moved there because they wish to give their children an education which they themselves were not fortunate enough to receive. It is to those parents that my hon. Friend must address himself. They ask him to use his influence to see that the ILEA ceases to treat my borough, and particularly my bit of the borough, as the Cinderella of London's education and faces the special problems of an area where the numbers on the school rolls are rising so fast.
11.8 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Timothy Raison): In listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Selwyn Gummer) I had a sense of déjà vu because, as he will recall, it is not many years since he and I were both members of the ILEA Education Committee. I happened to be on what passed for a front bench and he was in a comparable position to his present one. I learned then what an eloquent advocate he was of the needs of education in Lewisham.
1112
Small as is the attendance here this evening, those who are present cannot help but be impressed by the fervour with which my hon. Friend has spoken on behalf of the children in his part of London. He has always taken an outstanding interest in what happens in the schools in Lewisham, and I am sure that in time the children will look back with gratitude at what he has contributed.
My hon. Friend has asked my Department to face several important problems. I here introduce a theme which will have to recur again in saying that most of the things my hon. Friend has talked about are fundamentally for the ILEA, as he himself acknowledged. However, the Government have this relationship with all education authorities and we will follow closely and sympathetically the various points my hon. Friend has raised in so far as it is within our power to do so. He can certainly count on my personal sympathy for what he has said.
I recall the days when I was on the ILEA Education Committee, hearing about and visiting the King Alfred Girls' School, to which my hon. Friend has paid an apt tribute. As he implied, this project is in the starts programme, so in a sense the Department has done its bit. I have not had the time or the opportunity to look into the details of why the new Lewisham building project should have been delayed. In fairness, however, I must point out that there is one aspect which comes within our responsibility—the building situation generally. I should be surprised if that has not contributed to the delay.
Even before today's economic announcements, we had taken steps to try to get rid of some of the great pressure which has built up on the building industry, and I hope we shall see the consequences in an easing of the position in those schemes which are under way or are meant to be under way. I hope we have done something which will help in this respect, but I will look more closely at the details of the case.
I will also inquire into the more general point my hon. Friend raised about the future needs of Lewisham in education and the question of an additional boys' school. But the recommendation that there should be a new boys' school in Lewisham, if it be the right thing, must

1113
come from the ILEA, and it is not proper or desirable that the Department should usurp the functions of education authorities in this respect. But I will look into that matter also.
Naturally, and almost inevitably, my hon. Friend referred to the vexed question of supply of teachers in London, particularly in areas like his own. We have heard a lot about this during the last few weeks, and rightly so. We all recognise that the supply of teachers is the crux of good teaching. Everyone would like to see an increase in the pay of a great many professions, and teaching is no exception. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his clear realisation that whatever can be done has to be done within the framework of stage 3. If we breach stage 3, we merely let loose inflation and all those things which have brought us to our present difficulties.
I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will note what my hon. Friend has said about the best possible offer that can be made under stage 3. This is primarily a matter for negotiations within the Burnham Committee and there are set procedures for it, but I am sure my hon. Friend's words will have been noted.
I also have no doubt that what my hon. Friend said about special measures which might help to get teachers into areas like Lewisham have been much discussed in education recently. Questions like the possible provision of special housing for teachers is one which London boroughs have been looking at closely, and it is right and proper that they should.
My hon. Friend mentioned yet another subject of great importance—the size of school and the great bearing this can have on the quality both of the formal education and the discipline or environment—whatever one likes to call it—prevailing within any school. There is no doubt that there has been something of a change of heart or change of mind in London on this topic.
My hon. Friend will recall that when we were both serving on the ILEA, the received doctrine of those days was that schools should be very big and that comprehensive schools needed to be very big
1114
and all-through 11-to-18 schools. A number of members on the Tory side of the authority tried to see whether the doctrine was capable of a little modification, because even then we did not believe that it was the best education gospel. But it proved a difficult job.
It must have been of great interest to my hon. Friend, and to many others who were at that time concerned in London education, that the ILEA itself put forward proposals recently relating to North and North-West London acknowledging that schools did not have to be very big if they were to work effectively as comprehensive schools. In place of the old notion that 2,000 or more children were necessary to produce a viable comprehensive school, the ILEA is now talking of 750 or thereabouts. What is more, my right hon. Friend has made the point repeatedly that she believes that size can be excessive, and she will have followed this new development with great interest.
The corollary is that it is necessary to look afresh at sixth form provision, but the proposals put forward by the ILEA about more flexible ways of providing good quality sixth form teaching are of great interest to the education community, and they strike a sympathetic response in my own heart. We welcome the fresh thinking that is going into how to provide comprehensive education which matches the quality desired.
It is not unreasonable to say that the comprehensive argument is moving from the doctrinal, theological state of a few years ago to a more healthy state where we can look at practical problems of how to make schools work effectively without thinking constantly in terms of very loose principles.
I endorse what my hon. Friend said about discipline. Again, what happens inside the schools is primarily a matter for the education authorities, especially for head teachers and staff, with the support of the governors and so on. Very few people want to see the Department of Education and Science excessively interventionist in these matters. We have a great tradition of putting our trust in our head teachers and staffs. But we are bound in the Department to be aware that there is a great deal of concern throughout the country. We share it, and

1115
we have been thinking hard as have outside bodies, about these vexed questions of violence, truancy and so on. My hon. Friend's words evoke a sympathetic response on my part.
The schools of Inner London labour under great difficulties. We are doing a good bit nationally to try to help in terms of the special provision that we can give to deprived areas, and I am committed totally to this kind of approach. But that is only part of the story. It will need continuing effort and continuing reinforcment.
We ought also to remind ourselves that, as well as the difficulties of schools and the black or grey spots, there are some bright spots. There are teachers in
1116
London who are doing a magnificent job. Whatever criticisms we may make of some aspects of London education and the response of some teachers to the relative teacher shortage in recent times, I still retain from my ILEA days a deep sense of affection for London education and the belief that most of those in it are deeply dedicated to the children whom they serve.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising this important topic, albeit at rather short notice. We shall take very much to heart the points to which he has drawn attention.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes past Eleven o'clock.

POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
  Television Reception
  Television Reception
  Unpaid Telephone Accounts
  Unpaid Telephone Accounts
  Television Licences (Pensioners)
  Television Licences (Pensioners)
  Postal Codes
  Postal Codes
  Telephone Rental Charges
  Telephone Rental Charges
  Communal Television Aerials
  Communal Television Aerials
WALES
  Shotton Task Force
  Shotton Task Force
  Radiation Risks
  Radiation Risks
  Land Reclamation
  Land Reclamation
  Celtic Sea Oil
  Celtic Sea Oil
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Invalid Vehicles (Accidents)
  Invalid Vehicles (Accidents)
  Welsh Language Council
  Welsh Language Council
  Water Supplies (Caernarvonshire)
  Water Supplies (Caernarvonshire)
  Planning Appeals (Inspectorate)
  Planning Appeals (Inspectorate)
  Motorways
  Motorways
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Drax B Power Station
  Drax B Power Station
  Lonrho Limited
  Lonrho Limited
  Petrol
  Petrol
  London Metal Exchange
  London Metal Exchange
  Cheques (Thumb Print Records)
  Cheques (Thumb Print Records)
  Steel
  Steel
  Oil and Coal Stocks
  Oil and Coal Stocks
  Submersible Vessels (Research and Development)
  Submersible Vessels (Research and Development)
  Retailers (Recommended Margins)
  Retailers (Recommended Margins)
  Civil Aviation Authority
  Civil Aviation Authority
  Electricity Supplies
  Electricity Supplies
  Concorde
  Concorde
  Offshore Oil
  Offshore Oil
  Four-day Week
  Four-day Week
  Regional Development Grants (Northern Region)
  Regional Development Grants (Northern Region)
  Celtic Sea Oil
  Celtic Sea Oil
  Oil Prices
  Oil Prices
  Peterlee
  Peterlee
  Coastguard
  Coastguard
  Coal Tar (Research)
  Coal Tar (Research)
  Portmadoc-Deudraeth
  Portmadoc-Deudraeth
  Waste Materials (Recycling)
  Waste Materials (Recycling)
  National Film Finance Corporation
  National Film Finance Corporation
  Electricity Supply Industry (Dispute)
  Electricity Supply Industry (Dispute)
  Fuel Supplies
  Fuel Supplies
  Motor Schools
  Motor Schools
  Home Heating (Elderly Persons)
  Home Heating (Elderly Persons)
  Oil Supplies
  Oil Supplies
  Paraffin
  Paraffin
  Import Duties
  Import Duties
  STOL and VTOL Aircraft
  STOL and VTOL Aircraft
  Meat and Wool Imports
  Meat and Wool Imports
  Continental Shelf (Oil and Gas)
  Continental Shelf (Oil and Gas)
  North Sea Oil (Product Platforms)
  North Sea Oil (Product Platforms)
  Hotels
  Hotels
  Institution of Heating and Ventilating Engineers
  Institution of Heating and Ventilating Engineers
  Steel Prices
  Steel Prices
  Dentistry (Cost of Raw Materials)
  Dentistry (Cost of Raw Materials)
EMPLOYMENT
  Staff Representation (General Accident Assurance Corporation)
  Staff Representation (General Accident Assurance Corporation)
  Training (Underwater Work)
  Training (Underwater Work)
  Industrial Relations Act 1971 (Category 1 Firms)
  Industrial Relations Act 1971 (Category 1 Firms)
  Woodworking Machinery (Safety)
  Woodworking Machinery (Safety)
  Training (Coal Miners)
  Training (Coal Miners)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Telephone System
  Telephone System
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Tea
  Tea
DEFENCE
  Flying (Oil Conservation)
  Flying (Oil Conservation)
  Standardisation of Equipment
  Standardisation of Equipment
  Leading Writer P. F. Bryant
  Leading Writer P. F. Bryant
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Tower Ramparts School, Ipswich
  Tower Ramparts School, Ipswich
  Clerkenwell Parochial School
  Clerkenwell Parochial School
ENVIRONMENT
  Office Accommodation (London)
  Office Accommodation (London)
  Oak Grove House, Sandhurst
  Oak Grove House, Sandhurst
  Bridge Street/Parliament Street (Vacant Premises)
  Bridge Street/Parliament Street (Vacant Premises)
  Post Office Buildings
  Post Office Buildings
  Road Fund Licences
  Road Fund Licences
  Rent Scrutiny Boards
  Rent Scrutiny Boards
  Roads (Swindon)
  Roads (Swindon)
  Railway Trains (Equipment)
  Railway Trains (Equipment)
  Petrol
  Petrol
  Speed Limits (Ely)
  Speed Limits (Ely)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Crown Agents
  Crown Agents
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
  Syria (Israeli Prisoners)
  Syria (Israeli Prisoners)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Urban Programme (Bolton)
  Urban Programme (Bolton)
  Metropolitan Police
  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Tsam
  Mr. Tsam
  Overseas Students (Entry Refusal)
  Overseas Students (Entry Refusal)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Government Stocks
  Government Stocks
  EEC Investment (United Kingdom Firms)
  EEC Investment (United Kingdom Firms)
  Gambling
  Gambling
  EEC Finances (British Contribution)
  EEC Finances (British Contribution)
  Public Sector Borrowing (Foreign Currencies)
  Public Sector Borrowing (Foreign Currencies)
  Child Allowance
  Child Allowance
  Value Added Tax (Firewood)
  Value Added Tax (Firewood)
  Transfer Pricing
  Transfer Pricing
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons
  Local Health Authority Staff
  Local Health Authority Staff
  Disregards
  Disregards
  Elderly Persons (Home Wardens)
  Elderly Persons (Home Wardens)
  Chiropody
  Chiropody
  Speech Therapy (Quirk Report)
  Speech Therapy (Quirk Report)
  Benefits (Cost)
  Benefits (Cost)
  Doctors (Pensions)
  Doctors (Pensions)
  Hospitals (Complaints Procedure)
  Hospitals (Complaints Procedure)

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

UNITED STATES BASE IN THE AZORES
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 will raise at the forthcoming meeting of NATO the use by the United States of America of the base in the Azores independently of NATO bases and the conditions under which this base is available.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE): No, my Lords, the base at Lajes, in the Azores, is leased by the United States under a bilateral agreement
2
with Portugal concluded in 1971. It is not a NATO base.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while welcoming the noble Baroness on her return from her long journeys, is she aware that, unusually, I do not welcome that Answer? Is it not undesirable that one NATO country should have bases in the territory of another NATO country and use them for purposes contrary to the policy of its fellow members?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, for his welcome back. Regarding the use of the Azores by the United States for ferrying arms to the Middle East, neither Her Majesty's Government nor the Alliance can properly comment in any way since neither of them are involved.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, has the noble Baroness information regarding the agreement that was reached in this matter? Does it include American support for Portuguese policy in the colonies, which is suggested by recent votes in the United Nations and to which other NATO countries are opposed?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, although this is a bilateral agreement concluded in 1971 between the United States and Portugal, I understand that the use of the base by the United States was in return for economic aid.

HOUSING AND HEAT INSULATION
2.38 p.m.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: 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 in view of the energy situation they have considered making grants for the improvement of heat insulation in existing houses.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (BARONESS YOUNG): My Lords, thermal insulation of older dwellings may already be grant-aided, at the discretion of a local authority, as part of a full scheme of improvement to bring dwellings up to the normal standard. Powers also exist under which local authorities may make loans for work of this nature.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness for that Answer. Can she assure me that in view of the gravity of the present crisis the possibility of making these grants and the importance of making them will be stressed to those concerned? Does the noble Baroness realise that one-third of our energy consumption is in the domestic sector, and although this is not all for space heating a substantial portion of it is; therefore the savings which can be made in this direction are quite substantial and amount to about 30 per cent, for roof insulation alone?
BARONESS YOUNG: Yes, my Lords, the Government accept the importance of thermal insulation but we feel that the onus must properly rest on individual owners. It is at the discretion of a local authority whether or not a grant is given for this particular matter.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: My Lords, may I press the noble Baroness to see whether she can take steps to bring this matter to the attention of owners? For example, this could conveniently be made clear in a notice sent out with the rates or by some other means. Does the noble Baroness realise how many of these benefits are not appreciated by those who might use them?
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I will draw the attention of my right honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Construction to the suggestions that the noble Viscount has made.
LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE: My Lords, further to the noble Viscount's question, may I, as President of the District Heating Association, ask the noble Baroness what progress is being made by the Government in the preparation of legislation which would facilitate the provision by local authorities of district heating, which has a big part to play in this field?
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, that is rather wide of the Question that has been asked. Under the proposed Planning and Housing Bill which will come to the House later this Session there will be provisions concerning the improvement of property, and this would be included as one of them.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, reverting to the original Question, may I ask a very naïve question, purely with the intention of eliciting information? Are those grants available only to what I shall call "sub-standard houses", those that need a bath and W.C., et cetera, or are they available to houses of all kinds?
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, discretionary improvement grants are given to a house which is then expected to have a life of 30 years. It can also be given to a house that is lacking one of the five basic standard amenities. But loans are also available at the discretion of local authorities to people who wish to put in thermal insulation.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, would my noble friend say whether this noble but extremely draughty building qualifies for a grant?
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I have no complaints about this building at all.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh!
BARONESS STOCKS: My Lords, could special consideration be given to the flats, the tower blocks, in Newham? A little while ago one of them fell down following a small gas explosion, and as a result the flats have become all-electric for cooking, lifts, lighting and

5
everything. When one considers what would happen to them during a blackout it is rather terrifying.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I will note what the noble Baroness has said.
LORD THOMAS: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the heat loss in the average house can be very much reduced by stuffing crumpled newspapers up chimneys where fires are no longer used? It also reduces the noise pollution from passing aircraft.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I am sure we are all grateful for the suggestion of the noble Lord.

BUILDING REGULATIONS AND THERMAL INSULATION
LORD LLOYD OF KILGERRAN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Tanlaw, who has asked me to speak for him, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in his name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider an immediate increase in the minimum standard requirements for thermal insulation by the building industry in order that United Kingdom regulations are equivalent at least to the standards operative within the E.E.C.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, improvements in the thermal insulation requirements for new houses are in prospect and consultations with the various interests concerned will shortly begin. Only limited action is possible under the existing powers of the Public Health Acts, which do not allow regulations to be made with the object of conserving fuel or of improving comfort, but only the conformity with the general objects of those Acts; namely, health and safety. This restriction will be removed in building regulations provisions of the Health and Safety at Work Bill, to be introduced in the new year. In deciding how to use these powers we shall take into account all relevant information and experience, including the varied practice of our partners in the E.E.C.
LORD LLOYD OF KILGERRAN: My Lords, in thanking the noble Baroness for
6
her reply, may I ask whether she does not think it unsatisfactory, as appears from all the technical information relating to heating insulation available to my noble colleague, Lord Tanlaw, that this country seems to have the lowest record regarding insulation of all the countries of the E.E.C.?
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, the standard requirements in England and Wales are slightly lower than those in Scotland. They are, in fact, similar to those in Holland. The standards in France and Germany are slightly higher than those in Holland, and they are higher still in Denmark. So there is considerable variation, and one of the factors that must be taken into account is the climate.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say whether the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, who put the Question on behalf of his noble friend had permission to put the supplementary question?
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD WINDLESHAM): My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, Lady Young, I would say that the two go together.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: My Lords, does the noble Baroness realise that, whereas the regulations on the Continent requiring a certain degree of heating insulation may not be all that much higher than our own, in practice, heating insulation used on the Continent is vastly greater? When considering this matter, will her Department take into account what is in fact done on the Continent and not what the regulations necessarily may be?
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I should like to assure the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, that my right honourable friend, the Minister for Housing and Construction, is in consultations at the moment with a view to looking at higher standards of thermal insulation in new houses.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, will the noble Baroness agree that, whatever the regulations may be, there is little doubt that our regulations are lower than those in other comparable countries? Would she agree that the actual facts

7
are that in this country we use approximately 2½ times as much energy to heat a given space as they do in Scandinavia?
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I noted what the noble Lord said about this matter. I think I have said enough to indicate that we are considering higher standards in this country.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, when the noble Baroness compares the regulations and the climates of ourselves and France is she really saying that the climate of France is colder than the climate here?
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I indicated the varying standards within the E.E.C., and I also indicated that climatic conditions vary. No doubt it is colder in some parts of France than in this country.

SMOKING AND ROYAL WARRANTS OF APPOINTMENT
2.47 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK: 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, in view of the evidence in successive studies of the danger to health from smoking, and in view of the Government's action in requiring a warning notice to appear on cigarette packets and advertisements, they consider it to be in the public interest for Royal Warrants of Appointment to be granted to suppliers of cigarettes and tobacco, and for these Royal Warrants to be displayed on their wares; and whether they will have conversations with the appropriate authorities.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): My Lords, the Royal Warrant is a recognition that the manufacturers concerned supply their products to the Royal Household. The selection of products and of manufacturers is a matter for the Royal Household and not for the Government.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, might I suggest that the—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK: My Lords, may I ask that a message be conveyed to the appropriate authorities that, at a time when according to the most recent report of the Royal College of Physicians £52 million has been spent by the tobacco industry on the promotion of the sale of tobacco; and again, according to that report, 20,000 men between the ages of 35 and 64 have died of lung cancer, it might be in the interests of the nation if that particular commendation on two brands of cigarettes were withdrawn?
LORD ABERDARE: No, my Lords. These are two quite different matters. We already have the health warning notice on cigarette packets, and on other advertisements, which draw people's attention to the dangers of smoking. The Royal Warrant, as I said in my original Answer, simply recognises that these manufacturers supply their products to the Royal Household, and there is nothing whatever illegal in supplying cigarettes.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, is it not true that as the advertisement appears at the present time, the warning looks almost as though it was an additional advantage that the Government had asked the advertisers to publish?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, that would not have occurred to me.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, regarding packets of ten cigarettes, which we were discussing at Question Time last month, and which certain brewers are refusing to sell in their public houses as a matter of policy, is it asking too much to ask the Government to suggest to the brewers that they might at least co-operate with the anti-smoking campaign to the extent of stocking and selling packets of ten to those people who are trying to cut down their smoking?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am afraid that that does not arise on this Question.
LORD SUDELEY: My Lords, would the Government consider promoting the sale of Turkish cigarettes?—because if you smoke Turkish, you smoke less.
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, may I ask a question following the original Question, which seems to have been lost sight of? In view of the figures which the right reverend Prelate cited, and many others which I think all of us in this House know, may I ask whether it would not be proper, through the usual channels, for the Government to take up this matter with the Palace? Because these Warrants (will the Minister not agree?) remain year after year and probably are forgotten. Will he not agree that it is a ludicrous situation that we have a Government warning, and at the same time what could be regarded as almost a seal of Royal approval?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I do not think that this is really so. It is not a seal of Royal approval; it merely marks the fact that these are the manufacturers who supply to the Royal Household. Many thousands of official guests are entertained by Her Majesty. That is the reason why cigarettes are supplied, and there is nothing whatever against it.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, is the noble Lord not aware that some of us think the Royal House are displaying more common sense than are the Government in this matter?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, the Royal Household and the Government are at one on this matter.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, does not the noble Lord think that anything that could be done to discourage the practice of smoking cigarettes should be done by the Government, or by the noble Lord's Department?
LORD ABERDARE: Yes, my Lords; we are doing all that we can.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that this particular issue has been threshed out time and time again, with the result that at the moment we have on British Railways the greater part of the smoking compartments converted into non-smoking compartments? Secondly, is this not a matter that ought to be given attention by the individual who is addicted to smoking at all? I speak as an individual member who likes a cigarette and who has smoked ever since he left school, still smokes, and will continue to smoke despite the Government's recommendation.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am interested to hear the noble Lord's views, but I am afraid they do not arise on this Question.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, would the noble Lord nip along to the other place in the next half hour and urge his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to increase the tax on cigarettes?
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK: My Lords, may I ask the Minister, despite his replies, whether he could make known through the usual channels that many of us who are concerned with grave social problems are deeply distressed that on cigarette packets there appears what is interpreted by many as a commendation, at a time when £52 million is being spent on the promotion of smoking, which by many people is regarded as a cause of death?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, these matters have been discussed on many occasions, and I am sure they are well known to Her Majesty's advisers.

THE ECONOMIC SITUATION: CHANCELLOR'S STATEMENT
2.52 p.m.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, as noble Lords will know, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is making a Statement in another place to-day. In view of the expected length of the Statement, and in view of its budgetary nature, it would not be appropriate for it to be, repeated in your Lordships' House to-day. However, as we are to debate the economic situation to-morrow, it has been agreed that it would be convenient if my right honourable friend's Statement was reproduced in our Hansard. This, with the leave of the House, I propose to arrange.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, if it is not a Budget secret to say what the length of the Statement is—and perhaps it is, so I will not say it—I may say that I entirely agree with the noble Earl. It would be impossible to have read a very, very long Statement, amounting almost to a Budget speech, and then to comment intelligently on it. Because of its budgetary nature, in this difficult decision, I think what is suggested is right.

11
But this gives rise to a further consequence. Since this is obviously going to be a very important Statement, might we discuss the possibility (I have not had a chance to do more than mention this idea) of whether, by arrangement, we ought not to let the debate run on to Wednesday, because there are so many speakers, and the traffic situation and getting home is pretty difficult these days? That is another reason for not taking up time to-day on this matter.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I have not had a chance to discuss through the usual channels the possibility of part or the whole of a second day being spent on the Motion. I have laid on that dinners should be available to-morrow. We have a number of speakers, but we must discuss this matter through the usual channels. I do not think we ought to commit ourselves at this stage.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, could the noble Earl at least not issue the wording of the Statement to-night so that one can see it and prepare oneself for the debate to-morrow?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, if I might reply to that question on behalf of my noble friend the Chief Whip, I looked into this possibility and I understand it would be difficult to make full copies of the Statement available immediately after the Chancellor of the Exchequer has sat down. If I can obtain copies by 6 or 7 o'clock I will certainly do what I can to place them in the Printed Paper Office.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House what might be regarded as a constitutional question? If the Statement to be made by his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is merely a statement of Government intention, that is one thing; but if it is regarded as a "mini-Budget", ought it to come before your Lordships' House at all?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, not knowing the contents of this Statement I am not in a position fully to answer the noble Lord. In the ordinary course of events, I should have thought it would be quite wrong to repeat Statements of this kind in any form in this House. But it was purely for the convenience of the
12
noble Lords who are taking part in the debate to-morrow that they should have in their own Hansard a copy of what is said. It is only in exceptional circumstances such as this that I should have thought this course was right and proper.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, why is it necessary for the Statement to be repeated in our Hansard when we can perfectly well gain access to Hansard of another place? Is this not a complete waste of paper?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, there are some who feel that what we discuss here is not unrelated to what appears in our own Hansard. One does not know what interruptions there will be when the Statement is made. This happens with Statements in another place, and it is surely more convenient for noble Lords to read the Statement in one piece rather than with a whole mass of interruptions.
Following is the Chancellor's Statement referred to by Earl St. Aldwyn:
Over the past week or so, many have described the situation which we as a nation now face as by far the gravest since the end of the war. They do not exaggerate.
The duty of the Government is to take whatever action the national interest requires, however severe, but equally to avoid measures which could make an already forbidding situation even worse.
Before I come to the measures which are immediately necessary, I must describe to the House the economic outlook against which the decisions have been taken.
During the past two months, a series of deliberate acts have been taken, both abroad and at home, which are at present starving this country of energy. The one over which this country has the least control, was the decision of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries on the 16th October to bring about by unilateral action an entirely new price regime for oil. As I have already made clear on a number of occasions, this change alone must inevitably make all oil-importing countries worse off than they would otherwise be, though, for reasons I shall explain, this change in the price of oil, without any other developments, would

13
not in itself have frustrated a policy of economic expansion.
But the subsequent announcements by some oil producers of their intention to reduce the supply of oil to the rest of the world to a level which is well below present requirements has created an entirely new situation.
Although the supply situation in 1974 is unpredictable, it is now only too probable that there will be an energy shortage in all the oil-importing countries leading to stagnant, if not falling, output accompanied by rising unemployment. In all these countries output is expected to fall faster than purchasing power, with consequent increases in demand pressures for goods and services. We will share those problems.
But in the case of our own country, these problems have been compounded by another factor, specific to the United Kingdom—the industrial action in the coal and electricity industries, and on the railways. This, at a critical time when we are expecting inadequate oil supplies, has cut down the availability of the primary alternative fuel, has diminished our ability to get available oil and coal to the right places for consumption and has also made it more difficult when electricity supplies diminish to ensure that essential services are not threatened.
At this immediate point of time, by far the greatest issue facing the nation is the fact that it is this industrial action, not the future shortage of oil, which has put British industry on to a three-day week and threatened the security of employment of so many of our people.
As far as the industrial situation is concerned, I must repeat what I have said before. In the general interest, it is inconceivable that any Government could agree to a dispute being settled by an offer outside the limits approved by Parliament.
Because this is the case, and because many milions of people are now beginning to suffer not just inconvenience and worry, but hardship and indeed, danger, I cannot believe that the sound common sense of the British people will not prevail.

PART II

  The Economic Situation
  In the United Kingdom just over half our energy is, at present, provided by imported oil, a rather lower proportion than most other industrial countries. It follows that, but for the immediate industrial disruption, we are better placed than most of our overseas competitors such as Japan, France or Germany. Furthermore, in the years to come our situation will be fundamentally improved by the increasing output of alternatives to imported oil—more nuclear power, more North Sea gas and, above all, by North Sea oil. But this cannot affect 1974, and it is the economic policy for the British economy in 1974, with our 50% dependence on imported oil, which we have to consider.
  With all the uncertainties of the Middle East situation, it is impossble to predict, for the 12 months ahead, either the price the United Kingdom will have to pay for imported oil or the amount which will be made available to us. But it is already inevitable that the price will be very much higher than in the first nine months of this year and that the supplies will be less than we need. The unanswerable questions are "How much higher" and "How much less than we need".
  The extra cost of oil to our balance of payments is a severe blow. Our balance of payments was in considerable deficit before this oil situation developed, although there was then reason to believe that, as the effective depreciation of sterling worked through into the balance of payments, the deficit would begin to improve next year.
  A deficit was expected and has been financed in large degree by overseas borrowing by the public sector. But international borrowing will now take on an entirely new dimension for the world as a whole. From some of the talks I have had, there is emerging, I believe, a general consensus that the industrial nations as a group must expect to some extent, to borrow back the money to pay for this increase in the price of oil, rather than to join in

  15
  a self-defeating deflationary or protectionist race to counteract the effect of the price rise on the current balance of each individual country. But in our case, given our substantial deficit without the oil problem, some corrective action now needs to be taken to keep the prospective total deficit within acceptable limits.
  But the problems created by the rise in the price of oil coming on top of the rise in world prices of other commodities—severe as they are—are overshadowed by the uncertainties about the volume of oil which we will received.
  It has to be remembered that the levels of supply to which the Arab producers refer are those of certain months in 1973. But on our original forecast of the growth of the economy, our oil needs in 1974 would have been 5 per cent. greater than this reference level.
  We must now accept that output in 1974 is likely to be significantly below the levels for which we were hoping, although no worthwhile estimate of GDP can be made until it is possible to forecast energy supplies. The present troubles affecting coal, transport and electricity are bound to reduce output in the early weeks of the year. As for oil, the best estimates are that a 10 per cent. shortfall is the most that can be coped with without loss of output. If, in 1974, oil deliveries were more than 5 per cent. below those in the reference period in 1973, this would amount to a shortfall of more than 10 per cent. compared with our needs. If over the year as a whole, the oil cuts were to turn out to be 15 per cent. there would be a fall in GDP rather than the 3½ per cent. growth which we had in prospect.
  In this situation two points must be stressed. First, we do not know, and we cannot at this stage know, what energy supplies will be available throughout 1974. More than in any other period, therefore, it is essential to be prepared to act again as circumstances change or clarify. The second important point to stress is that oil shortage on the scale which seems possible could mean that, while the shortage lasts, we might have to accept the
  16
  living standards of say a year ago rather than the improvements which we could have expected in the year ahead. To recognise that is to do no more than to face up to the realities of the situation.
  Some cut back in personal consumption will result automatically through short-time working and temporary unemployment. But the fall in output will be greater than the fall in demand, because of course those who are unemployed will spend their social security benefits, and many consumers will reduce their rate of savings. If nothing is done there will be pressure of excess demand which will draw down stocks and hold back exports.
  In this situation the Government has decided to take steps now to reduce demand by some £1,200 million in the coming year. These steps are in my view the most appropriate that can be made at this time, but the uncertainties are unprecedented and I will not hesitate to take further action at any time if developments should require it.

  PART III
  Taxation of Property Development
  Before I come to the measures necessary to achieve this, there is one particular matter which can conveniently be dealt with at this stage—transactions in land and buildings.
  I have in the past explained why I do not think that a straight increase in the rate of Capital Gains Tax on land transactions is the answer. Unlike income tax, Capital Gains Tax is charged at a flat rate, and I do not believe that it is the wish of anyone, who reflects on this problem, to increase that rate in the case of comparatively small transactions of the ordinary kind. The sort of large windfall profits, which I have previously described in this House as "offensive", fall into a different category.
  The criticism is valid, notwithstanding that, as I explained in my Budget Statement last March, profits from speculation in land are already fully taxed as income, so that for individuals the rate can be as high as 75 per cent. or in some cases even 90 per cent.; and

  17
  that, in the case of company profits which are distributed, the combination or corporation tax and income tax can together amount to nearly 93 per cent. of the underlying profits.
  Where land is held as an investment, however, gains on disposal are taxed as capital gains at a rate of 30 per cent. But, as I said in the Budget, it has to be recognised that any increase of taxation on land disposals could lead either to people withholding from the market land which would otherwise have been made available, or to an increase in land prices, or both.
  What has to be weighed, therefore, is the risk that higher taxation would have this effect against the widely held public view that the taxation of certain land profits is seriously inadequate.
  I have come to the conclusion that this is a risk which must be accepted, and I have accordingly decided that new measures are called for.
  For the reasons I have given, I am sure that it would be wrong to raise the general 30 per cent. rate of Capital Gains Tax. This is a long term tax and when this rate was fixed in 1965, the then Government justified the fact that it was lower than the rates of income tax by acknowledging that there was no allowance for the effect of inflation. That is still the case to-day. What is required is something which recognises the particular nature of certain land profits.
  What differentiates land from other assets liable to Capital Gains Tax is the fact that with land an owner can quite fortuitously make huge windfall gains simply as a result of decisions made by planning authorities acting on behalf of the community as a whole. It is the huge gains due to this development value—or even to potential development value—which people find offensive. It is this element in the gain on a disposal—the development gain—which should be liable to taxation at a rate higher than 30 per cent.
  This was of course the concept that underlay the Betterment Levy established by the previous Government's Land Commission Act. But that Act suffered from a number of fundamental defects which were no doubt the main reason why its repeal went unmourned.
  18
  The truth is that the Betterment Levy was a bad tax and that was why it failed.
  It was not graduated according to a taxpayer's ability to pay. It was charged on individuals when there was no disposal, so that those individuals often had to realise other savings to pay it. It sometimes imposed a burden on the ordinary owner-occupier and on others who were in no way involved in land development or land speculation. And, perhaps most important of all the levy fell upon a huge number of totally insignificant transactions which involved a mammoth bureaucracy and a vast interference with thousands of perfectly inoffensive small transactions in land, far removed from the kind of large windfall gains which have been the principal source of disquiet in recent years.
  I am sure that there is no wish to return to that kind of impost. Whatever is done must avoid each of the se objections to the Betterment Levy.
  The House will remember that, during the debates on the Land Commission Bill, my right hon. Friends argued that the particular problem of development gains, as distinct from normal land transactions, could be dealt with by an extension of the Capital Gains Tax. This is the concept which we have been working on with a view to legislation in the next Finance Bill. The change will now be made forthwith.
  To avoid the mistakes of the Betterment Levy, the new charge must have three principal features.
  First, it must be charged at rates which take account of the vendor's ability to pay.
  Second, it should normally be paid only when there is a disposal.
  And third, the great mass of small land transactions and, of course, all sales by owner occupiers must be excluded. These are not the cases which have given rise to public disquiet.
  Legislation will accordingly be included in the 1974 Finance Bill to tax development gains much more severely. The new tax rates will apply to disposals of land or buildings in the United Kingdom after to-day.
  Tax at the new rates will be charged on the gain in development value during the vendor's period of ownership. But only gains above a number of closely-defined limits will be subject to the new charge.
  Subject to these limits—which I will outline in a moment—gains in development value made by individuals who are liable to income tax will be taxed as income at normal income tax rates up to 75 per cent. Development gains made by companies will be taxed as income at the full corporation tax rate but companies will not be able to set payments of advance corporation tax against the corporation tax payable on these gains. Individuals will be able to spread the gain backwards over 4 income tax years or such lesser period during which the land or buildings have been in their ownership.
  As with the existing charge to Capital Gains Tax, the principal private residence or a house occupied by a dependent relative will be exempt.
  The limits will be as follows.
  First, there will be excluded from the new charge all disposals of land and buildings by an individual in any year where the total proceeds do not exceed £10,000. For companies, in order to avoid the danger of fragmented sales by companies in the same ownership, the threshold will be £1,000.
  Second, there will be excluded disposals where the total gain—that is, existing use gain as well as development gain—is less than 20 per cent. of the cost. That simple test will enable the Revenue to disregard at a glance many disposals where the development gain must be quite small.
  Third, there will be excluded disposals where the disposal proceeds do not exceed the current use value plus 10 per cent. That will take out most cases where there is merely a slight prospect of future development.
  These limits are essential to exclude the great mass of small disposals, or disposals with a little development value, which would otherwise clog up the machinery of valuation and collection.
  No significant revenue is at stake with these limits. And they will enable
  20
  the new charge to be operated by the Inland Revenue with relatively few additional staff.
  And as I have said, a principal private residence, or a house occupied by a dependent relative, will be exempted from the new charge, just as they are exempted from the Capital Gains Tax.
  There will be provisions to extend the charge to disposals of shares in close land-owning companies and to interests in certain trusts, which means that it will be of no advantage to an individual to hold his land interests through a private company.
  I turn next to another, and even more difficult, area in this general context of the taxation of land and buildings—the case where a property investment company has unrealised gains accrued over many years on which, because there are no disposals, any capital gains tax is postponed indefinitely. This was, of course, inherent in the Capital Gains Tax as introduced by the then Government in 1965. An example will illustrate the point. A development company acquires land at its current use value. It subsequently gets planning permission, builds, and lets the building without any premium. Under the law as it stands, the letting in these circumstances is not a disposal for the purposes of Capital Gains Tax.
  This general problem also we have been considering, and I have come to the conclusion that it is wrong to allow liability to be postponed in these circumstances because, as a matter of common sense, the letting of the premises should be treated as a disposal.
  The 1974 Finance Bill will therefore provide that where material development of land or buildings in the United Kingdom, other than residential development, has been carried out by an owner and the property is subsequently let for the first time, this first letting will be treated as a disposal for all purposes of the Capital Gains Tax including where appropriate the charge on the development gain. The charge will apply to all such first time lettings after to-day.
  Here again, it is necessary to have a limit below which this new occasion of charge will not operate. It would

  21
  be wrong for the Revenue to be concerned with the great mass of small commercial lettings that may be made of new buildings up and down the country—for instance, where a shop with a store at the back is built and the store is let to a tenant. Only, therefore, where the proceeds of lettings are equivalent to a rack rent of £2,500 or more a year will a disposal be treated as having taken place for Capital Gains Tax.
  Finally, on this part of my statement, I should make it clear that any capital gains from the disposal of land which are not subject to the new charge or to the new rule about first lettings—for instance gains below the thresholds and so on—will all remain subject to the normal tax charge on capital gains.
  Because of the importance of these changes, which I have inevitably had to explain at some length, the Inland Revenue is publishing a fuller statement setting out more of the details which will be contained in the legislation.
  It is obviously very difficult to estimate the yield of proposals of this sort, but the best estimate that can be made is that their total yield will amount to some £80 million in a full year.

  PART IV
  Credit control, Indirect Taxation and Energy Prices
  I return now to the action which is necessary to reduce home demand in order to leave sufficient of our reduced resources available for export and for productive investment in the private sector.
  First, consumer credit. Despite the inherent disadvantages in normal circumstances, I am sure that it is right, in the present exceptional situation, to reduce demand arising from personal consumption by reimposing controls on hire-purchase, credit sale, and hiring agreements. My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has accordingly made the necessary Orders. These controls will cover a wide range of consumer items and will take effect from mid-night to-night. The details of the terms and
  22
  coverage are being announced separately by the Department of Trade and Industry.
  The banks and finance houses are being asked not to lend to persons or to offer check trading facilities on terms more favourable than those permitted under the Hire Purchase controls. At my request, steps are also being taken to ensure that the provision of credit through credit cards is similarly restrained.
  With my agreement, the Governor is also taking steps to strengthen the techniques for controlling the growth of money and credit. The clearing banks have been asked to make certain changes in their practices designed both to limit arbitrage transactions and to secure a better control over the growth of their lending. The Governor is also requesting all banks and deposit-taking finance houses to adhere to a new technique under which non-interest-bearing special deposits would be placed with the Bank of England if their interest-bearing liabilities grow at more than a specified rate.
  With the introduction of this new device, and in view of the pressures on banks' liquidity which may arise in the period ahead, the call for the second 1 per cent. of special deposits announced on November 13 is no longer required. The intention of these monetary control changes is not to impose an additional squeeze outside the field of consumer credit: it is to ensure that we have effective control over money and credit during the difficult period which lies ahead. The new technique will enable the authorities to control the volume of money and credit with less reliance on general calls for special deposits; it can therefore be expected to reduce the pressure on bank interest rates.
  Under the legislative provisions governing VAT, and by means of the more traditional regulator which covers the revenue duties, the taxation of goods and services can be raised without the need for a Finance Bill. The effectiveness of action on indirect taxation is well established, by its frequent use in the past.
  Its disadvantage is, of course, that any increase in the taxation of goods

  23
  and services makes a direct contribu-to raising prices, but this is a disadvantage, which, depending on the circumstances, previous Governments have accepted. The conclusion which I have reached, is that the necessary restraint on domestic demand should be achieved in other ways and therefore, there will be no increase in indirect taxation at this time.
  There is one area of prices which I should particularly mention. At a time of the most acute energy shortage and in our present financial difficulties, it is anomalous—to say the least—that we are subsidising coal and electricity prices at a mounting rate. Unless action is taken on coal prices, the financial support required for coal, which exceeds £150 million this financial year, could easily be doubled next year. The subsidy for electricity is running at about £75 million a year, but this does not take account of the cost of the present emergency. Consultations with the industries on the price of coal and electricity will therefore be carried out as a matter of urgency. Arrangements will be made to safeguard the neediest households.

  PART V
  Direct Taxation
  I come now to the taxation of income, where there will be one change.
  There is here a dilemma which has to be squarely faced. Any increase in the basic rate of income tax is bound to hit millions of ordinary people who, through absolutely no fault of their own, but entirely as a consequence of the deliberate actions of others, abroad and at home, will soon find themselves with thinner pay packets as a result of the three-day working week. So, with one exception, I do not intend at this time to increase the direct taxation of incomes.
  Those on higher incomes will in general obviously be better able to cope with the situation we face. I have decided that in respect of the last year of surtax, 1972–73, there will therefore be a 10 per cent. surcharge on total surtax bills. This surcharge will be payable half on July 1, 1974, and half on January 1, 1975.
  The surcharge will not apply to any-over over 65 on April 5, 1974. The yield will be £35 million.

  PART VI
  Public Expenditure
  With the fall in output resulting from the shortage of energy, there will be some automatic fall in private demand as incomes fall because of short-time working and temporary unemployment. But without a deliberate act of government, there should be no such fall in demand by the public sector. It would be quite wrong for the public sector to continue unabated its demands for goods and services and its consumption of energy, leaving the private sector to bear the whole of the brunt of the energy shortage.
  Despite the small rise in public expenditure which was planned for each of the next three years, I am sure that it is right that the main weight of the action I am taking should lie, not on persons or private sector industry, but on public expenditure.
  To do this will make for a more tolerable level of personal consumption and release resources for exports and for private industrial investment.
  It is important to be clear about the purpose of reducing public expenditure in a situation of energy shortage. Shortage of energy and constraint on economic growth are bound to lead to a rise in unemployment. That cannot be avoided. It is inherent in the situation. But the direction of the cuts in public expenditure must be such as to avoid, as far as is humanly possible, a reduction in employment in the public sector being added to the inevitable unemployment created by the energy shortage in the private sector. It is the consumption of fuel and power by the public sector that has to be reduced, not its employment of people. There would be no point, in the wholly unique situation we face, in saving public expenditure by deliberately reducing the numbers of public servants. The particular reductions in public expenditure must therefore be directed, not just as elsewhere to cutting the demand for energy in the form of heating of buildings, use of cars and lorries, and so on,

  25
  but also, and of far greater significance, to cutting the indirect demand for energy by reducing public construction programmes and public purchases of supplies of all kinds.
  The Government has therefore decided that public expenditure on building and construction, on plant and equipment, and on supplies of all kinds will be reduced, and, subject only to a very few exceptions, the reductions will apply in respect of all programmes which use resources in this way.
  There will be no reduction in investment in the energy industries themselves, or in public sector house building.
  The Ministers concerned are accordingly making arrangements for a reduction of one-fifth in the total of their capital programmes, and of one-tenth in the total of their procurement of supplies and other current expenditure on goods and services excluding staff costs. Somewhat lower reductions will apply only where essential supplies, for example for the Health Service, would otherwise be jeopardised.
  In implementing this decision, the Ministers concerned will determine the priorities within their own programmes. The Ministers concerned will also make every effort to avoid adding to unemployment in cases where work could otherwise proceed because supplies of materials are adequate. Cases of special difficulty will be considered with the Treasury, but the renegotiation of contracts in certain cases cannot be excluded if we are to make sure that work which is of a lower priority does not pre-empt resources needed elsewhere, for instance to maintain exports or important household needs.
  These decisions on public expenditure will entail a reduction in the total of the current expenditure which was accepted by the local authorities in England and Wales in the recent rate support grant discussions, and a reduction in the amount of grant previously envisaged for 1974–75. Corresponding arrangements will be made in Scotland.
  The usual detailed annual White Paper on Public Expenditure which was due to be published this week, was
  26
  prepared before the developments which have caused this statement. Although it does not take account of these decisions, it will still be published as a baseline for the reductions which I have announced.
  The reductions in 1974–75 will total some £1,200 million. A table will be circulated in Hansard setting out the reductions in the various programmes and the effect on the totals of public expenditure which had previously been planned for next year.
  This is by far the largest reduction in public expenditure for a succeeding year which has ever been made, both in absolute and in relative terms. It is bound to mean curtailing and deferring many desirable projects, to which we had been looking forward, but I think that the British people will prefer this way to the alternatives which I have rejected at this time.
  The result will be that, whereas public expenditure on goods and services had been expected to rise by nearly 3 per cent. next year, it will now fall by over 3½ per cent., and whereas tot al public expenditure was expected to rise by under 2 per cent. next year, it will now fall by some 2 per cent.
  Since immediate action will be necessary to fulfil these decisions, there will in consequence be a reduction also in this year's public expenditure.

  PART VII
  Conclusion
  I do not think that any of my predecessors would dispute that, in the face of the many uncertainties ahead of us over the coming year, an economic judgment at this time is—to put it mildly—more difficult than usual. This is why it is important to say quite openly that, while I believe that the judgment I have made is the right one, I shall not hesitate to take, at any time, any further action which may be required in the national interest.
  Within five to seven years about two thirds of our oil requirements will be met from the North Sea, and beyond that there is every hope that production will grow to equal our total needs.

  27
  This alone will give Britain an immense industrial advantage. It will transform our balance of payments.
  But over the next year or so, it must be said that we in Britain face a severe test, and that over this period we shall not achieve the prosperity we expected.
  Following is the table referred to in col. 26:

  PUBLIC EXPENDITURE: 1973–74 AND 1974–75

  £ million

  1973–74

  1974–75

  Reductions for

  1974–75

  1974–75

  Cmnd. 5519

  Cmnd. 5519

  Capital

  Procurement

  Total

  Revised programmes

  At 1973 Survey prices

  Defence and external relations

  1. Defence

  3,398

  3,418

  -16

  -162

  -178

  3,240

  2. Overseas services

  590

  603

  —

  —

  —

  603

  Commerce and industry

  3. Agriculture, fisheries and forestry

  576

  532

  -4

  -3

  -7

  525

  4. Trade, industry and employment

  1,917

  1,664

  -10

  -9

  -19

  1,645

  5. Nationalised industries' capital expenditure

  of which—

  Fixed assets:

  Fuel and power industries

  1,815

  723*

  —

  —

  -264

  1,801

  Other industries

  1,323

  -264

  —

  Other capital expenditure

  19

  —

  —

  Environmental services

  6. Roads and transport

  1,570

  1,632

  -188

  -24

  -212

  1,420

  7. Housing

  2,165

  1,963

  —

  —

  —

  1,963

  8. Other environmental services

  1,425

  1,409

  -139

  -9

  -148

  1,261

  9. Law, order and protective services

  948

  973

  -21

  -11

  -32

  941

  Social services

  10. Education and libraries, science and arts

  4,163

  4,249

  -119

  -63

  -182

  4,067

  11. Health and personal social services

  3,286

  3,378

  -69

  -42

  -111

  3,267

  12. Social security

  5,458

  5,725

  —

  —

  —

  5,725

  Other services

  13. Other public services

  419

  412

  -4

  —

  -4

  408

  14. Common services

  433

  459

  -17

  -6

  -23

  436

  15. Northern Ireland

  770

  782

  —

  —

  —

  782

  Total programmes

  28,933

  29,264

  -851

  -329

  -1,180

  28,084

  16. Debt interest

  2,950

  2,800

  —

  —

  —

  2,800

  Contingency reserve

  —

  150

  —

  —

  +100

  250

  Shortfall

  -400

  -300

  —

  —

  -100

  -400

  Adjustment to 1973–74 outturn prices and relative price effect

  865

  890

  -25

  -10

  -35

  855

  At 1973–74 outturn prices

  Total

  32,348

  32,804

  -876

  -339

  -1,215

  31,859

  Percentage increase (+)/decrease (-) on 1973–74:

  %

  %

  in total expenditure (cost terms)†

  +1·8

  -2·0

  in purchase of goods and services (volume terms)

  +2·8

  -3·7

  * This figure embodies assumed shortfall of £100 million

  † Excluding Investment Grants

  No Government, no Party, could honestly pretend otherwise.
  I hope the House will permit me one personal word. I have taken the action which I believe to be right. I have tried to be fair. I hope the nation will respond.

  NORTHERN IRELAND (CONSTITUTION (AMENDMENT) BILL
  Brought from the Commons on Friday last and printed (pursuant to Standing Order No. 48); read 1a.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  2.56 p.m.
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
  Moved, That, notwithstanding the procedure set out in the Sixth Report from the Procedure Committee, 1972, and agreed to by the House on June 8, 1972, the two Short Wednesday debates standing in the names of the Lord Maelor and the Viscount Monckton of Brenchley for Wednesday next be transferred to Wednesday, January 16.—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the second Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
  Moved, That Standing Order No. 38 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be suspended until the House adjourns for the Recess at Christmas.—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  GRENADA TERMINATION OF ASSOCIATION ORDER 1973
  2.59 p.m.
  BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Draft Grenada Termination of Association Order 1973, which was laid before this House on November 22, be approved. The Order will be made under Section 10(2) of the West Indies Act 1967. It will terminate the status of Association of Grenada with the United Kingdom. Grenada will then be an independent sovereign State. My Lords, it is proposed that the Order should come into effect on February 7, 1974. The Act requires that any Order made under this section must be laid in draft before
  30
  Parliament and approved by Resolution of each House. It was approved in another place on Tuesday, December 11.
  I cannot of course escape noticing that on the Order Paper is an Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. Perhaps, although he has not yet moved it, it might at a later stage in my remarks be convenient to the House if I commented in some respects on its substance.
  Grenada is the first of the Associated States to move to Independence. I am sure the House will wish the Government and the people of Grenada well. The West Indies Act 1967 gave full internal self-government to a number of our dependencies in the West Indies, while Her Majesty's Government retained responsibility only for external affairs and defence. The Associated States, as these dependencies became known, were given the power to terminate this relationship unilaterally in two ways. First, they could do so in association with another Commonwealth Caribbean State by a two-thirds majority vote of the elect Members of the Legislature or, secondly, on their own by a similar vote followed by a two-thirds majority in a referendum. This was the procedure under Section 10(1) of the Act. By subsection (2), Her Majesty's Government also had the right unilaterally to terminate association, but undertook not to do so without first giving six months' notice.
  The special status of the Associated States was recognised by the creation of these unique procedures for Achieving Independence. The intention was that it should be easier for an Associated State to take this constitutional step, but at the same time there could surely have been no intention to inhibit Her Majesty's Government from granting Independence to an Associated State in the circumstances in which Independence would be granted to a dependency. Those circumstances are these: first, that the Government of a dependency should request Independence; secondly, that Her Majesty's Government should be satisfied that there is adequate support locally for the request, and thirdly, that the Independence Constitution properly protects the rights of minorities. At the present time, Grenada satisfies all these conditions. The premier, Mr. Gairy, fought the February, 1972, Election with

  31
  early Independence as the first item on his programme. His Party won 13 out of 15 seats in the House of Representatives. Subsequently, he informed the British Government that he did not wish to go to Independence unilaterally under the procedure open to him under Section 10(1) of the West Indies Act, but would prefer to do so in agreement with the British Government's normal procedure for a dependency. Therefore, he asked the British Government to grant Independence to Grenada under Section 10(2) of the Act. We convened a meeting in London in October 1972 attended by the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition, at which it was agreed that a Constitutional Conference be held in London in May 1973.
  This Conference was attended by Mr. Gairy, the Leader of the Opposition and their reporting delegations, and was held in London between May 14th and 18th 1973. There was general agreement on the terms of a constitution for an independent Grenada which were not markedly different from the present one, which was drafted with a view to Independence. It retains all the entrenched safeguards for human rights and the protection of minorities. Having considered the Report of the Conference, which was signed by all the delegates and published in Command 5379, the Government decided that it was right and proper to grant Independence to Grenada. They subsequently agreed with the Premier, subject to the approval of Parliament, that Grenada should become independent on February 7th, 1974, as I have already said.
  My Lords, when I observed the terms of the Amendment. I expected that the House might ask why the procedure involving an Order in Council under Section 10(2) of the West Indies Act was being used instead of the alternative method under Section 10(1), which would require legislation by the Grenada Legislature in conjunction with a referendum as laid down in Schedule 2 to that Act. There are several reasons for doing it this way. First, while power was given by the 1967 Act to the British Government and to each Associated State to terminate association unilaterally, there can be no question that it would be improper to terminate association by mutual agreement.
  32
  Secondly, there is no obligation under the Act for an Associated State to choose to move to Independence under the Section 10(1) procedure. Therefore the legality of the Section 10(2) procedure is beyond question. Thirdly, Mr. Gairy won an overwhelming election victory on the question of Independence. Copies of the Draft Order in Council embodying the Independence Constitution were laid before the Grenada Legislature on August 24; 250 copies were made available to interested parties by September 26, and a further 1,000 copies were printed for sale by the Grenada Chamber of Commerce.
  My Lords, the Resolution requesting and consenting to the Order in Council incorporating the Independence Constitution was passed unanimously by the House of Representatives on October 12, and by the Senate on October 15. Twenty-seven Amendments to the Draft Order were accepted by the Grenada Council. Copies of the Resolution passed in the Grenada Legislature and of the Draft Independence Order in Council are in the Library of the House. I believe that the Government of Grenada have the support of the people of Grenada in this move to Independence and therefore that it is right that we should accede to their request to terminate that country's association with this country. I therefore seek the approval of the House to the Draft Order in Council terminating the association with the United Kingdom which is now laid before it. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the Draft Grenada Termination of Association Order 1973, laid before the House on November 22, 1973, be approved.—(Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie.)
  3.9 p.m.
  LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD rose to move, That the debate be adjourned until such time as a referendum has been held as provided for in Schedule 2 to the West Indies Act 1967. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir, for her explanation of this Motion. If the Government Chief Whip had been present I had intended to thank him for having rearranged Business in order that this constitutional matter should be taken at the beginning of our Business. Without in any way wishing to be critical of

  33
  another place, I think it is quite wrong that a constitutional matter which affects the lives of very many people should be taken so late at night that clearly one cannot have a satisfactory debate and, if necessary, a vote upon it. I formally beg to move the Motion that stands in my name on the Order Paper: that this debate be now adjourned until such time as a referendum is held in Grenada as required and provided for under Schedule 2 of the West Indies Act 1967. I do so with the greatest reluctance, and only after the most careful consideration.
  My Lords, we on this side of the House are in no way opposed to the new Constitution to which the noble Baroness has referred, nor do we oppose in principle the granting of Independence to Grenada, or to any other of the five Associated States in the Windward and Leeward Islands. I recognise that in the 1967 Act provision was made that if these territories wished to come to Independence the opportunity should be available to them. I move this Motion not in any way as a consequence of representations that were made to me last week. I had intended to be critical of the method adopted by Her Majesty's Government in this respect, but it was only in the light of representations that were made that I hardened my view and felt the House should have an opportunity of expressing its opinion at the end of the debate.
  I fully accept that what the Government are doing is quite lawful. They have the power under Section 10(2) for Grenada to be moved into Independence, but I have to say in the firmest possible terms that the way in which this is done is contrary to the spirit of the 1967 Act and to the spirit and understanding of those who negotiated the Associated status position in 1967. My noble friend Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, who was Secretary of State for the Colonies at that time, will be speaking at the end of this debate. The Associated States was a very interesting experiment. The object was that the peoples of the Leeward and the Windward Islands should in fact be decolonised. We recognised, however, that these groups were made up of many small islands, all very highly individual, but for economic and financial reasons they were highly vulnerable. Clearly, however, they had the capacity to govern
  34
  themselves, and I believe that, despite Anguilla, the experiment has worked very well indeed.
  These territories have full internal self-government and the United Kingdom responsibility only falls in three parts. First, that of defence; secondly, foreign affairs and thirdly—which is of very great significance—the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor for the appointment of the President of the High Courts of the territories concerned. Those who had any connection with the Associated States could express some criticism. I think that undoubtedly the size of their Parliaments is far too small. It is quite ridiculous that the governing party of a territory should be made up entirely of Ministers. In St. Vincent, again because of the size of the Parliament, a case arose where an independent member who was a Minister in a Government that has a majority of the votes, transferred his allegiance to the Opposition, and the Opposition minority Party, because of his switch, has now become the Party in power. But, having said that, I recognise that the Associated States have done extra-ordinarily well.
  In regard to Grenada, this is one of the most beautiful islands one can imagine and the people are extremely friendly, but I have always felt great concern in regard to this island. Certainly financially they have been on a knife's edge. I saw in to-day's Guardian—and the noble Baroness may confirm this—that the Government had given an undertaking of some £750,000 to Grenada in the first few years of its independence. I should like to know what part of that sum represents budgetary assistance and what represents aid and development. Moreover, the Government in Grenada, under Mr. Gairy, have shown little tolerance to the minority and to the Opposition Parties: but politics is a harsh game in the Caribbean. One of the major factors that halve always given me concern is the role of the police. I do not know whether the noble Baroness can say anything about the position of what are called the "police aids". These are men who have been enlisted—some of them with criminal records—and who have been under active patrol with the police for a number of years. They have been banded, they have been disbanded, they have been brought together and there is no doubt at all that they have created

  35
  a feeling of grave uncertainty and insecurity in Grenada. I do not wish to say much in regard to recent reports of brutality. There have been some quite horrifying pictures, not only in the British Press but also in the Press in the Caribbean, particularly in Barbados, and I am glad to see that a commission of inquiry has been set up, made up of men of great distinction. I have no doubt that if this commission is permitted to do its work the truth will come out.
  In granting Independence there is always a degree of risk: a risk in granting it and a risk in not granting it. I believe that the speech made by the noble Baroness was more forthcoming than that of Lord Balniel in another place, but I hope she will say a little more about the internal situation in Grenada and whether the advice that she receives from the police adviser in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is such that if this were a colonial territory the Government would be willing to proceed to Independence in the present circumstances.
  At the outset I said that I was more concerned with the method adopted by Her Majesty's Government in granting independence to Grenada. The noble Baroness referred to the West Indies Act 1967, Section 10(2). This provides that
  "Her Majesty may at any time, by Order in Council made in respect of any associated state, terminate the status of association of that state with the United Kingdom as from such date as may be specified in the Order."
  That Order is now in front of us. My understanding of that subsection is that it provides for a unilateral act by the British Government, and the reasons were clearly set out in paragraph 13 of the White Paper, Cmnd. 2865, which lays down that an Order could be made which would not require the request or the consent of the territory concerned. The reason for that was that since one of these Associated States had full internal self-government it could well arise that the actions of that Government might be of such an embarrassing character, so contrary to the general policy of Her Majesty's Government, that the British Government felt that they had to terminate the association. Reading the White Paper I have no doubt at all that that was its intention, and no other.
  If your Lordships will look at other White Papers for the period of the
  36
  negotiations, you will find that the Associated States were concerned about this unilateral act and put pressure upon, I think it was my noble friend, Lord Greenwood, that the British Government should have to give six months' notice and also hold a conference in regard to economic aid. It is quite clear, and I am fully satisfied, that all the Associated States accept the view that subsection (2) was the way out—the escape—for Her Majesty's Government and the British Parliament if they themselves wished to break the association. Section 10(1) and Schedule 2 were the provisions that were put in the West Indies Act when an Associated State itself wished to achieve full independence.
  Why were there these safeguards? I think because of a recognition that when a territory had full internal self-government the British Government needed some way of knowing what were the wishes of the people concerned; and, as the noble Baroness herself mentioned in her speech, it was provided that there should be a two-thirds majority in the Parliament in the State concerned and a two-thirds majority in a referendum. I think the spirit and intention is set out in the White Paper, Cmnd. 2865, first of all in paragraph 10. I would ask the noble Baroness to put her mind to these words in the White Paper:
  "The Constitution will initially be established by Order of Her Majesty in Council."
  I ask the noble Baroness to bear these words in mind:
  "Thereafter there will be two methods by which the Constitution may be altered as follows:"—
  first of all, under sub-paragraph (a) and then under sub-paragraph (b).
  It states in sub-paragraph (a):
  "this will be the normal method"—
  that is, the provision of a two-thirds majority and a referendum. Because paragraph 11—I ask the noble Baroness to read these words with care—says:
  "Following practices commonly adopted in independent countries which have autonomy in matters of constitutional alteration, there will be special procedures for the amendment of the Constitution; for this purpose certain basic clauses will be distinguished as enshrining the arrangements for democratic government and for the relationship between Britain and the territory and the procedure for alteration of these clauses will involve approval of the electorate."

  37
  I think it is quite clear here that where a territory itself wishes to proceed to Independence as a constitutional advance the spirit of the White Paper is that it would require a two-thirds majority and a referendum. There was never any question of any way in which a territory would proceed to Independence other than by a decision unilaterally taken by Her Majesty's Government, and, secondly, by the proper procedures of the territory itself. There were those two methods—and "this will be the normal" one.
  I feel now that I must say this. For some years I had the privilege of serving in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and I had special responsibilities for the Caribbean and the Associated States. In the light of what the noble Baroness has said this afternoon I must tell her and the House that this is not the first occasion when Mr. Gairy has sought Independence. The last occasion as far as I am concerned was in Grenada at his home, where we were having a conference in 1969. Mr. Gairy asked for the second time whether the Labour Government were willing for Grenada to move to Independence under Section 10(2), that now suggested by Her Majesty's Government. I explained to Mr. Gairy, not for the first time, that so far as Her Majesty's Government were concerned we would not stand in the way of Grenada proceeding to Independence but we believed that she should go through the provisions of Section 10(1) of the West Indies Act. I had also been approached by the Opposition and by the Chamber of Commerce and I gave them similar undertakings. I have no doubt at all that the other Associated States had received similar advice. I rested my position, my argument with Mr. Gairy, on the spirit and intention of the White Papers and the Constitutions that flowed from them, and to which Mr. Gairy himself was a signatory.
  The noble Baroness knows me well enough to know that I would not have taken such a strong position on a constitional matter without having taken advice. I certainly took advice, and the advice was very clear. So Grenada has now approached Her Majesty's Government, as they approached the Labour Government, to proceed to Independence under Paragraph 11. One might well ask why Mr. Gairy, who had the oppor-
  38
  tunity of going to Independence from 1968, never took the openings that were available to him. I think the reason is quite clear: that Mr. Gairy and the Government in Grenada could never have achieved the limitations that were imposed under the West Indies Act but which he himself had undertaken to abide by.
  I accept that no Government is bound by the decisions of its predecessors, but I suggest that in matters of constitutional importance these are not lightly ignored of circumvented. I would ask the noble Baroness what was the position of Her Majesty's Government when Mr. Gairy came to London in October, 1972. Will she deny that the position of Her Majesty's Government at that time was identical to the position taken by myself in Grenada; that if Grenada wished its Independenece it ought to proceed under Section 10(1), the referendum? Certainly for the Constitutional Conference in May 1973, the position was still not clear, because it was only after the Government were willing to make up their mind as to how they would proceed, although they acknowledge that subsection (2) was a possible way out of the difficulty. But in May, 1973, the Government had not made up their mind that Grenada could achieve its Independence through subsection (2).
  The noble Baroness rested her case, I thought, on the General Election It is true that Independence was in the Manifesto, but I am advised that that was distributed in Grenada only seven days prior to the Election and in practice it was not a major issue in the Election. But be that as it may, it is true that Mr. Gairy's Party achieved 13 seats out of 15, an overwhelming vote on the fare of it. But the noble Baroness, I am sure, will confirm that Mr. Gairy obtained 59 per cent. of votes whereas the Opposition achieved 41 per cent. of the votes cast and obtained only two seats. So when one looks at the total vote the landslide victory claimed is not substantiated.
  The noble Baroness referred to colonial procedure. There is one basic difference between a country that has full internal self-government and a colonial territory proceeding to Independence: while it is a Colony, the British Government and Parliament have all the power, through their Governor and officials, to be able

  39
  to ascertain what are the wishes of the people; but in an internal self-government position, clearly those facilities and opportunities are not available. But even with a colonial possession moving to Independence, any Government would send a Minister to the territory and would carry out the most careful review of the position. I would ask the noble Baroness when did a Minister last go to Grenada. When did a Minister last go to ascertain, so far as he may, what were the wishes of the people of Grenada in terms of Independence? My information is that no Minister has been to Grenada for this purpose since October, 1972. If Parliament is to have any reassurance on this matter, I consider that we should not rely upon views and opinions taken by officials; we should look to a Minister to be able to come to Parliament to say that he was satisfied. Certainly during the period of the Labour Government we always took precautions—perhaps too many—and I have a feeling that in this respect the Government have themselves failed.
  In a Constitution there are certain enshrined clauses. In the Constitution that we are now dealing with there are enshrined clauses, but they are being swept away or circumvented, not by collusion but by a decision by Her Majesty's Government after a Constitutional Conference with Mr. Gairy on the government of Grenada. The Opposition are firmly against not Independence but the very timing of it. If the noble Baroness will look again at all the White Papers she will see that the spirit of them was that if a territory was to proceed to Independence the views of the people were to be ascertained by a referendum. I suggest to the noble Baroness that this House would not be doing its duty if it allowed this Order to proceed without pursuing the spirit of the negotiators for the Associated States, which was the referendum procedure. If the noble Baroness arranged this and then this country had its referendum and we saw what was the majority in support, then would be the time for this House to approve the move to Independence. I hope that the House will support the Amendment that I have moved. It does not go against the principle of Independence; it merely requires the territory to go through the constitutional and agreed
  40
  procedures for a territory to achieve Independence,
  Amendment moved, That the debate be adjourned until such time as a referendum has been held as provided for in Schedule 2 to the West Indies Act 1967.—(Lord Shepherd.)
  3.34 p.m.
  LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I never expected that I should rise to support a Motion which would delay Independence to a colonial territory. It is quite true that on one occasion, in order to avoid civil war, I negotiated between the Government of a territory and the Colonial Office for a general election before Independence was acceded, but on that occasion in Ghana there was no delay.
  The real principle of the liberty of colonial territories is the principle of self-determination. I think that there is very great doubt whether, under present conditions—and I emphasise "present conditions"—in Grenada there is the desire for Independence. The noble Baroness delivered a persuasive and convincing speech, but I think in one respect she was wrong. That was when she said that there is evidence in Grenada that there is this desire. I base that view on what has happened since the negotiations with the Government in May. There was a general strike not only by the trade unionists but also supported by the leaders of the Churches, the professional organisation of doctors, by the teachers and by the academics. All schools were closed, and 80 per cent. of the business in Grenada was stopped. That there should have been such opposition to the conclusions of the May discussions in such a small population indicates that the noble Baroness may have been wrong in suggesting that the majority of the population now support what has been done.
  This was followed by the most oppressive political repression. The leaders of the opposing New Jewel Movement were arrested, and there are allegations, with considerable evidence, that they were treated with extreme brutality. I do not propose to go into details because there now is operating this Commission of Inquiry, and I hope, with my noble friend, that that Commission of Inquiry will elucidate the facts. Another important

  41
  fact is that not only are there these indications of opposition in Grenada itself but that there is great uneasiness in other Caribbean countries. That has been reflected by the speech recently delivered by Mr. Errol Barrow, the Prime Minister of Trinidad.
  LORD SHEPHERD: Barbados.
  LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I welcome that correction. I think that it would probably be expressed by the Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago, as well as the Prime Minister of Barbados. I ought not to have made that mistake because I was his guest at the time of Barbados Independence.
  I think that undoubtedly this feeling in Grenada is due to the dictatorial administration of Mr. Gairy, the Prime Minister. Under him there has been almost a Police State through his own secret police, the "Police Aid". While, under pressure, this particular police organisation has now been disbanded, there is great fear indeed of the new force that has been instituted. There has been political repression. Four leaders of the Opposition have been killed. There is little freedom for political expression. There are many political prisoners—how many I do not know.
  I welcome the fact that in the new proposed Constitution freedom of expression is guaranteed; but one has in mind, in the case of both the Republic of South Africa and of Rhodesia, how entrenched clauses may afterwards be abrogated once a territory has its independence. My Lords, the proposal in the Amendment is for a referendum, and that proposal is part of past constitutional practices. I hope that if a referendum took place it would refer not only to the right of independence but to the conditions under which that independence would be observed, because I have no doubt at all—and in this the noble Baroness was correct—that the majority of people in Grenada desire independence; the qualification is that they do not desire independence while present conditions apply. I hope therefore that in the event of a referendum taking place there would be a qualification in that respect.
  I have in my hands a statement made on behalf of Grenadian people who are
  42
  resident in Britain and it emphasises this point. The statement reads:
  "we wish to declare our firm support for independence for Grenada. We see independence as the inalienable right of all peoples. However, independence must mean a new political, economic and social life for our people. It must assist in providing jobs, adequate housing, medical and health facilities, food, clothing and education for Grenadians, and it must involve our people in the process of participating in the affairs of their island."
  It is because, under the present Administration of Mr. Gairy's domination, those opportunities are not allowed that the people of Grenada themselves are asking that Independence shall be deferred until they have the opportunity to make clear their views on the Administration.
  My Lords, I believe that an election under Government supervision would be preferable to a referendum, but I accept the fact that constitutionally the referendum is the possible procedure. All of us desire that this lovely island and its people shall have a happy and prosperous future. We are asking the Government in extending Independence to Grenada to give the people the opportunity to realise that destiny.
  3.45 p.m.
  LORD SAINSBURY: My Lords, I rise to address your Lordships' House for a few moments because I know Grenada very well. I have friends on the island, I have visited it often and know the flamboyant Mr. Gairy—I have met him several times. He is a very interesting subject. He has a very unhealthy lust for power and great skill, but questionable methods of attaining his ends. I question very much the size of his continued support to-day. There has been a getting together of trade unionists and churchmen as well as his political opponents. It may not be very diplomatic to say some of the things that I am going to say, but there are occasions in my opinion when truth should take priority over diplomacy.
  Anybody who has been to the island knows perfectly well that corruption in high places is frequently spoken of and examples of it have come to my knowledge. The secret police of "toughs" has been referred to by my noble friend Lord Brockway; also the fact of cruel assault on political opponents. My concern is for the hundred thousand odd people on that island. With all my

  43
  admiration for the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, quite frankly is it good enough to say that we wish the people of the island well? I believe that we have governed that island for so long that we have a residual responsibility to the people there, and that having regard to what has already happened there and the threat of another general strike, there is grave danger of a breakdown of law and order. I would go so far as to predict a likelihood, knowing Gairy as I do, that he will appoint himself, soon after Independence, as a life President. He will nominate his own Premier and it will not be long before Britain and the other islands of the Caribbean are faced with a Haiti-type dictatorship. It has been said to me that the world is such a troubled place, we have so much trouble in these islands at the present time, why concern ourselves with 116,000 people of the lovely island of Grenada? I am one of those soft-hearted old people who believe that numbers are not the only concern. As I said earlier, these are people to whom we have a residual responsibility, and I believe with the utmost sincerity that we should support this Amendment and afford the chance of a referendum, as is provided for in the West Indies Act of 1967.
  3.49 p.m.
  LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE: My Lords, I share some of the element of surprise experienced by my noble friend Lord Brockway that he and I should be seeking to slow down the advance of a country to independence. He was the chairman of the Movement for Colonial Freedom when I was the treasurer, and I hope that your Lordships will acquit either of us of having colonialist or imperialist tendencies. I am deeply grateful to my noble friend Lord Shepherd for having moved this Amendment this afternoon.
  When I was Secretary of State for the Colonies, and when I had the great advantage of my noble friend Lady White as Under-Secretary, one of my main preoccupations was the future of the smaller dependent territories. It was quite clear that in many cases independence would create serious political and economic problems for them. It was also apparent
  44
  that to have a large number of nonviable independent countries scattered around the world would not conduce to the political stability of the international scene. After much thought and consultation, in which we were greatly helped by Sir Stephen Luke, I evolved the proposals for the Associated States which were influenced by the Cook Islands experiment but were, I thought, more sophisticated. Those proposals were embodied in the White Paper to which my noble friend Lord Shepherd referred: it was published in December, 1965, a week after I had left the Colonial Office, but at the request of my noble friend Lord Longford I took the Press Conference on the White Paper.
  The object of the Government at that time, my Lords, and the object of the White Paper, was to enable colonies to go into independence if they really wished and if they could show that their public and Parliament genuinely wanted that independence. To this end safeguards—the safeguards referred to by my noble friend Lord Shepherd—were carefully drawn up, they were generally accepted and they were incorporated by the Government in the West Indies Act of 1967. I am very sad, my Lords, that Her Majesty's Government, in their unseemly anxiety to disencumber themselves of their imperial legacy, have not honoured the spirit and the intention of the White Paper and of the Act; and having been the parent of the White Paper there is not the slightest doubt in my own mind that the Government are acting in breach of what was understood, and what was intended, at that time.
  It is really not good enough for the noble Baroness to try to persuade the House that we should agree in a course which we believe to be wrong because Mr. Gairy, with all the forces that he has at his disposal, should have won 13 out of 15 seats in a gerrymandered election in which the constituency boundaries were, I should suspect, at least open to criticism. If Mr. Gairy really has popular support behind him, why should not Mr. Gairy have a referendum upon this very issue? For the noble Baroness to say that she believes the people are behind the Government is, I think, not being wholly frank with the House. May I

  45
  quote from to-day's Guardian an article which is headed,
  "Opposition demands Gairy's resignation."?
  It begins:
  "A powerful opposition front, including civil servants, dockers, utility workers, businessmen, schoolteachers, shopkeepers, professional groups, and church leaders … have told their strong-arm premier, Mr. Eric Gairy, that he must resign on December 27 or face another general strike …"
  As your Lordships have been told, there has already been concerted action against Mr. Gairy, and demands that he should disband his secret police. Although he promised to do so, he has not in fact kept the promises that he made at that time. When one remembers the long and distinguished record of Mr. Errol Barrow, the Prime Minister of Barbados, and contrasts it with the somewhat chequered career of Mr. Gairy, it is interesting to find that Mr. Barrow has referred (in what the Guardian calls "thinly veiled terms") to Mr. Gairy as "a political bandit", and has said that he, Mr. Barrow, makes a distinction between independence for Gairy and independence for Grenada. What we are asking for to-day, my Lords, is independence for Grenada and not independence for Mr. Gairy. We want to know that the people of Grenada feel that Mr. Gairy's intentions do meet their own wishes. That is why we are asking that the House should support the Amendment proposed by my noble friend.
  I would finally remind your Lordships of the wider implications in other Associated States—those implications of which my noble friend Lord Brockway has reminded us. If we go ahead as the Government are proposing, it could have repercussions in other places and on those people to whom we have deep obligations and with whom we have long-standing ties of affection. I shall always remember, my Lords, the speech of my old friend, my late noble friend Lord Constantine, when he said:
  "What are the people of the West Indies but black Englishmen?".
  My Lords, we have a very special obligation to people who are in no position to protect their own interests.
  The noble Baroness wished the people of Grenada well. If the noble Baroness and the Government really wish the people of Grenada well, they will give them the opportunity to speak for them-
  46
  selves and not simply take at face value what Mr. Gairy, already discredited in the eyes of almost everybody in the Caribbean, says to be the views of the people of Grenada. As we approach the end of Empire, let us conduct ourselves with honour and with honesty, and not be party to dubious deals which appear to be designed to circumvent and frustrate public opinion rather than to implement it. I therefore ask your Lordships to accept my noble friend's Amendment.
  3.57 p.m.
  BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, it is surprissing that this particular proposal to grant independence to Grenada has aroused, certainly in the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, such a degree of vehemence about the personality of the Premier of Grenada and also such a degree of distrust, if I may say so, of Her Majesty's Government. I must entirely repudiate everything that he said on that count.
  I should like to begin by referring to the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, in his usual careful way, if I may so put it, and of course with very great knowledge and experience behind him. Now under this Amendment he has asked that the debate on the Order granting independence shall be adjourned,
  "until such time as a referendum has been held as provided for in Schedule 2 to the West Indies Act 1967".
  I should like to recall again to the House, if I may, that Schedule 2 to the Act lays down certain conditions and constitutional processes which must be complied with if an Associated State wishes to become independent by unilateral action in accordance with Section 10(1) of the Act; and as I have explained we are proposing to use Section 10(2) of the Act. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said, quite rightly, that there is no legal impediment to doing so, and it is a fact that Her Majesty's Government could not initiate proceedings under Section 10(1) of the Act: the request would have to come from the territory concerned. What the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, is really saying is that to try to bring Grenada to independence under Section 10(2) of the Act is contrary to the spirit of the Act. But in that case I must ask: why did Parliament see fit to include Section 10(2) in the Act at all if it was not to be used? I think

  47
  it is relevant, because I can quite understand the concern of noble Lords who have spoken about the attitude of the people of Grenada to the question of Independence. Therefore, I should like to list the steps which have been taken to consult them.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I intervene? The noble Baroness said that I did not explain why Section 10(2) was put into the Act. I went into great detail about why the Government put Section 10(2) into the Act; it was the way out for the Government if a situation of embarrassment arose as a consequence of having granted full internal self-government to an Associated State.
  BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I think that perhaps I did not make myself clear, or that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, misheard me. I did not say that he did not explain; I asked why Parliament thought fit to include in the Act Section 10(2) if it were not to be used. We are not here suggesting that we should break off our association with Grenada unilaterally; that we are not doing. As I have already said, it is not possible for us to initiate proceedings under Section 10(1). There has to be a request from the country concerned. I think I ought to go into more detail about how Section 10(2) has come to be used in this case.
  It was in 1971 that Mr. Gairy informed the British Government that he wanted independence for Grenada, and that he did not want to go through the procedures required under Section 10(1) which, as has been said, involve not only a majority of two-thirds of the elected members of the Grenada Legislature but also a two-thirds majority in a public referendum. He argued that it was not justifiable to ask an Associated State to go through the more elaborate procedure that would be required for a dependent territory seeking independence. He asked that the British Government should confer independence on Grenada as they would on such a territory. Noble Lords asked what the British Government said in reply. Mr. Gairy was told that if he won a General Election in which independence for Grenada was the principal issue, the British Government would, without prior commitment, be prepared to discuss his request.
  48
  Mr. Gairy won his Election in 1972 and the British Government agreed to hold a Constitutional Conference in May, 1973, making it clear that they would take a decision on his request only after consulting the proceedings of that Conference. The British Government would never have agreed to hold such a Conference had they not been certain that they were legally entitled to terminate association with Grenada under Section 10(2), and that in the right circumstances it would be proper to do so. It was therefore after having considered the outcome of the Conference and all the other information available to them that they decided that this was the right thing to do.
  I was about to remind the House of the various ways in which the people of Grenada were consulted on this issue. I was interested to see the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, in the ranks of those who wished to postpone independence; it is a very unusual role for him. But I think it is the concern of the House whether the people of Grenada in fact want independence. That is one point. The second is whether, if they get it, it would be a genuine independence and whether Mr. Gairy would be a Prime Minister with true responsibility. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, rightly pointed out that although Mr. Gairy won his Election by winning 13 out of the 15 seats, his Party polled 59 per cent. of the total votes cast and the Opposition polled 41 per cent.
  This, it seems to me, is a rather familiar refrain in a different context. I can remember it being said often in another place that although a certain political Party had become the Government of the day, having won a sufficient number of seats, nevertheless they did not represent the country because, perhaps from the way in which the votes had been cast, they did not have a majority of those votes. So long as we in this country do not have proportional representation—nor does Grenada—that will always be the case. The point is that on the issue of independence, which was the primary point before the electorate, Mr. Gairy won 13 out of the 15 seats. It is also interesting to recall that the Bahamas were given independence when the Government Party won the votes of exactly the same proportion of the electorate, 59 per cent. Therefore I

  49
  do not think that this is a very strong argument.
  Of course, as I said in my opening speech, after the Constitutional Conference in which both Government and Opposition took part, the people of Grenada were given a full opportunity to study and comment on the Independence Constitution. I have no evidence that, despite the undoubted protests about the internal situation, the people of Grenada are opposed to independence. Therefore I should like to turn to the security situation.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, will the noble Baroness put that round the other way? Has she any evidence that the people of Grenada in fact support independence? And does she think that if there was a referendum the Government would get a two-thirds majority, as is required in Schedule 2 to the West Indies Act?
  BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I would never forecast the result of a General Election in this country. I have visited Grenada only once, and it would be quite impossible for me to forecast the result of a Referendum or a General Election there. But as I have said, on the Independence issue, out of 15 seats Mr. Gairy won 13. There is now only one member of the Opposition, because one afterwards joined the independents. The noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, in particular—I understand he knows Grenada well—talked with some heat about what he called Mr. Gairy's autocratic régime. I should like to make clear that the Independence Constitution, which I think was accepted on behalf of the Opposition, contains all the guarantees for human rights and the rights of minorities, and these are entrenched in the same manner as in the existing Constitution which was drafted and brought into force by the previous Government, with the possibility in mind that it might become an independence Constitution. Entrenched provisions can be amended only by a two-thirds vote of all the elected members of the Legislature followed by a two-thirds majority in a Referendum.
  I can quite understand the concern expressed about the troubles which were widely publicised in Grenada and I should like to refer to them. Grenada has had full internal self-Government since 1967.
  50
  I mention this again only because it means that Her Majesty's Government have no responsibility for her internal affairs and no right to intervene. But I understand that a public meeting was held on November 4 by the new JEWEL movement, which stands for Joint Endeavour for Welfare Education Liberation. It is not the official Opposition led by Mr. Blaize of the Grenada National Party. As I said before, he is the only one now in the House. At this meeting the Premier was called on to resign or face a general strike. The strike was not widely supported and on November 18, six leaders of the new JEWEL movement were arrested for illegal possession of arms and for obstructing the police. About this time allegations were made in Grenada that the police had behaved in a brutal manner. The six men arrested were later released on bail. In reply to this expression of public opinion, the Premier broadcast on November 23 that he was going to appoint a Commission of Inquiry and that the police aides, all 200 of them, would be disbanded. This has taken place. I understand that four of them have joined the regular police, but the 200 police aides have been disbanded. I should like to say that I am glad of the expressions of support from the Benches opposite for the composition of the Commission of Inquiry which, without doubt, has very distinguished people serving on it.
  After the meetings on November 26 and 27, representatives of various organisations, including the professional associations, trades unions, Churches and the Chamber of Commerce, who later came to be known as the "Committee of 22"—not to be confused with the 1922 Committee—issued statements that they would advise their members to withdraw their labour and services until certain measures were carried out, including the arrest and charging of persons who allegedly committed acts of brutality, the suspension of a particular police officer, the disarming of police aides and the stopping and searching of persons and properties. This was followed by some strike action. The latest reports show that the situation at this moment is greatly improved. The strike was called off on November 30. I think the fact that the Commission are expected to begin, or about to begin their hearings on December 17, has given a certain amount of confidence to Grenada. But

  51
  I should like to tell the House that recently we have heard that members of the 22 organisations are not satisfied with the action taken by the Government to meet all their requests, and they are now threatening a general strike on December 27, which they intend to continue indefinitely unless the Government or the Premier resigns. I think noble Lords will have noted that all the demands of the Committee of 22 are concerned with internal affairs, particularly law and order, and there is no suggestion whatever that the Committee are opposed to independence, which is what we are discussing to-day.
  My Lords, I can understand those who feel that it is difficult for an island of this size, with a population of, I think, about 94.000, to ask for independence and to be in a viable situation once independence is granted. The Government of Grenada, having been responsible for their internal affairs since 1967, have decided that their economy can sustain independence. Therefore it is not for us to decide that we should try to impose our own opinion, which might be a contrary view. The most we could properly do, if we thought the situation justified it, would be to warn and to advise. However, the facts do not show that we should attempt to dissuade Grenada from independence on economic grounds. The economy is broadly based, and therefore a good deal less unstable than those of the other Associated States. It is not just based on one crop. It has bananas, nutmegs, maize, cocoa and other crops where the market will not be affected by independence. It also has a flourishing tourist trade.
  As for aid from Britain in the future, about which I was asked a specific question, Grenada will certainly not suffer any disadvantages, so far as aid is concerned, after independence. In order to help the Government to adjust to their new status, we have said that, subject to Parliamentary approval, we are prepared to make available a total of £2·25 million over the next three years, 1974–75 to 1976–77, in order to enable the Government to plan ahead. This sum compares with capital aid amounting to £2·8 million over the five years 1968–69 to 1972–73. This will not be budgetary aid. We have offered to make £1 million of the £2·25 million available as a grant, and
  52
  the remaining £1·25 million as an interest-free loan, although in fact independent countries normally achieve development by loans which are not necessarily free. Her Majesty's Government are also making a special gift to Grenada of £100,000 on the occasion of independence, for them to choose some aid project with which they feel they would most like to be associated.
  My Lords, there is perhaps only one other point that I should like to make, and it is this. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, argued that the position of the British Government representative in relation to Associated States is very different from that of a British Governor in a colony immediately before independence; that the British Government representative is not in a position to assess quite so well the internal situation and, in particular, the attitude of people to independence. I should like to ask the House, if I may, whether the opportunities to assess the situation of representatives of Her Majesty's Government are really so very different in the two different cases; because most colonies which have become independent in the last 20 years have usually had advanced Constitutions in the period immediately before independence, and these have, as in this case, included full internal self-government. Internal affairs, including in most cases internal security and the police, were the responsibility of local ministers. This was certainly the case in the Bahamas which became independent earlier this year. Therefore in most colonies the British Governor had no responsibility for internal affairs, or powers to intervene, short of an emergency. In that way—a very important way which has concerned the House—I would suggest that the position is hardly very different from the present position in the Associated States.
  To sum up, my Lords, I can understand the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, feeling concerned if he himself gave a particular undertaking that advance to independence should not be undertaken unless it was under the provisions of Section 10(1) of the West Indies Act. But we are proceeding under Section 10(2), with the agreement of Grenada, after general elections which have been won on this issue, and after a full examination of the circumstances surrounding the

  53
  granting of independence and the feeling in Grenada about independence.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, this is most important, and I wonder whether the noble Baroness can answer the question that I put to her as to when a Minister was last in Grenada.
  BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, speaking from memory, I do not think a Minister has been in Grenada since about October, 1972—and I mean by that a Minister responsible for this type of Constitution. But the fact remains that we feel that the representatives of Her Majesty's Government are quite capable, a Minister having been there once, of fully assessing the situation and keeping us fully informed—and of course visiting this country from time to time. We have, as I said at the start, no power as a Government to start proceedings under Section 10(1) of the West Indies Act. This has to be requested by the Government of the territory concerned. Under Section 10(2) we could have ended our association with Grenada: we could have done it unilaterally
  for the many reasons which have been given. But we are doing it by agreement. We have done it after constitutional conferences, after elections have been won in the territory concerned with this issue, and I therefore suggest to the House that it is right and proper to approve this Order before your Lordships.
  LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, would she say whether Her Majesty's Government believe that under its present administration Grenada would qualify for membership of the United Nations?
  BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, if this Order is approved and Grenada is granted independence, she would qualify for membership of the United Nations and also of the Commonwealth, and we shall be glad to support both.
  4.18 p.m.
  On Question: Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 55; Not-Contents, 80.

  CONTENTS

  Airedale, L.

  Faringdon, L.

  Phillips, B.

  Amherst, E.

  Fiske, L.

  Platt, L.

  Amulree, L.

  Foot, L.

  Popplewell, L.

  Avebury, L.

  Gaitskell, B.

  Sainsbury, L.

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Gardiner, L.

  St. Davids, V.

  Birk, B.

  George-Brown, L.

  Shackleton, L.

  Blackett, L.

  Gladwyn, L.

  Shepherd, L.

  Blyton, L.

  Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

  Shinwell, L.

  Brayley, L.

  Hale, L.

  Slater, L.

  Brockway, L.

  Henderson, L.

  Snow, L.

  Buckinghamshire, E.

  Hoy, L.

  Somers, L.

  Burton of Coventry, B.

  Jacques, L. [Teller.]

  Soper, L.

  Champion, L.

  Janner, L.

  Stocks, B.

  Chorley, L.

  Kennet, L.

  Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

  Davies of Leek, L.

  Leatherland, L.

  Tanlaw, L.

  Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

  Lee of Asheridge, B.

  Wells-Pestell, L.

  Douglass of Cleveland, L.

  Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

  White, B.

  Evans of Hungershall, L.

  Ogmore, L.

  Wynne-Jones, L.

  Falkland, V.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Aberdare, L.

  Cole, L.

  Exeter, M.

  Amory, V.

  Colville of Culross, V.

  Ferrers, E.

  Auckland, L.

  Cottesloe, L.

  Gainford, L.

  Balfour of Inchrye, L.

  Courtown, E.

  Garner, L.

  Barnby, L.

  Craigavon, V.

  Goschen, V.

  Berkeley, B.

  Daventry, V.

  Gowrie, E.

  Boothby, L.

  Denham, L. [Teller.]

  Grenfell, L.

  Brabazon of Tara, L.

  Drumalbyn, L.

  Grimston of Westbury, L.

  Brooke of Cumnor, L.

  Ebbisham, L.

  Hacking, L.

  Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

  Eccles, V.

  Hailes, L.

  Carrington, L.

  Effingham, E.

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

  Chesham, L.

  Emmet of Amberley, B.

  Clwyd, L.

  Erskine of Rerrick, L.

  Hanworth, V.

  Harvey of Prestbury, L.

  Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

  St. Helens, L.

  Hayter, L.

  Mowbray and Stourton, L.

  Sandford, L.

  Howe, E.

  Northchurch, B.

  Sempill, Ly.

  Hylton-Foster, B.

  Nugent of Guildford, L.

  Shannon, E.

  Jessel, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

  Kilmarnock, L.

  Orr-Ewing, L.

  Lauderdale, E.

  Pender, L.

  Strathspey, L.

  London, Bp.

  Porritt, L.

  Sudeley, L.

  Loudoun, C.

  Rankeillour, L.

  Teviot, L.

  Macleod of Borve, B.

  Rathcavan, L.

  Thomas, L.

  Mansfield, E.

  Redesdale, L.

  Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, B.

  Merrivale, L.

  Roberthall, L.

  Vivian, L.

  Middleton, L.

  Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

  Windlesham, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

  Monck, V.

  St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

  Young, B.

  Monckton of Brenchley, V.

  On Question, Amendment agreed to.

  ROAD TRAFFIC BILL [H.L.]
  4.27 p.m.
  LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
  Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Aberdare.)
  Clause 1 [Liability of vehicle owner in respect of certain fixed penalty offences]:
  THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS)THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS) moved Amendment No. 1:
  Page 1, line 20, at end insert ("at any time within the period of 6 months beginning on the day on which the fixed penalty notice was given or affixed as mentioned in subsection (1)(a) above").
  The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Foot, at the Committee stage made a powerful and compelling speech about the desirability of placing a time limit on the period during which one could serve notice under Clause 1, and indeed also under Clause 2. This Amendment therefore goes very closely with Amendment No. 4. It appears to me, upon examination, that my defence of the Bill earlier was not all that it might have been and that the noble Lord had a great deal which could be said in his favour. We do not think there is likely to be any practical difficulty experienced by the police or by the local authority in getting the necessary information within six months. On the other hand, the imposition of a time limit would prevent an offence under the
  56
  new provisions of this Bill from being prosecuted or caused some time after the substantive event would have been entirely out of time. Therefore we think that the argument put by the noble Lord has a great deal in its favour and we have put down these two Amendments in the hope that he will be satisfied and that he may feel the Bill has been thereby improved. I beg to move the first Amendment.
  LORD FOOT: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, for getting us out of this difficulty. The Amendment allows a period approaching six months for the notice to be given. In all the circumstances I think that is acceptable, and the point I was trying to make has been met very well in this Amendment. I hope that it will be acceptable to the House as a whole.
  LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I should not like to introduce a discordant note, but as this is the first Amendment may I ask whether we are taking this Bill rather too quickly? I went to the Printed Paper Office last Thursday afternoon to see whether any Government Amendments to the Bill had arrived. None had arrived. The postal services being what they are, there was not much likelihood that anything would arrive by post to-day. On arrival at the House to-day I saw for the first time Government Amendments in the Marshalled List. Is it really necessary at this time of the year to take Bills so quickly that this situation arises?
  LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, we are in some difficulty. Some of these Amendments went down very late. I think I am right in saying that two weeks elapsed between the end of the Committee stage and the beginning of the Report stage which is a fairly normal interval.

  57
  Postal delays have in some cases delayed the putting down of Amendments.
  VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved Amendment No. 2:
  Page 2, line 3, leave out from ("shall") to first ("to") in line 7 and insert ("provide that, unless the fixed penalty is paid before the expiry of the appropriate period, the person on whom the notice is served is required, before the expiry of that period").
  The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, is not in his place, because this Amendment, and with it Amendment No. 5, is an attempt, which we shall now never know whether it is satisfactory or not, to meet what the noble and learned Lord had in mind. He criticised the use of the word "require" in this subsection on the grounds that it left some doubt as to whether it would be an offence to fail to pay the fixed penalty, although the provisions of the Bill did not go on to make it so, and it is not an offence under the original law of Section 80 of the 1967 Act. So we have changed the wording and the Amendment makes it plain that the requirement we talk about in this subsection relates only to the furnishing of a statutory statement, and then only if the recipient of the notice chooses not to exercise the option of paying the fixed penalty, or seeing that somebody else pays it. This is a technical point but it is a good one and I am glad to move an Amendment to meet it. I beg to move.
  LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I am sure that if my noble and learned friend, Lord Stow Hill, were here he would be glad to welcome this Amendment. I thank the noble Viscount for having virtually adopted the words of my noble and learned friend.
  VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved Amendment No. 3:
  Page 2, line 27, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
  ("(b) he either furnishes a statutory statement of facts to that effect in compliance with the notice or satisfies the court that he has a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with it.")
  The noble Viscount said: My Lords, on the Committee stage I undertook to
  58
  consider an Amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Foot, put down relating to the situation where a person who does not comply with a notice to provide a statutory statement is prosecuted for the original offence rather than for failure to comply, and then we have the conclusive proof provision in Clause 1(5). The noble Lord was concerned that in such a case use could not be made of the provision in Clause 1(4) of the reasonable excuse for not complying with the notice. What we are doing here is to enable a person who is charged with a fixed penalty offence and who was not the owner of the vehicle at the relevant time but who has failed to furnish the statutory statement of facts to that effect to escape the conclusive presumption if he shows he had reasonable excuse for failing to furnish a statutory statement. I hope that this is what the noble Lord, Lord Foot, had in mind; at any rate we are trying hard to meet him on this point. I hope it will appeal to him and also to the House. Amendment No. 6 is the equivalent provision for Clause 2.
  LORD FOOT: My Lords, again I can only thank the noble Viscount for having considered this point. The Amendment does not go so far as I should have liked it to go—I should have liked to get rid of the conclusive presumption altogether—but I agree that this is a substantial improvement over what we had before, in that it allows the person who fails to receive a notice to offer that as an excuse, whether he is prosecuted under subsection (4) or subsection (5). To that extent it meets the point I was trying to make. I am most grateful to the Government for having looked at this matter again.
  Clause 2 [Liability of vehicle owner in respect of excess parking charges]:
  VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 4.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 32, at end insert ("at any time within the period of 6 months beginning with the day on which the notice of the incurring of the excess charge was given or affixed as mentioned in subsection (1)(b) above").—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
  VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 5.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 40, leave out from ("shall") to first ("to") in line 1 on page 4 and insert ("provide that, unless the excess charge is paid before the expiry of the appropriate period, the person on whom the notice is served is required, before the expiry of that period").—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
  VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 6.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 4, line 19, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
  (" (b) he either furnishes a statutory statement of facts to that effect in compliance with the notice or satisfies the court that he has a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with it.").—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
  Clause 5 [Provisions supplementary to sections 1 and 4 and Schedule 1]:
  4.37 p.m.
  LORD AIREDALE LORD AIREDALE moved Amendment No. 7:
  Page 8, line 18, leave out from ("the") to end of line 20 and insert ("alleged offender and").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, it was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, who first drew attention to the cumbersome nature of the words on page 8, line 18, of the Bill which I here seek to leave out. It seems to me that those words simply boil down to the "alleged offender", and those are the words I seek to put into the Bill. I do not think this is a matter about which one can argue; I suppose I am either right or wrong about this. I apologise for an unsuccessful piece of attempted draftsmanship on my feet in Committee. I hope I have been more successful now that I have had time to consider the matter. I beg to move.
  VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, this is one of those matters where, whether one drafts on one's feet or seated, one is in grave danger of getting it wrong. I am afraid that the very technical advice that I have about this matter suggests clearly—and I shall attempt briefly to give it to the House—that the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, is still not
  60
  correct. The difficulty is that, looking at Clause 5(1), we are dealing with the definition of "driver", and it refers to a driver,
  "in relation to an alleged offence specified in a notice under section 1 above".
  If one looks at Clause 1 above one finds one is really dealing with Clause 1(2), because we have a notice under that clause to be served on a person who appears to be
  "the owner of the vehicle at the time the offence specified in the fixed penalty notice is alleged to have been committed."
  So we are not talking about the fixed penalty notice; we are talking about a notice relating to a fixed penalty notice.
  Therefore if one is at one stage removed from an offence and an offender, to define the "driver" in Clause 5(1) by reference to the actual offence, which is what the noble Lord is doing, is wrong, because one is not talking about a notice relating to that offence but a notice at one stage removed. I am sorry; this is very technical and the drafting of this definition has not been easy, not least because there is not a definition in relation to Section 80 of the 1967 Act. But my best advice—and this point has been most carefully looked at again since the noble Lord raised it—is that the definition in the clause is the right one, even if it looks clumsy. I am prepared to consider this matter again, but the noble Lord's Amendment is not correct because he has missed the second stage effect that I have described. We shall look at the point again. I know it is a complicated piece of drafting. We do not wish it to be so, but, above all, we wish it to be accurate. At the moment, even if the wording does not look very well, I am satisfied that the definition has the effect desired and will catch the people we are trying to catch.
  LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I am very much obliged for that encouraging reply. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 6 [Prohibition on stopping of vehicles at urban junctions]:
  4.40 p.m.
  LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON moved Amendment No. 8:
  Page 11, line 27, after ("is") insert ("either").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 together, because they are on exactly the same point. The purpose of these Amendments is to permit vehicles to stop or remain at rest within the stopping-ban area where it is reasonable for the driver to do so in order to give way to other persons using the road. I, too, like the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, is not in his place because this really arose on an Amendment he moved on Committee stage which would permit vehicles to stop or remain at rest within the stopping-ban area in order to show reasonable consideration for other road users.
  That Amendment was resisted on the grounds inter alia that provision is already made in the clause to allow stopping in the banned area to avoid an accident. But your Lordships' view was that some additional provision was necessary to cover situations where there was not an accident potential, but where courtesy on the road and good driver behaviour would require a driver to give way to others. Accordingly, the Government agreed to reconsider the matter, and we are now prepared to accept the principle behind the original Amendment. However, the wording of that Amendment is not quite acceptable, as it is thought to be imprecise in legal terms and would pose problems of interpretation. The Amendments now proposed incorporate the concept of the earlier one and will permit vehicles to stop at junctions when it is reasonable for them to do so to give way to other vehicles or to pedestrians in their path. The form of wording is more specific and should not pose undue enforcement problems. My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, I beg to move.
  LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, again I have to thank the Government for accepting virtually the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill. It was obviously a very sensible thing to do and sensible of the Government to take it up. I am grateful to the noble Lord.
  LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend
  62
  Lord Aberdare, I beg to move Amendment No. 9.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 11, line 28, at end insert ("or reasonable for him to do so in order to give way to other persons using the road").—(Lord Mowbray and Stourton.)
  On Question, Amendment a greed to.
  4.43 p.m.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON moved Amendment No. 10:
  After Clause 6 insert the following new clause:
  .—(1) Any person who, without lawful authority, drives, draws or parks any motor vehicle of any description, or any part thereof, on a footway shall be liable on sum nary conviction to a fine not exceeding £50.
  (2) In subsection (1) above, "lawful authority" includes the power of a local authority by order to exempt persons from the provisions of subsection (1) above in respect of the driving, drawing or parking of any motor vehicle of any description, or any part thereof, on any footway, or any part thereof, within the area of that local authority.
  (3) The term "footway" in this section means a way comprised in a highway, which also comprises of a carriageway, being a way over which the public has a right of way on foot only.
  The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, I am beholden to move again the Amendment I moved in the Committee stage, but in a rather different form: first, because my Amendment received such very wide support in the debate in your Lordships' House, and also, since then, I have received expressions of regret from a number of sources that the Amendment was not carried, and that it was defeated by so small a majority. Having heard from noble Lords who have considered the Amendments moved on the Committee stage and which have received such favourable treatment, I have every hope that Her Majesty's Government will accord me the same favourable treatment, because I feel sure that the changes I have made in my Amendment are such as to commend themselves to the noble Lords the Front Bench.
  In my first Amendment, I merely pleaded that the existing law, which as I understand it is uncertain, should be made clear and that it should be made illegal for vehicles to park or to move on the footway. I believe my Amendment was largely defeated because there were certain noble Lords who felt that

  63
  there were exceptional circumstances which were not dealt with in it. I hope, therefore, that by redefining the term "lawful authority" as giving power to the local authority, where they consider it justified, to declare that certain persons and areas are exempt from the first subsection of my Amendment, this will meet the case of the exceptional circumstances such as were mentioned in their speeches by the noble Lords, Lord Foot, Lord Platt and the noble Baroness, Lady Northchurch.
  I have read again with great care the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, in opposition to my Amendment in the Committee stage. I think he gave really very scant respect to the argument that I was putting forward when he said:
  "I think that the assertion that the pavements are for the people and the roads for the vehicles, although a nice-sounding phrase with popular appeal, is not really a just one". [OFFICIAL REPORT, 3.12.73, col. 358]
  This is not a matter of nice-sounding phrases which are trying to appeal to popular sentiment. We are trying in this Amendment—that is, myself and those who agree with me—to establish the law that the footway is the prerogative of the pedestrian. That seems to me not to be a matter for lighthearted treatment, but one for very serious consideration. After all, I cannot see what use the footways are if they are not that part of the highway reserved for the pedestrian. It ought to be only the exceptional circumstances which permit motorcars and other vehicles to move on to the footway.
  The noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, made a great appeal to the importance of local authorities. He said that they already have the powers if they would only use them, and that it is up to us to see that the local authorities exercised those powers. My Lords, I do not think that this is the right way round, because if the local authority says: "This street is one where vehicles may not go on to the footway," then the presumption is that all other footways are ones on which vehicles can go. That seems to me to be a quite improper invasion of the rights of the pedestrian. I am pleading that this should be done the other way round: that the law should be established that the footway is the
  64
  prerogative of the pedestrian, and that where there are exceptional circumstances, then the local authority may order that that particular area is exempt.
  The noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, said that as with many other matters concerning transport, this is an issue which should be dealt with locally because local authorities understand the local problems. To that I say, "Hear, hear!" If therefore there are areas where, for convenience or safety, it is considered that the ban on going on to the footway should be lifted, then let the local authorities say so. That is the effect of my Amendment.
  The noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, said that I was moving a sweeping juggernaut of an Amendment to deal with a comparatively small problem. This, my Lords, in my submission is not a comparatively small problem: it is a growing problem, one which is contributing to danger and inconvenience. Nor is this a juggernaut of an Amendment because all that it is doing is trying to make quite clear what we understand the law to be at the present time and then to make such powers of exception so that in local circumstances those conditions may be met. It is for that reason that I move my Amendment.
  LORD GARDINER: My Lords, I hope that the Government will have reconsidered their attitude in this matter. On the last occasion, the noble Lord, Lord Somers (he is not here at the moment, but I always have a high regard for what he says), said that in cases where the road is very narrow, it is much safer for a car to be at least halfway on the pavement. My Lords, I think the noble Lord must have meant safer for the motorists. I do not think he could possibly have meant safer for pedestrians. After all, those on the footway include the old, children, and mothers with prams who may have to go out into the roadway with small children to get round a car which is using the footway; and particularly of course there is the danger to the blind. The House may remember that at the Committee stage the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, said that it was a matter of her own personal knowledge that in Westminster—and she expected that it applied in other places

  65
  as well—the blind who are used to counting the steps they take in a journey they know are frequently not only frightened but hurt by stumbling into a motor car on the footway.
  "Parking" is a convenient expresssion, but it ought not to be overlooked that a car cannot park on a footway without its first being driven on the footway. I would respectfully submit that, although no doubt a pedestrian who has to cross the carriageway runs a certain risk of being injured by a motor car, he is entitled to protection when he is on the footway and ought not to be run down from behind by a motor car which is driven on the footway. The Amendment now proposed by the right reverend Prelate will, I hope the Government think, largely meet the difficulties expressed on the previous occasion, and, as I say, I hope very much they may be prepared to accept it.
  4.51 p.m.
  LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, I should have been inclined to support the Amendment proposed by the right reverend Prelate if he had confined it to the urban areas, where this matter is a very serious problem and interference with pedestrians, especially the particular class of pedestrians to which the noble and learned Lord has referred, could be very severe indeed. But if the definition of "footway" contained in subsection (3) in the Amendment extends to rural areas, this Amendment goes far more widely than one would like. For example, unless a local authority exercised the powers which the right reverend Prelate mentioned, this would stop people from picnicking on grass verges off the main road, which many people like to do during the course of the summer.
  It would also conflict with one of the provisions of the Highways Act 1959. I am afraid I cannot quote the precise section, but there is contained in that Act means of dealing with unauthorised parking in encampments by gipsies within the boundaries of a highway. The maximum fine for doing that is £20; whereas the right reverend Prelate is proposing to levy a maximum fine of £50 for a parallel offence. As I see it, this could be a very dangerous clause for use by those local authorities who are already harassing gipsies, contrary to
  66
  advice which has been given by Her Majesty's Government that until a countrywide network of sites is provided they should not be needlessly pushed from one place to another. Local authorities could welcome the powers contained in this clause as a means of pushing and shoving gipsies out of their area and into a neighbouring county, where again they would be fined £50, instead of £20 as provided in the Highways Act 1959. I hope that the Government, none the less, see their way to accepting the spirit of the right reverend Prelate's Amendment and would undertake to bring forward a similar new clause in another place, but confined entirely to urban areas.
  LORD FOOT: My Lords, I hope that I do not have to declare a personal interest in talking about footways. But since on the last occasion I was, I think, the only person, other than Members on the Government Front Bench, to speak against the right reverend Prelate's Amendment, perhaps I may say a word or two, because I am now a convert to his point of view, and if he carries this Amendment to a Division on this occasion he and I will find ourselves in the same Lobby. I should like to explain to the House briefly why I have come to that conclusion. I wondered on a previous occasion, like my noble friend Lord Avebury, about what would be the position out in the countryside if somebody drives off the road on to a footway where the motor car is doing no harm; it is probably a safety measure to get the vehicle either partially or wholly off the highway. I wondered whether that action was something that would be prevented by this Amendment.
  I balanced that against the considerations which apply in urban areas, and listened with great care to what the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray, said about this matter on that occasion: that the local authorities of urban areas at the present time already have the powers they require. I think it is an unanswerable argument to that which we have heard from the right reverend Prelate to-day: that if the local authorities were to prohibit vehicles going on to the pavement in certain areas that would automatically seem to suggest there was authority to do it at places where it is not specifically prohibited. This is a matter of balance

  67
  It is a matter of trying to see where the least harm or the most good is going to be done. I am satisfied that, on balance, probably the best course is to establish the principle which the right reverend Prelate wants to establish—that is, that footpaths are for pedestrians, and highways are primarily for carriages and motor cars. Let us start from that position and then, if desired, move on from having established that principle to provide exceptions in appropriate cases. I am satisfied and convinced by the argument that the balance of advantage lies with the Amendment and, as I say, if it is pressed to a Division I shall go into the Lobby with the right reverend Prelate.
  LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, I would support the right reverend Prelate in this Amendment. I am particularly thinking of the vicious way in which in urban areas and cities lorries and cars, irrespective of the rebuilding of pavements, do damage. I assume that "footways" includes pavements that have been set and paid for by local citizens out of the rates. I have seen near my home a pavement laid down new at the beginning of the week, and in the middle of the week, or at the end of it, perhaps 25 per cent, of the brand new flags have cracked because a group of heavy transport lorries has been in the habit of drawing up there—sometimes much to the worry and trouble of young mothers wheeling prams on that part of the footway and having to squeeze past these huge lorries. Nobody seems to have taken much notice of it. In other words, the god motor-car and the god lorry dominate; and we have even allowed local by-laws to wink at this part of the law. There is harassment of the ordinary citizen by this parking in many so-called shoddy streets. The streets that often suffer are side streets in cities where, on both sides, irrespective of the rights of the ratepayers and of the rent payers, lorries and cars "shack up" the entire street; and if drivers do not think the street is wide enough they will overlap the pavement sometimes to the extent of 36 inches (I take the old-fashioned measure and not the metre) or more.
  So far as the country is concerned, common sense is shown, perhaps particularly on market days. There the law comes into play, and on market days in
  68
  great country areas (and nearly every noble Lord will know the country fairs and market days in special market towns) the local authority and the police come to an easy modus vivendi on this issue. Therefore, I do not think we want to make heavy weather of it. But if the right reverend Prelate decides to go into the Lobby, certainly I shall be pleased to support him on this Amendment.
  4.59 p.m.
  BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I also should like to support the right reverend Prelate on this straightforward Amendment. I was heartened to receive to-day, literally just before we came into the House, a letter making reference to this particular Amendment. One sometimes wonders who listens to "Today in Parliament" on the radio. The writer of this letter is somebody who does. He writes as a blind person who is very concerned about the ever-increasing problem caused by the parking of motor vehicles on footways. That point was raised during the debate originally. The writer of the letter then goes on to say:
  "With the present cut of 50 per cent, in street lighting the problem will be made much more acute as those with failing vision will be in the same predicament as the blind have been all along, and as this problem has so many facets, many of which are not immediately obvious to those who enjoy perfect sight, I should very much welcome the opportunity of discussing the matter with you."
  Obviously that was not possible before this debate, but it emphasises one group in particular who need our strong consideration.
  I am afraid that I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, about the difference between the urban areas and the countryside. I myself lived in the countryside for many years, and one of the terrible hazards of walking in the country is that you face the oncoming traffic and literally have to flatten yourself against the hedges almost every other moment. In other words, the problems of the countryside are becoming very much more the problems of the urban dweller. There is no justifiable reason why those who have a car cannot find somewhere to park it. If there is nowhere close by to park, I suggest that they might have to park it a little way off and walk. One remembers the little Cornish villages which, very sensibly, have insisted upon a car park at the top of the village, sometimes nearly a mile away; but it has

  69
  meant that one can walk through the streets in safety and with comfort. I will not repeat how I have suffered personally from heavy commercial vehicles. Only this morning I counted a few for the benefit of the noble Lord who will be replying, and there were rather more than he would like to see, taking up almost the whole of a very narrow pavement. I understand, too, from somebody concerned with cars that this is also detrimental to the car, so perhaps indirectly we should be doing the car driver a service if we made this a part of the Bill.
  5.3 p.m.
  LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, this point is obviously one of great interest as we are discussing it again. Many speakers have expressed their interest, and the right reverend Prelate has put his case again with great eloquence. I sympathise completely with what he is trying to do but I would say one personal thing in my own defence. He attributed a statement to me, and the words were as said; but they were taken out of context. I should like to emphasise that.
  What is the effect of this Amendment? It is almost the same as the one we discussed a fortnight ago, with which your Lordships did not agree. The right reverend Prelate has now given us a subsection which appears to do one of two things. One is that it appears to allow the local authorities to solve the problem by having signs saying, "You may park on the pavement here." We think this would lead to trouble, particularly because it would be difficult for local authorities to decide which pavements could be parked on. It would give too much encouragement for such pavements to become a permanent parking place. The other alternative which the right reverend Prelate mentioned to-day was to exempt certain categories of people such as we discussed last time—doctors, police, and occasionally, perhaps, residents, if that were thought suitable. Again, obviously this would cause trouble, because vehicle badges would be issued to various people, and what would happen if the person concerned was not in fact driving that car at the time?
  I think I should give a full answer again in order to impress upon your Lordships
  70
  that this is in fact a much wider problem than the one we are discussing. There are many roads in many areas where it would be unreasonable to have a total ban on parking on the pavements because of the narrowness of the road compared with the width of the verges and pavements. There are many cases where it is sensible and reasonable, for the safe flow of traffic, to allow partial parking on the pavement. These decisions as to where such parking might be allowed aught to be local matters, depending upon local circumstances.
  The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, mentioned blind people. The fact that there may be an institute for the blind or a home for the elderly, and the need to ensure adequate provision for mothers with prams near a maternity home, for invalid chairs and schoolchildren, are all, obviously, matters which should be considered by local authorities, and they should ban parking in such places. As I have said before, they have adequate powers to do this, either in individual problem streets or, if the local inhabitants see fit, over whole areas. And that would meet the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips. There is nothing to stop a local authority from banning such parking in whole areas if they consider that to be the right decision. All local authorities have to do if they want a full 24-hour ban is to paint double yellow lines on both sides of the road: a vehicle parking on the pavement can then be turned away by the police. It is as simple as that. If a person parks on a double yellow line the police will tow the vehicle away. Local authorities already have that power.
  The Government are concerned to avoid cluttering up the already overburdened Statute Book with new provisions to deal with problems for which adequate powers have already been provided. Of course we recognise that in some cases the remedies that exist may not be popular with all concerned. During the Committee stage noble Lords referred to places such as Radnor Walk, and we had other places mentioned where the residents were concerned about this matter. But some of the residents of Radnor Walk, for example, might not be pleased if they found they could not park there at night.
  BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I wonder whether I may interrupt the noble Lord for a moment, so that I may thoroughly understand his point. I got the impression from the original debate that if the car was half on and half off the pavement the driver was not committing an offence. When we spoke about Chelsea last time the noble Lord referred to the fact that after a certain time at night these particular lines did not count. I want to be quite clear about this: is there any time in the day when parking a heavy commercial vehicle half on and half off the pavement is not an offence?
  LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, perhaps I may answer the first part of that question and deal with the effect of the yellow lines. Where there is a yellow line, it forbids any parking on that area during daylight; and I think that I said last time that the highway is defined not as being just the road but extending from one hedge or wall to the other hedge or wall on the other side. During the yellow-line period cars may be parked after 6.30 p.m, and before 8 a.m. Where there are double yellow lines it is never permissible to park a car in the roadway or on the pavement or verge alongside it.
  May I deal now with the other points raised by the noble Baroness, and also by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek? I think that our memories must be getting very bad because only this year we passed the Heavy Commercial Vehicles (Controls and Regulations) Act—some people refer to it as the "Hugh Dykes Bill". This Act makes it an absolute offence for heavy commercial vehicles of any sort to park on pavements, So lorries have no business to be on pavements, unless—and this is the point—a uniformed constable has given permission; and such permission is given, as your Lordships know, only if there is good cause and reason. We have had long debates on the subject of heavy commercial vehicles, and I beg your Lordships once and for all not to keep bringing in this complete red herring of heavy commercial vehicles, because the law is already 100 per cent, on your side in this matter.
  LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, I grant that point on the question of heavy commercial vehicles, but that in no way disposes of the argument that parking of cars on footways should not
  72
  go on. Despite the double yellow lines, there may be a legitimate case for a lorry or a car to stay there. I do not want to penalise them for doing so, but I do not want cars on the footway, never mind heavy vehicles.
  LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, where we do not want cars on the pavements—and I accept there are many occasions—the local authority has to put double yellow lines. This forbids parking on the roads or on that part of the pavement adjacent to the roads, and this can be done now; many local authorities do it. If this morning there were cars and vehicles cluttering up the double yellow lines near where the noble Baroness lives, she has only to call the local "Bobby"; he then takes the registration numbers of the vehicles, and as they are committing an offence they can be booked and fined.
  LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I am afraid the Minister is being interrupted rather a lot, but surely the double yellow line has this defect: that if one uses it in order to stop vehicles from parking on the pavement, one may also stop them parking on the road, at the side of the road. If one has a situation where it is all right for a vehicle to park by the side of the road but not on the pavement, one cannot do that by a double yellow line.
  LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, the double yellow line is an area considered by local authorities, with or without police advice, to be absolutely dangerous at any time as a place for vehicles to stop. Therefore it is an offence to do so. Certainly one may be able to go to court and explain one's case, and it will be understood; but it is an offence to park on that road where there is a double yellow line. The police know this. Whether an offender has an excuse is another matter.
  LORD FOOT: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting, may I say that I do not think he has understood my noble friend's point. My noble friend's point was that if the local authority decides to use the double yellow line for the purpose of preventing people from parking on the pavement, then by doing so they automatically prohibit anyone from parking in that road on the highway, which they may not

  73
  want to do at all. That was the point my noble friend was making and which the noble Lord has not taken.
  LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, it is not necessary in that case. Parts of the road may have only single yellow lines, in which case during the hours of daylight people may park in that road. One can get permission from the authorities to park first on the pavement, and parking would still be allowed on the road. If one allows the one thing in certain circumstances, then one would have to allow it in the road. But I do not see why noble Lords cannot understand that the double yellow line is a total ban. Further up the road, where it is safe, one may be allowed to park a vehicle. If I may go away from this point—
  LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that question, I am sure he has misunderstood the point which is being put to him. I live in a street which has no lines at all. I do not want the local authority to put double yellow lines in my street to prevent me from parking my car outside my house, but I do not want anybody to park their car on the pavement outside my house. Surely that is the whole point in this connection. I am sure the noble Lord is wrong in his idea about this matter. I do not want to go into the whole argument, but clearly the noble Lord is wrong about the double yellow lines acting in this way.
  LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, in the case that the noble Lord, Lord Champion, has raised, a local authority can totally ban parking on any footpath and still allow parking in the road outside his house. That is a possibility also. I have said previously that local authorities have the power to introduce total bans on any parking on footpaths.
  LORD CHAMPION: By law?
  LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, by law; they have this power already. They can do various permutations. I think the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, had a point when he drew the attention of your Lordships to the effect of the national ban proposed in the country areas. This ban would prevent parking on the verges of any country roads,
  74
  however narrow and winding, and however bad the view ahead because of high hedges or trees.
  LORD GARDINER: My Lords, can that possibly be right? There are many ordinary country roads where the highway consists of the carriageway and only the carriageway. The verge is not the footway at all. Anybody can go on the footway.
  LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I am advised that the highway includes the area from hedge to hedge. I shall willingly apologise to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, if I am wrong about that, but my advice is to that effect. I believe it would be quite a shock to a driver if he came round a bend and found a vehicle parked on the road when it could have been on the verge, or on the footpath. The law will force the driver to stay on the road. If the authorities are allowed to exempt country roads of this kind, we should remember that we are talking about exemptions for hundreds of miles of roads in some areas, all to be littered with some form of signs yet to be designed, presumably saying, "Parking to be allowed here". Country roads are not by any means the only places where real problems are caused. Noble Lords must know as well as I that there are many council estates which have wide pavements, partly grassed, and narrow roads in which it can be very difficult to pass because of vehicles on both sides of the road and also parked on the footways. The same applies to roads in residential areas in the suburbs of our towns and cities. Where else can residents park their cars? Alternatively, what is one to say to these people where an ambulance or fire engine cannot get to an emergency because there is a ban on parking? This is what makes the police so concerned about the proposed clause of the right reverend Prelate.
  My Lords, I apologise for speaking for rather a long time, but we feel that we cannot accept the principle that vehicles should never go on the pavement, any more than we can accept that pedestrians should never go on the highway. I beg the right reverend Prelate not to repeat that I regard highways primarily for pedestrians and pavements primarily for vehicles. Obviously I do

  75
  nothing of the sort. I accept that primarily the highway is for vehicles and the footway for pedestrians. I have answered the point on juggernauts and lorries. I have repeated already that the footpath is legally a part of the highway; but in those areas where parking on the pavement is undesirable or dangerous, I repeat that it is up to the local authorities to use the powers already in their possession to ban it. But whether or not a ban would be right can only be settled locally. We must leave this to the properly elected authorities to do. I beg noble Lords to consider the effect of this Amendment and to listen to the reasoned argument I have put forward. A lot of the arguments raised to-day do not help the wider view.
  5.19 p.m.
  LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I apologise to the Minister and others for my late arrival. I am not clear from what my noble friend has said precisely how he thinks the local authority can stop parking on the pavements. Of course, I understand what he says, that it can be done by a double yellow line; what I do not understand is how it can be done by any other method, unless he agrees to some amendment, not necessarily identical with what the right reverend Prelate suggested, but some amendment to alter the powers. Let me take the case of Radnor Walk because it was mentioned last time. In the absence of a double yellow line, what would be the method by which the local authority, should it be so minded, could stop parking on the pavement? He has said it could do it by some other method than the double yellow line. I want to know what that method is; some notice would be required, presumably. I will yield to the noble Lord at any moment if he wishes to interrupt and tell me the answer, but for the moment I am very much impressed by the problem put by the noble Lord, Lord Champion, who says that he does not want a double yellow line. If necessary, in the particular case I have in mind I think it might possibly be a good thing. But what the House has not been told is what would be the method of stopping it in the absence of the double yellow line.
  76
  The other point I wish to put to my noble friend is this. I am inclined to agree—and although I did not have the advantage of hearing the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, I think it is possible that he also agrees—that this Amendment may not be perfect. But what is quite certain, it seems to me, is that, if the Government had any sympathy with the objects of the right reverend Prelate, it would not be beyond their ingenuity to provide a perfect Amendment. It might be necessary to provide for exceptions, such as ambulances, fire engines and all sorts of emergencies, but these things are not beyond the possibility of legal provision. But it seems to me the noble Lord is giving a blank negative; nothing whatever is to be done for the pedestrian. If the amenities of a street in Chelsea or anywhere else are to be ruined, not by occasional parking but by habitual parking, the occupancy of the footway as a parking lot, which is what it amounts to, I cannot think that is a tolerable arrangement. I genuinely want to find out; I do not want unreasonably to oppose the Government. It seems to me that the right reverend Prelate and others have given every chance to the Government to provide a rational method of stopping a notorious abuse. I do not know what line the right reverend Prelate is going to take, but I am bound to say that if the alternative is either to do absolutely nothing and let this abuse continue or to pass this Amendment, leaving it open to the Government either at a subsequent stage of this Bill here or in another place to get the precise Amendment they desire, I am bound to say that I hope the right reverend Prelate will not abandon his Amendment.
  LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I answer my noble friend Lord Conesford? He asked under what powers local authorities could act. Section 1 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 gives local authorities outside Greater London all the powers they need, and Section 6 gives the traffic regulation powers for Greater London. To repeat the point again, local authorities can act by using the single yellow line or by using the double yellow line, or they can have a sign which says simply that parking on the road is allowed but not parking

  77
  on the pavement. They have three different regulators.
  5.24 p.m.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and again expressed almost unanimous opinion in favour of what I am trying to achieve by this Amendment. I was particularly interested in the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. I certainly have no desire to harass gypsies or to prevent innocent people from parking on a wide verge and having a picnic. I would have imagined that the argument of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, was a correct one: that the verge is not a footway as the provision in my Amendment imagines it to be. If that is the case, surely some small Amendment to this wording could meet the point of the noble Lord, because I would certainly wish that it should be so.
  As regards the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, I have pleaded and I have given the Government every opportunity to relax or to try to meet in some degree what is the major nuisance, the growing danger, and he has declined in any way to meet the points that I have been putting. I believe he has still not seen the point which the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, made about double lines. If the double yellow lines are used in order to prevent parking on the footway, they also prevent parking of any kind. We do not want to prevent parking of any kind in some streets, but we do want to prevent people from parking half or wholly on the footway—it is as simple as that. The noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, has pleaded again and again to give the local authorities power, and in that I am entirely with him, and that is why my Amendment gives to the local authorities power in certain exceptional conditions to allow parking on the footway.
  LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, if I may intervene again, has the right reverend Prelate missed what I was just saying? The local authorities,
  quite apart from the yellow lines, have power to put up a sign which allows parking on the road but absolutely forbids parking on any part of the pavement.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: Yes, my Lords, but there is also the argument put by the noble Lord, Lord Foot: that if local authorities exempt certain areas from parking on the footway then they are giving the impression to the general public that they may park on any other footway which is not so excluded. My argument is that the matter should be the other way round, that justice and reasonableness demand that it should be made clear that it is illegal to park on the footway. From what the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray, has been saying, he is suggesting that the Government approve of parking on the footway and that there are only certain places where this should be forbidden. I take issue with him in saying that the Government should assert the law that the footway is not a suitable place for motor cars to park but that there are certain areas, certain exceptional places, where it could be permitted. The noble Lord said that I was pleading that motor cars should never go on the footway. I was not pleading for that. I was pleading that in my Amendment, with its addition, power should be given to the local authority to make exceptions, but that the principle of law should be established that the footway is not legally a place where motor cars may park.
  When I came to the House I very much hoped that I should not have to divide the House, because I was hoping that I should find some sympathetic response to a matter which in debate has received almost universal approval in your Lordships' House. I have received none of that encouragement, and therefore I much regret that I have no alternative but again to divide the House on this matter.
  5.29 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 10) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 68; Not-Contents, 49.

  CONTENTS

  Airedale, L.

  Balogh, L.

  Blackett, L.

  Amory, V.

  Barnby, L.

  Blyton, L.

  Amulree, L.

  Beswick, L.

  Brayley, L.

  Auckland, L.

  Birk, B.

  Bristol, Bp.

  Brockway, L.

  Hayter, L.

  Monck, V.

  Champion, L.

  Hirshfield, L.

  Peddie, L.

  Chorley, L.

  Howe, E.

  Phillips, B. [Teller.]

  Cole, L.

  Hoy, L.

  Popplewell, L.

  Conesford, L.

  Hurcomb, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  Davies of Leek, L.

  Hylton, L.

  Roberthall, L.

  de Clifford, L.

  Hylton-Foster, B.

  Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

  Diamond, L.

  Jacques, L.

  St. Davids, V.

  Foot, L.

  Janner, L.

  Segal, L.

  Fulton, L.

  Jessel, L.

  Shackleton, L.

  Gainford, L.

  Killearn, L.

  Shepherd, L.

  Gardiner, L.

  Leatherland, L.

  Slater, L.

  Garnsworthy, L.

  Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

  Snow, L.

  George-Brown, L.

  London, Bp. [Teller.]

  Stocks, B.

  Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

  Longford, E.

  Taylor of Mansfield, L.

  Grenfell, L.

  Macleod of Borve, B.

  Wells-Pestell, L.

  Hacking, L.

  Maelor, L.

  White, B.

  Hale, L.

  Maybray-King, L.

  Wynne-Jones, L.

  Hanworth, V.

  Meston, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Aberdare, L.

  Goschen, V.

  Platt, L.

  Avebury, L.

  Gowrie, E.

  Rankeillour, L.

  Beaumont, L.

  Grimston of Westbury, L.

  St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Hailes, L.

  St. Helens, L.

  Brooke of Cumnor, L.

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

  Sandford, L.

  Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

  Sempill, Ly.

  Carrington, L.

  Lucas of Chilworth, L.

  Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

  Chesham, L.

  Mansfield, E.

  Colville of Culross, V.

  Merrivale, L.

  Strathspey, L.

  Courtown, E.

  Middleton, L.

  Stuart of Findhorn, V.

  Craigavon, V.

  Monckton of Brenchley, V.

  Sudeley, L.

  Daventry, V.

  Monson, L.

  Teviot, L.

  Denham, L. [Teller.]

  Mountevans, L.

  Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, B.

  Ebbisham, L.

  Mowbray and Stourton, L.

  Vivian, L.

  Emmet of Amberley, B.

  Northchurch, B.

  Windlesham, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

  Falkland, V.

  Onslow, E.

  Ferrers, E.

  Orr-Ewing, L.

  Wolverton, L.

  Garner, L.

  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.

  BUSINESS: ECONOMIC SITUATION DEBATE
  5.37 p.m.
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, may I make a statement on the business for to-morrow and Wednesday? It has been agreed through the usual channels that to-morrow's economic debate should be extended to Wednesday as well. In order to do this it has been agreed that the Northern Ireland Orders and the Northern Ireland Constitution (Amendment) Bill and an Order Confirmation Bill should be taken formally at the beginning of business. There will, however, be an opportunity for a debate on Northern Ireland affairs on a "Take-note" Motion immediately following the conclusion of the economic debate on Wednesday.
  BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I should like to express our thanks to
  80
  the noble Earl the Chief Whip for his great courtesy and helpfulness in dealing with what is a very serious situation. On this side we will do our best to see that the debate follows the customary lines.

  ROAD TRAFFIC BILL [H.L.]
  5.38 p.m.
  Report stage resumed.
  LORD MIDDLETON LORD MIDDLETON moved Amendment No. 11:
  After Clause 7, insert the following new clause:
  ".After subsection (1) of section 25 of the 1972 Act (duty to stop, and furnish particulars, in case of accident) there shall be inserted the following subsection:—
  "(1A) If in any case, owing to the presence of a motor vehicle on a road, an accident occurs whereby damage is caused to any building, wall, hedge or fence on or adjacent to the road or to any item of street furniture as mentioned in section 81 of the Public Health Act 1961, then the driver of the motor vehicle shall stop and, if so required by any person having

  81
  reasonable grounds for so requiring, give his name and address, and also the name and address of the owner and the identification marks of the vehicle."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, when an Amendment similar to the one that I now move was proposed two weeks ago by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, it was encouraging to note the great measure of support that it received, and also the willingness of my noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton to consider the matter and consult with his right honourable friend. This Amendment differs from that proposed in Committee in that it is drawn so as to amend the Road Traffic Act 1972 by adding to Section 25(1) a new subsection (1A). Subsection (1) is the familiar one making it a duty for the driver of a vehicle involved in an accident causing damage to another person or a vehicle or an animal to stop and furnish particulars. This new subsection would follow it so that the existing subsections (2) and (4) will apply both to subsection (1) as now and to this subsection (1A).
  Subsection (2) imposes a duty on the driver of the vehicle causing damage to report to the police within 24 hours if particulars have not already been furnished. Subsection (4) makes failure to comply with Section 25 an offence. It has on previous occasions been argued that it would be better to widen an Amendment which dealt only with roadside hedges, fences and walls, to include a duty to report damage to buildings as well, and this Amendment seeks to do that.
  The clause also extends to such things as sign posts, lamp posts, bollards and so on that come under the heading of street furniture, as mentioned in Section 81 of the Public Health Act 1961. If this Amendment is accepted, the only things apart from chickens and wild creatures that a driver will be able to hit without owning up will be trees and cats. Trees usually get the better of an argument with a motor vehicle and the driver is not often able to remain anonymous. Cats will remain second-class animals and their deaths must continue unrecorded. I do not know why cats were accorded this rather low status but it may have something to do with the possibility of having to make nine successive reports on the same animals.
  My Lords, in all seriousness, it is high time, as several noble Lords pointed out in Committee, that a driver's moral duty to own up to damage to property should now be a legal duty. It is absurd that the driver of a vehicle must report damage to a person, to a vehicle or to a domestic animal and need not report any other kind of damage however serious or however expensive for the injured party. There was very little dispute about the need to review Section 25 during the passage of the Animals Bill in 1970. The last time such an Amendment was sought, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor agreed that the law in this respect should be improved but he produced strong arguments from the Home Secretary which at that time were decisive in preventing the Government from agreeing to a change. If the case was a strong one then, it is a stronger one now. Public opinion has changed, amenity is becoming more precious, a greater and greater burden is imposed on the community and no small part of that burden is the growing expense that has to be met by the owners of property, both rural and urban, damaged by road traffic—an expense that has to be met also by the ratepayers.
  In regard to the rural areas, I have referred to the Animals Bill. This lays a heavy responsibility on the owners of livestock. If animals get out and cause an accident, it can be very expensive for their owner. The escape of animals on to roads is probably the most serious consequence a broken fences. Prima facie the owner of the animals is responsible, but he has a remedy against the diver of the car which broke the fence, hence the need to identify him. If it is right in principle, can such a change in the law be enforced in practice? The Home Secretary's argument put forward in 1970 about the price of the extra burden of enforcement in reporting this to the police has been dealt with in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. The arguments about the practical difficulties of enforcement produced by my noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton in Committee were dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Foot. There will always be hit-and-run drivers. Some will avoid reporting damage to property just as they avoided reporting damage under Section 25. As the noble Lord, Lord Foot, pointed out in Committee, the argument cannot be

  83
  used about the difficulty of catching the man who causes damage and disappears where there are no witnesses and at the same time justify retention of Section 25 as it is now. So far as I know, no one has complained about the practical difficulties of the enforcement of Section 25. Why should it be reasonable to make it an offence when a dog is hit and the driver fails to report, and not practical when a lorry goes through your shop window or when a car goes through your hedge into your garden? This anomaly really cannot be allowed to continue, and I very much hope that my noble friend can see fit to accept this Amendment.
  LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I quite agree with the spirit behind this Amendment. The only question that occurs to me is how on earth one is going to enforce it. If the car goes through the hedge into one's garden it will no doubt stop anyway. I should have thought that hardly needed pointing out. But if a car causes damage and then drives on, assuming nobody is there to see it doing so, how on earth is one ever to find out to whom the car belongs and how it did the damage? Any responsible driver will of course stop the moment there is any accident whatsoever, but one cannot shut one's eyes to the fact that there are a great many highly irresponsible drivers on the road and I do not see how one could ever enforce this provision.
  LORD FOOT: My Lords, may I deal with that point first. If it is to be argued that because the law sometimes cannot be enforced therefore you should not have any law at all, then that should be made applicable to bank robbers, should it not? They are most irresponsible members of the community. If we never passed a law that could not be enforced 100 per cent., we could not pass any laws at all. The matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Somers, referred was dealt with when we debated this matter in Committee. I pointed out that the arguments which were being used by the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, in opposition to the Amendment then moved—which was in the same sort of terms as the one we have now—applied to the law which at present makes it necessary for anybody who does injury to an animal to stop and report the accident. I hope that the Government may be prepared to
  84
  accept the principle which lies behind this Amendment.
  I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, when he says that the appropriate way of trying to put this right and introducing this new element into the law is by an amendment of Section 25 of the Road Traffic Act 1972, and not, as we tried to do in Committee, introducing an entirely new section into the law. If I may respectfully say so, I would go even further than the noble Lord, Lord Middleton. I sought to put down an Amendment of my own, in principle the same as that of the noble Lord but rather more widely drawn, and the only reason why it has not reached the Order Paper is because of the delays we are experiencing in the post. I believe it has gone in as a Manuscript Amendment. I hope for an Amendment to Section 25 of the 1972 Act as the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, proposed, but rather than try to confine it to walls, fences and so on, I am proposing that it should be made a requirement of the law as it is at the moment; that is to say, if you are involved in an accident in which some other vehicle is damaged, of if you are involved in an accident in which some person or some animal is injured then you are under an obligation to stop and give your name to anybody who can reasonably require it. If you do not give your name, then you are under an obligation to report it to the police within 24 hours. Rather than go into the detail of things like walls and fences and so on, I propose that you should add to those categories damage to any property other than the vehicle or trailer which is actually being used or anything in that trailer or in that vehicle.
  The noble Lord has said that as the law stands at the moment, because we have not this comprehensive requirement to report damage to all property, there is no obligation to report damage to a tree or damage to a cat; and, so far as I understood the noble Lord, he thought that that was all right. I do not think it is all right at all. It is all very well to say that the tree usually comes off best, but if you are dealing with a lot of young saplings, or something like that, and somebody drives on to the verge and knocks down a lot of saplings, why should he not be under an obligation to report that to

  85
  the police, just as he is under an obligation to report injury to an animal or damage to another vehicle? Equally, what about the poor cat? Why should not the cat have the same sort of protection as is given to every other kind of domestic animal? I do not see why people should be allowed to run over a cat and then be under no obligation to report it to anybody.
  I am suggesting that there is nothing unreasonable—indeed, it makes the law very much more sensible—in extending this requirement to report an accident whether the damage is done to a person, to another vehicle, to an animal or to any other kind of property. That would be the sensible and, it seems to me, the simple way to deal with this matter. The Government have been very good this afternoon: they have accepted quite a number of Amendments, and when they have not been accepting something they have been defeated. This is a very satisfactory state of affairs, and I hope that it is going to continue. I therefore hope that we are going to hear from the noble Lord in a minute that the principle of this thing, at any rate, upon which the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, and I are agreed, is accepted.
  LORD HYLTON: My Lords, from personal experience I should like to support the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Middleton. On at least one occasion a motorist has demolished my roadside fence in the middle of the night, with the result that my cattle have got out, walked half a mile or so down a dangerous main road and devastated my neighbour's garden, causing considerable ill will and bad feeling. I hope that this Amendment will do something to prevent these happenings.
  LORD REDESDALE: My Lords, I, too, should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, particularly when it comes to dry stone walls up in Northumberland and the Border country, which in fact do a great service in that they prevent a very bad accident because they stop the car. But it is becoming incredibly expensive now to repair these walls, and I feel there should be an obligation on the motorist to report an accident when the farmer has to repair the damage and may also lose cattle or sheep through their escaping on to roads carrying traffic which,
  86
  until recently, has been going at quite a high speed.
  5.56 p.m.
  LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, when we discussed this point in Committee on the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, I marshalled the Government's list of objections which, broadly speaking, boiled down to whether or not it was a law that could be reasonably enforced, because we do not wish—and this is generally agreed—to give the police unenforcible laws or to clutter up the Statute Book unnecessarily. Having said that, I fully accepted the various points which were put forward. The noble Lord, Lord Foot, then put forward an argument which I found had great force. My Lords, I undertook that we would initiate discussions to consider whether his points, his comparisons and similarities with legislation on animals, had force. Discussions are still taking place. There have been discussions between the transport section of the Department of the Environment and their colleagues in the Home Office. The Home Office have not yet had a chance to discuss the matter with the police, but they have arranged to do so in January.
  What I should like to say to-day is that if, after discussion with the police representatives, the Government consider that there is substance in this point they will table an Amendment in another place at the next stage. I know that this is not very satisfactory for the noble Lords who have taken this trouble, but their arguments will not have been in vain; they will lend substance to the discussions which are still to take place with the police, the Home Office and the Department of the Environment—the parties concerned. I should like to leave it there, if noble Lords will be content.
  LORD MIDDLETON: My Lords I am grateful to my noble friend. I must say that I find it disappointing that he cannot accept this Amendment here and now. I should have thought that there had been time for consultation by now. However, I accept that he must refer it to his right honourable friend, and I have no doubt that he will wish to take the advice of the police.
  LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, it is not my right honourable friend: it is the police themselves.
  LORD MIDDLETON: I beg my noble friend's pardon. I have no doubt that account has to be taken of what the police may have to say, as they would have to enforce it. Of course we do not want to throw any unnecessary burden on to the police, especially in the difficult times that we are going through. I appreciate that in many places the police are overworked and under strength, but surely we must face up to the facts of modern economic life. We have acknowledged the huge growth of motor traffic by spending millions of pounds yearly on new roads we must also see that our police force is up to strength and is organised so as to cope with the increase in the volume of traffic, with the greater size of vehicles and with the problems that arise when, for instance, motorists blunder off the highway. My Lords, because there remain further opportunities during the passage of this Bill for this matter to be put right, and because it might well be better for there to be a wider Amendment such as has been suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment in the hope that this time the opportunity to carry out this long-overdue reform will not be missed by the Government.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 8 [Duty of local authorities to promote road safety]:
  LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON moved Amendment No. 12:
  Page 13, line 14, leave out ("investigations") and insert ("studies").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment on behalf of my noble friend. I think we should take Nos. 12 and 13 together, if that is your Lordships' wish. This is a very simple matter. During the Committee stage concern was expressed that the Bill as drafted required local authorities to investigate individual accidents as and when they occurred, thereby duplicating the work of the police. I explained that this was not the intention and I undertook to examine the point. The purpose of this provision is to ensure that local authorities study accidents in numbers in particular areas, such as housing estates. Such studies start with an analysis of the historic data provided. I do not think I need explain the point further, because I think it is self-evident. I beg to move.
  LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, this is the point that I raised both on Second Reading and again in Committee, and I am grateful to the Government for meeting me in this way. I rather think that the substitution of "studies" for "investigations" will in fact meet the point I then made and that there will not be duplication in future by the police and a local authority investigating the same complaint.
  LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 13.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 13, line 17, leave out ("investigations") and insert ("studies ").—(Lord Mowbray and Stourton.)
  6.0 p.m.
  VISCOUNT MONCK VISCOUNT MONCK moved Amendment No. 14:
  Page 13, line 28, after ("roads") insert ("including the provision and maintenance of sufficient and correct traffic signs and signals.")
  The noble Viscount said: My Lords, as many of your Lordships know, I am of a very diffident nature, but I make no apology whatsoever for introducing this Amendment which is very much on the same lines as the Amendment so ably moved during the Committee stage by my noble friend Lord Selkirk who, unfortunately, cannot be present today. I was much encouraged by reading what my noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton said at that time. He agreed that the Amendment proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, was important, if it was necessary, and I shall endeavour to show that this Amendment is necessary. The noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, said that the powers of the local authorities for controlling, protecting and assisting the movement of traffic on roads embraced the use of traffic signs and signals. I agree with that, but is it right that the main way of protecting and warning road users should be included in an all-embracing sentence of 10 words, especially, as I hope to show, since the present efficiency of road signs and signals is open to question?
  During the Second Reading debate I referred to two matters on which I looked with great suspicion. One was

  89
  the presence of broken white lines on one's own side of the road when there was a continuous white line on the other side. The other was warning signs which had been left in position when there was no longer any need to warn, so causing the signs to be treated with contempt. Four days later I took a 24-mile drive. In at least three instances there were broken white lines on my side of the road and a continuous white line on the other, at places where it would never have been safe for me to overtake traffic. I am not quite sure which of the guardsmen on the Government Front Bench will reply, I think it will be the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton. But during the Second Reading debate I extended to my noble friend Lord Aberdare and to my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross an invitation. I said that if they deigned (I am afraid that Hansard got it wrong; they put "dared") to visit my humble home I could, after providing suitable nourishment, take them for a short drive and show them places where broken white lines had been placed in positions where it would never be safe to overtake traffic.
  Curiously enough, on this 24-mile drive I saw three instances of broken white lines being placed wrongly and on the way home there were all the signals—"Slow down now" and the sign showing the gentleman shovelling coal and then "Traffic lights ahead." And what was there? Nothing. All I am saying is that when even the most careful driver has passed two or three of these signs and signals and finds nothing, who can blame him if he pays no attention to the next one? It may interest your Lordships to know that without telling them that we were to have a debate here today, I spoke to two rather different types of people yesterday, a university student and a gardener. Both of them said they thought that traffic signs and signals were (what shall I say?) in want of careful study that they were wrong. If I may quote the gardener, he said, "Even where the signs say 'Give way' they are too close to that part of the road over which you have to give way."
  I am glad to see that the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition is in the Chamber, because I want to pay him a little compliment. I am not talking only of my own County of Hampshire when I say that broken write lines are placed
  90
  wrongly and that warning signals are left up because someone is too idle to turn them round or remove them before he goes home. Twice this year I have had occasion to motor down to Devonshire. That involves passing through Wiltshire, Dorset, Somerset and most of Devonshire. Before the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition gets a little "jumpy", may I say that I did not notice anything wrong in Dorset. That may be explained by the fact that I went through only two miles of that county. Unfortunately, my noble friends Lord Long and Lord Gridley are not here to-day, but in Wiltshire and in Devonshire, where that great fighting man the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, is responsible for most of the county, I found just the same thing. There were broken white lines where it would never be safe to overtake, and signals that had been left up when they were no longer operative.
  My noble friend Lord Howe is here and I have obtained his permission to steal his thunder. During the Committee stage he talked about signs which were obscured, and it may interest your Lordships to know that about three days after the Committee stage discussions I was going to my usual station. There is a nasty 30 m.p.h. limit at the end of a long hill where you have to put on your brakes quickly, and about 100 yards round the corner the constabulary are apt on occasions to have a radar trap. Knowing where this 30 m.p.h. limit was (in fact a cousin of mine was caught there about a year ago) I was very surprised to see that there were no signs. I investigated and found that on my offside the sign was flat on the ground and the sign on my nearside was covered by a bush which had either blown over or had been cut down. My heart bled for the poor policeman who, having arrived 100 yards round the corner and set up a radar trap, would then find that everyone had a perfectly good excuse for travelling at about 60 m.p.h. So I told my local "copper", and he got the matter put right in 24 hours. In one instance my noble friend was right, in saying that more attention should be paid to signs which are obscured or are not visible.
  I think that it was during the Committee stage that my noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton suggested that a special circular about this question of road signs should be sent to local

  91
  authorities. But it would be much more effective to have this incorporated in the Bill. Local authorities have too much to read already. It would necessitate inserting only 13 words. With respect, my Lords, I can think of a paragraph which appears at page 13 of the Bill in which there are already eight words too many. If those of your Lordships who have taken the trouble to pay for a copy of the Bill will look at lines 21, 22 and 23 on that page you will see the words
  "… the giving of practical training to road users or any class or description of road users …"
  My Lords, if you talk about road users, why need you go on to say, "or any class or description of road users"? I was warned that it might be because these words had appeared in a previous Act. But have we always to bring forward things which have been in previous Acts? My Lords, 150 years ago there was probably an Act saying that if you stole a sheep you would be hanged forthwith. We do not have that penalty nowadays, so why continue with it? If you eliminate from the Bill eight words and put in 13, you would be only plus five, and even NATSOPA would not charge much for putting those in.
  I have finished now, my Lords. I know that my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek is anxious to come forth into battle. I would merely say this to whichever of the famous guardsmen on the Front Bench is going to answer—I think that it is going to be a Grenadier. All good Grenadiers behind a stern exterior hide a kind and considerate heart, and I hope that in this case the kind and considerate heart will be uppermost and that this Amendment will be accepted by the Government. I beg to move.
  6.10 p.m.
  LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, I am sure we have listened with interest to the military metaphors of the noble Viscount. They were effective, and I only hope that he has brought the right amount of firing power to the right place at the right time, and, consequently, that these few words will be inserted in the Bill, because I am sure it will be improved thereby. I will try to be brief, as I usually do. The main point here is maintenance, and that means that we
  92
  expect the local authorities, the Government or the people responsible for trunk roads to keep the signs clean, keep them legible, keep them visible, and, last but not least, place them conveniently. This is of paramount importance when one is driving at a fair speed; and I do not mean exceeding the limit, but at a fair speed. I have seen, because I have driven over the road for weeks, a vital notice that has been knocked down, left down and not replaced.
  I mentioned at Committee stage a problem that I have met in many lovely country places, in towns and cities. When we have the spring and summer, with our glorious British foliage, sometimes some vital traffic signs are hidden by the foliage because the authorities have neglected to clip the hedges or the overhanging branches. This, I know, could easily be put right, because it is a job that the road-men, or those cleaning up, if they took a pair of clippers or shears along with them could do in a matter of a couple of minutes. But what is important is that this may mean the difference of a life. I should like to know whether there is any regulation as to the number of red lamps to be placed 10 feet or 10 yards from a trench. If one is travelling even on a lonely road at night, particularly during fog, and there are too few lamps or red lights to define the edge of a trench, it can have fatal consequences to a driver. This is another vital argument for the insertion of the phrases that we have appended to this Marshalled List of Amendments. I think the point of those few remarks is self-evident. I have said nothing new, but it is common sense. This is mostly true of common sense; it is not new, but often we fail to apply it. I hope that the few words I have said will enhance the remarks made by the noble Viscount, and that the Government will treat this Amendment with the seriousness that I think it truly deserves.
  LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, little else remains to be said and I have only one thing to say. I entirely agree with both noble Lords who have spoken about the importance of keeping the road signs visible. I am not absolutely satisfied that we have sufficiently covered that point in the Amendment. I am not sure that we should not add to it at the next stage the words, "and keeping it free from visual obstruction".
  LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend Lord Monck will not be disturbed to find the Grenadier part of the Front Bench getting up rather than the Welsh Guards. I do not think the Coldstream Guards, with which I believe he is connected, were more friendly to one of our regiments than to the other. We all got on well together. I hope he will take me with as good a smile as he can muster. The purpose behind my noble friend's Amendment is to secure specific references to traffic signs and signals. It does not add to the powers of local authorities, which of course include all the counties and London authorities, as well. The main object of Clause 8 is to ensure that road safety and highways powers are directed to reducing accidents. The powers to which the clause already directs attention include powers for controlling, protecting or assisting the movement of traffic on the roads. As explained in the debate in Committee that embraces traffic signs powers.
  This Amendment is really unnecessary—I am sorry to have to say this—because local authorities have the powers to direct traffic signs of all sorts, including road markings, and these powers stem from Sections 54 and 55 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967. All such signs and markings must be to a design either prescribed by Regulations under the Act or individually authorised by the Secretary of State. Local authorities' discretion about the number of signs and markings to display in particular circumstances varies. There is a distinction between signs which warn of a rise and those which control the movement of traffic. Warning and advisory signs are things like direction signs and white lines on the road showing the edge of the road or the division between carriageways.
  My noble friend Lord Monck raised the point about white lines in the last debate in Committee, when my noble friends Lord Selkirk and Lord Elton also spoke. We have already explained that these warning lines are put down at the discretion of the highway authority, within the framework of advice from the Department of the Environment, to meet local conditions. The experience is that most drivers observe these lines well. Indeed, the police have expressed the view that they are the most self-enforcing traffic signs in use. Any local authority
  94
  not keeping the white lines painted is at fault and not doing its duty, and I am sure that as soon as it is warned by a member of the public it will be the first to want to put things right.
  Noble Lords mentioned safety. I can think of many parts of the country where there are roads of three-car widths. In these cases, what often happens is that there is an overtaking line on one side for a mile or two miles, limiting the traffic going in one direction to one lane, and then for the next one or two miles you have a converse situation. This stops hold-ups and ensures safety. This is done on many local authority roads and on many of the trunk roads controlled by the Government. We are currently reviewing our advice on this matter, and this will take into account any points which have been made in this debate. There are also proposals in the new directions on traffic signs now being prepared, to require that in all cases lengths of continuous lines shall be succeeded by at least two warning areas. This would meet the point noble Lords have mentioned about advance warnings.
  Local authorities do not only have to make statutory requirements for what is needed in any one case regarding the judgment of road traffic conditions. They work within a framework of guidance which is laid down by the Secretary of State and backed by day-to-day contact between the local authorities and the regional control of the Department of the Environment. The position is different in regard to signs controlling movement of traffic—the speed signs and those controlling access and flows of traffic in one-way streets; but I do not think we have had objections on that ground. Whatever the requirements on local authorities, they must have a measure of discretion to place signs in relation to precise local circumstances. Powers to erect signs are adequate and authorities have a statutory duty, under Section 55 of the Road Traffic Act 1967, to do so, where appropriate. In all these activities they work closely with the Department. The performance of local authorities obviously varies from place to place, but the administrative action and the continuing local interest will, in the last resort, do most.
  The noble Viscount, Lord Monck, asked about the class or description of road user. This derives from Section

  95
  38 of the Road Traffic Act 1972, which the new clause amends. I hope that those words of explanation will show noble Lords that they need not worry about the powers or duties of local authorities and that they may consider this extra Amendment to be unnecessary.
  BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, I am rather in favour of the Amendment, because it adds words that mean something. I am also in favour of leaving out words that do not mean very much. Following what the noble Viscount said, may I suggest to the Government that they should take out "class or description of road users", which is really superfluous even if it comes from another Act, and instead insert the word "all" so that this relates to "all road users". Then, if that is not entirely clear, perhaps this should be put in the Amendment, because, reading this paragraph again very carefully, it seems to be the only thing that is left out—that is, anything to do with road signs. Since all these Acts are really consolidating Acts why not take out superfluous words and put in those that mean something?
  VISCOUNT MONCK: My Lords, with great sadness, I have to say that I am not at all satisfied with the reply of my noble friend on the Front Bench. I made one or two notes in my normally illegible handwriting as he was speaking. He said that this Amendment did not add to the powers of the local authorities, which is perfectly true, and that the local authorities have the necessary powers, which is also perfectly true. But the whole point is that they do not use them, and that is why I am worried. Unless one accentuates this very important point, which would help to safeguard life, I do not think that local authorities will do any better than they have done already—and they have not done very well. My noble friend also said that this Amendment was not necessary and that most drivers observe the broken lines well. I am sure they do. I was not speaking about the drivers but about the places where the broken white lines occur. For example, you may see a broken white line on a stretch of road and think that it is safe to overtake, but if you are not acquainted with that particular road you may not know that per-
  96
  haps 50 yards away there is a dip in the road so that you cannot see an oncoming car. One has also heard about broken white lines for one or two miles. One of my objections is that on particular stretches of road there are broken white lines which are no longer than the length of this Chamber. I am sorry to have to say this, but I should like to have the feeling of your Lordships' House before I withdraw my Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  6.23 p.m.
  LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved Amendment No. 15:
  After Clause 8 insert the following new clause—
  Seat Belts
  " .—(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations requiring, subject to such exceptions as may be specified in the regulations, persons driving or riding in motor-vehicles of any class specified in the regulations to wear seat belts of such descriptions as may be so specified.
  (2) Regulations under this section may make different provision in relation to different circumstances.
  (3) Any person who drives or rides in a motor-vehicle in contravention of regulations under this section shall be guilty of an offence.
  (4) This section shall be construed as one with the 1972 Act."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, the object of this new clause is to introduce enabling legislation for the compulsory wearing of seat belts, when the Government see fit to do so. This matter was raised on Second Reading and several noble Lords felt that it represented a grave omission in the Bill. Noble Lords will recall that over the past seventy years a great many people have been killed or maimed on the roads—not that the motor car invented the road accident, because it may be of interest to recall that exactly seventy years ago 350 were killed by horse-drawn traffic in London alone. Many ideas for preventing accidents have been tried: speed limits, breathalysers, driving tests, traffic lights and so on. There have also been great improvements in motor cars themselves, and in such things as brakes and tyres. All these things have prevented the number of accidents from increasing proportionately to the number of cars on the road: in fact, the number of accidents has fallen, proportionately.
  However, there is no doubt that one of the most effective recent life saving

  97
  methods has been the introduction of the safety belt. This has been recognised by Governments all over the world, including the British Government, who since 1967 have made the fitting of seat belts compulsory in all new cars. Unfortunately, a large majority of people do not use them. Many lives have been saved by their use, but until recently it has not been possible to ascertain statistics and facts, so that for many years it has been a question of argument or opinion. It is only recently, since Australia introduced the compulsory wearing of seat belts, that facts have become available; and they are most impressive. I personally have become convinced that the compulsory wearing of seat belts is necessary to save lives. In Australia, in the very first year of this legislation, deaths have been reduced by nearly 20 per cent. and about the same proportion of all vehicle occupants' injuries. These are very impressive statistics. France has made it compulsory to wear seat belts outside urban areas, and New Zealand, Malawi and Yugoslavia have also made the wearing of seat belts compulsory. We have now a unique opportunity for any Government to reduce fatalities and injuries at a stroke. In the United Kingdom it is recognised that perhaps 1,000 lives and 14,000 casualties may be saved. I believe that unless the Government give a lead it is possible that more and more insurance companies may refuse to pay out claims in cases where seat belts were not worn. This is something on which the Government should give a lead: it should not be left to the insurance companies.
  Therefore, I am sure your Lordships would agree that people should "belt up". There are three main methods of ensuring this, one of which is the voluntary method of mounting campaigns on radio and television and in the Press, led by the redoubtable Jimmy Savile. This has led to about 30 per cent. of people "belting up"; but this is not enough. Mechanical methods may also be used—in other words, make it impossible for the car to be driven away unless the seat belt is fastened. In America a buzzer has been introduced which makes life impossible until the seat belt is fastened. Unfortunately, these mechanisms can be interfered with, and there is a danger of mechanical faults.
  98
  Also, they can considerably increase the cost of the motor car.
  Therefore one is left only with compulsion. I believe that the public of this country would accept compulsion willingly. The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, the Automobile Association and many other bodies have come down in favour of compulsory use of seat belts. A recent survey carried out by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders gave the figures of 84 per cent. of the population as accepting that compulsion was necessary and that 70 per cent. of motorists were not opposed to legislation.
  There are of course problems. There is the problem of enforcement, but this has not proved any trouble in Australia. On-the-spot fines are essential in enforcing this offence because one does not want the courts cluttered up by such cases. There is also the question of belt design. I am sure we all agree that belt design is not perfect, but great improvements have been made in recent years and I believe that more improvements will be coming. It is a pity to wait any longer as the seat belt is now a greatly improved piece of mechanism and much more comfortable to wear than it used to be. However, it will in future have to be better adjusted, and it is most important that the belt fits a person properly, otherwise it can on occasion cause damage which otherwise would not occur. Perhaps there will also have to be exemptions for taxi drivers, delivery men, pregnant women and also, I hope, drivers of veteran and vintage cars.
  There is no doubt that this is going to be a necessary step in times to come. May I explain that my Amendment is purely an enabling clause which would allow this Government, or any future Government, to bring in this legislation when they think fit. They may feel that the time is not absolutely right at the moment, but I believe that this should be on the Statute Book. This Bill is an ideal medium which would enable these regulations to be made in the future, at some time chosen by the Government, without wasting further Parliamentary time. I hope the House will support me and that the Government will agree that this is a principle which is well worth accepting.
  6.32 p.m.
  LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will forgive me for intervening briefly at this early stage on this debate. It would probably be useful if I were to explain at once the Government's position on this Amendment. May I apologise particularly to the noble Lords, Lord Avebury and Lord Davies of Leek, for rising before they had a chance to speak? My right honourable friend the Minister for Transport Industries announced on May 1 that he would consult various interested bodies on this subject and would report to Parliament before any final decision was taken by the Government. He reported the outcome of these consultations in reply to a Written Question in another place last Thursday. On the same date I replied to another Question in similar terms put down by my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford, in order that your Lordships should be fully informed of our position before we reached to-day's debate.
  I do not wish to weary you by repeating what was in that Statement: it is available in Hansard of December 13, at columns 1355 to 1357. In brief, it is clear, as my noble friend has just said, that most people now accept the value of wearing seat belts. Opinions are divided on the merits of compulsion. On the one side it is argued that a considerable number of deaths and serious injuries can be avoided only by compulsion; on the other side it is said that compulsion gives rise to issues of personal liberty and considerable problems of enforcement. We now have a clearer picture of public opinion, and we are most anxious to hear the opinion of Parliament before coming to a final decision. As my noble friend said, this Amendment gives this House an admirable opportunity to make its views known, and we shall listen with great interest to your Lordships' opinions. My noble friend Lord Mowbray, who is a much greater expert than I am in these matters, will be able to answer any technical points which your Lordships wish to raise, and we are interested in your Lordships' opinions on the compulsory wearing of seat belts.
  We are ready to accept this Amendment, if your Lordships agree to it, as it only provides enabling powers and
  100
  would not prejudice a final decision one way or the other. Moreover, it leaves the way open to modifying any eventual decision in favour of compulsion to provide for limitations and exceptions where these seem desirable. This is another aspect of the matter on which we should like to hear your Lordships' opinions. The Amendment has a few minor defects and one fairly important one: it creates an offence without specifying a penalty. But these are matters which can be put right in another place and we are prepared to accept the Amendment if that is your Lordships' wish. I stress once again that we are most anxious to achieve a full expression of your Lordships' views on the merits or demerits of compulsion in the wearing of seat belts.
  LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, I am delighted to hear that the Government have accepted the Amendment in principle and will be tidying up the wording so as to deal with the point that the noble Lord has made. We shall then be ready, provided that the Government are satisfied that public opinion is in favour of it, to make this step forward in motoring safety effective by compulsion. The noble Lord has said that this is an admirable opportunity for the House to make its views known. Unfortunately it will not be a large sample of your Lordships who express an opinion, and I should prefer to be guided by the survey referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, which covered over a thousand people and showed that 84 per cent. of those who expressed an opinion believed that some kind of legislation, including compulsion, was necessary and would be effective. When one has this kind of view expressed by people in the country at large, I think it would be wrong for us not to take action.
  It reminds me of the developments which led up to the breathalyser legislation some years ago when I had some correspondence with Mr. Marples, the then Minister of Transport. He said to me: "We cannot move too far ahead of public opinion on these matters. In order to make out a case for legislation on the level of alcohol in blood it must be demonstrated that public opinion is widely in favour of it." I carried out a survey which showed that people were ready to accept that limitation on their individual freedom. Admittedly my

  101
  survey was not a large one and was not as scientifically conducted as the one to which reference has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Montagu. But Governments should show a lead in these matters and not wait until 100 per cent. of the people are behind them on a particular road safety matter when it is clear, as the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, has said, that a large number of lives can be saved.
  I believe the figures that he quoted were those of the Department of the Environment. These figures of 1,000 fatalities and 14,000 serious accidents came from Departmental experts and therefore one should take them very seriously. If this is the extent of the human damage and suffering that is being caused by our failure to legislate on the compulsory wearing of seat belts, why have we waited so long? The important point which the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare mentioned, the question of how this can be reconciled with individual liberty, I take very seriously. For two years I was Secretary of the Parliamentary Civil Liberties Group, and for another six years I was Chairman of that body. I should not like to see anything done by this House, or by Parliament as a whole, which infringed the important civil liberties which we enjoy. However, I do not think that this Amendment does so. There are precedents for it. I have already mentioned the case of the breathalyser. More recently we have had the compulsory wearing of crash helmets by motor-cyclists. An even closer parallel is the compulsory wearing of seat belts in aircraft. Nobody says it is an infringement of personal liberty when he gets into an aeroplane and is asked to fasten his seat belt on take-off. I do not see why people should object when they are asked to do the same thing in cars.
  I will not weary your Lordships with examples, but there are hundreds and hundreds of restrictions on what people can do in industry—rules which are designed to promote and safeguard the health and safety of employees in companies. People naturally accept these restrictions, such as wearing hard hats in the building industry, because they realise that they are for their own protection. I believe that legislation would be effective. Not only can we see this from the experience of other countries as
  102
  the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, has mentioned. There is also the common-sense argument: that once people know a thing is the law then they will do it whereas so long as it is only voluntary, no matter how much or great the persuasion, even by eloquent advocates such as Jimmy Savile (and I pay a very sincere tribute to him for the work he has done) people will still not do it so long as they are not legally obliged to. When it is required by an Act of Parliament, I am quite certain they will. I saw this when I went over to France just after the legislation had been introduced there. I was with some English friends who, so far as I am aware, very seldom wear their seat belts in Great Britain. As soon as they got into their car in France, they automatically put them on. I am quite certain that that would happen here.
  6.43 p.m.
  LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, we are all grateful to the Minister who made that announcement from the Front Bench opposite, and thereby enabled us, I should think, to shorten the debate, because we understand that there is a possibility of getting some kind of enabling Amendment. I have great pleasure in supporting the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. I know the work that both noble Lords have done in this direction. It must be pleasing to them to know that there is a possibility of some of these things coming to fruition. Without repeating the arguments which have already been made, I also want to pay a tribute to the Department of the Environment for the "clunk-click" advertising campaign. The campaign cost £1½ million, but it has had its effect.
  In answer to those who suddenly jump to a conclusion, and say, often arrogantly without knowing the facts: "Ah, I only put the belt on when I am driving long distances", we forget that some 35,000 accidents occur in areas only ten miles from one's home. One argument put by some people is that if it is made compulsory to wear a belt, we are interfering with the individual's liberty. I hope that people realise, when they talk of their liberty being interfered with that it costs the taxpayer about £115 million a year to attend to the injuries that the caused by people not wearing a belt. So, there are two sides to this

  103
  question. If one asks for rights, suddenly one has responsibilities. A great deal of work has been done. Many noble Lords may have had the leaflet issued by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders. Much work has been done by them, and by the Institute of Advanced Motorists pointing this out.
  I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Montagu (I do not know whether some noble Lords who have just come in heard what he said) pointed out a tendency now in our modern courts. The need is urgent to look into this, especially in the light of recent High Court decisions which have reduced claims for injury and damage by as much as 20 per cent. when the claimants have failed to wear their seat belts. Those who are asking for the liberty to do what they like must remember that we have a precedent in the High Courts in so far as a judge, in coming to a decision, has reduced the claimant's claim by some 20 per cent. because he was not wearing a seat belt. Together with the arguments already made, I would consider that a constructive and cogent argument for the Minister to consider.
  The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, referred to the question of looking into the models and the difficulties of constructing seat belts to protect those who want to belt up or buckle up. Seat belts in modern cars are designed to meet new laws. I believe that no car manufacturers should issue manuals with a new car without a conclusive explanation of how to fasten the seat belts. I do not want to take the advantage of privilege to cite, as I could, the names of a number of car makers in this country whose information on seat belts is bad and gives little information to people. If people buy a new car and find it a little difficult to belt up at the beginning, they are likely to begin their motoring career wrongly. So, there is a need, as was hinted, for more research into this question of the design of belts. I could go on, but I think most of the constructive points have been made, and this noble House has a great deal of work to do and it is getting late. I am grateful to the Minister for the statement he made to the House.
  LORD ROBERTHALL: My Lords, I do not want to detain the House, but I
  104
  must accept the very generous invitation of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, that he wanted to hear our views. My excuse for speaking is that I was quite recently in Australia where, as the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, has pointed out, seat belts have recently been made compulsory. I saw how the system worked. What I saw would have very much reinforced the arguments that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has just put forward. Almost everybody wore the belts: nobody seemed to think it was a personal infringement of his liberty. Most people took the view that it was very useful to have this law because it gave them a jolt at the beginning and they remembered to put on the seat belts whereas nowadays, if you talk to the people in England you find that, while nearly everyone is in favour of them, they say, "I didn't remember", or "I couldn't be bothered". I know that enforcement is a difficulty, but the view taken in Australia was that it was an easy law to enforce because it was so obvious whether or not a driver was breaking it. There was no element of judgment such as there is about the speed limit or parking. It therefore seemed to me that the Australian experiment cast a good deal of light on the acceptability of this law. I am personally very much in favour of it. I do not think in general the Australians are more law-abiding than the people of this country—on the whole, I think their reputation is the other way.
  6.49 p.m.
  LORD ROYLE: My Lords, I rise only because of Lord Aberdare's invitation to noble Lords to express their views. I have been driving a motor car a long time and it makes me feel very old indeed. I had my first licence in 1914 and I have never been without one since. For a very long time I had very grave doubts indeed as to the wisdom of seat belts; but as the days have gone by, as traffic conditions have altered considerably, I have come to the conclusion, wholeheartedly, that it would be very wise to accept Lord Montagu's Amendment and therefore enable the Government to take steps, as they so desire, when they think best, to make the seat belt wearing compulsory.
  I know, my Lords, that a number of people have pointed out that they have been thrown out of cars because they

  105
  were not wearing seat belts and that this probably saved their lives. But after all the evidence that we have, I am quite sure that the real risk is the other way round, and that there are many more risks involved by not wearing seat belts. I am quite sure that all the surveys have proved conclusively that lives are saved by the wearing of seat belts. I have only one reservation about the Amendment, and that concerns the back-seat passenger. I am not quite sure whether it is as necessary for him as for those seated in the front of the car. I have certainly come to the conclusion that it is right for those in the front of the car to wear seat belts, but I have a feeling that, from the point of view of compulsion, there is not the same necessity for the back-seat passengers. But this is a matter for consideration. The principle is what is involved. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, would consider my view: that, as one of your Lordships who are very interested in this subject, I am in favour of the Amendment.
  BARONESS HYLTON-FOSTER: My Lords, I am not against the wearing of seat belts but I ask the Government to consider the safety of the buckles before making seat belts compulsory. I speak from experience. I was a victim of an air crash when wearing my seat belt and for a long time it was impossible to get me out of the aircraft after the crash because the buckle buckled. It was not until my husband got hold of a sharp instrument and cut the belt that I was able to be released. Had the plane burnt I should not be here today, and this kind of situation could easily happen in the motor-car. Safety belts are good things, but, as noble Lords know, the buckles vary greatly. I am sure that if more thought were given to the type and safety of the buckle, it would be an encouragement to some of us who are a little frightened of wearing seat belts.
  BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, a point which worries me as well as the noble Lord, Lord Montagu (the Minister has kindly asked for comments), concerns the exceptions or exemptions. It seems to me that we accept the principle of this Amendment. I have come round to acceptance. I am one who has been thrown out of a car and I think would have been killed had I been wearing a belt, but the weight of evidence is so
  106
  much the other way that one must make some sort of sacrifice. Nevertheless, it seems to me that if it is to be made compulsory then one must have either a range of belts or belts which can be used by everybody. How dangerous is the situation for a pregnant woman? If this Amendment is accepted, as I understand it will be, this is one of the factors which will help to give impetus to more research into making the whole situation safer. I do not accept the comparison with a breathalyser or with getting into a plane. They are not on the same level. One of the troubles concerns those who make small journeys and do not use their belts because of stopping and starting and getting in and out. One hardly gets in and out of a plane at frequent intervals, and only the pilot drives it. I agree that the Government's attitude on this question is extraordinarily good and I think it means that when seat belts are compulsory they will be much more effective and will be able to be worn by everybody without the exemptions named.
  LORD MONSON: My Lords, I hope sincerely that your Lordships will resist this Amendment. For all its good intentions—and of course I accept that they are excellent intentions—I believe it introduces an additional undesirable element of paternalism, or perhaps one should say "maternalism", into the law. The essence of conservative philosophy whether with a large or small "0", and indeed of liberal philosophy, whether with a large or small "1", as I understand them, is that an individual should be free to make his or her own mistakes, if indeed mistakes they be, so long as nobody else is harmed in the process. Rugby football, pot-holing, mountaineering, steeplechasing and boxing are all dangerous sports, but with the exception of boxing nobody has proposed that they be made illegal.
  I think we should examine some of the arguments advanced publicly in favour of legislation of this kind. Of all unlikely bodies, one of the motoring magazines supported similiar legislation on the grounds that nobody had the right to risk his own life in view of the fact that the State, the taxpayer, had spent good money on welfare benefits, child allowances, education and so on and so forth, and this would be dissipated if anybody

  107
  was killed prematurely. These are in essence exactly the arguments used by the East Germans to justify the building of the Berlin Wall. I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, about the cost of the Health Service. If he were to introduce an Amendment which provided that anybody injured as a direct result of not having worn a seat belt would be liable to pay his own hospital charges, then I would support him; but not this Amendment in front of us today.
  Those of us who oppose this Amendment do so not only on philosophical or ethical grounds but on practical ones as well—perhaps foremost on practical grounds. The fact is that very many seat belts, I think perhaps the majority, are either badly designed in themselves or badly fixed or located within the car. With respect, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, has understated the imperfections in this respect. The sort of seat belts that need a two-handed operation almost invariably get tangled up and caught under the seat runners of the front seats and are thereby weakened; it certainly can take several minutes to find them under the seat and then buckle them and drive off. The single-handed operating seat belts are frequently difficult to release in the event of an accident or fire. Two noble Baronesses have drawn attention to the dangerous location of the buckles, to which the A.A. magazine Drive has drawn attention. They are all too often in front of the vital organs instead of at the hip and could cause serious internal injury in the event of accident. The mounting points are frequently too high on the door pillar so that people who are shorter than of average height can be caught across the neck in the event of an accident, again with the possibility of serious injury. Certain cars, the B.M.W. 1600 and 2000 coupes, for instance, have mounting points so located that the seat belt invariably slips off the shoulder within 15 seconds maximum from driving off. I know this because I had one of these cars for three years and the seat belt was absolutely useless. My Lords, to sum up, my chief objection to this Amendment is essentially one of principle, in which I cannot expect all noble Lords to join me; but given the unsatisfactory design of seat belts at present,
  108
  I urge your Lordships to consider the very real practical objections to this Amendment.
  6.58 p.m.
  LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I am sure that the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, for having put these points. Up to now we have been very one-sided in this debate and he certainly put points that need to be considered by the Government if the House accepts the principle behind this Amendment. When the Government come to make their regulations they will need to consider all these points. If, in the event of there being the likelihood of a Division, it had fallen to my lot to rise to give the point of view of this Front Bench, I should have been saying that it is for my Party to vote as they think fit on this issue because there is no Party line on it.
  So far as I am concerned, I favour compulsion. I exercise it in my own car. If people ride with me I tell them they put on their seat belt or they walk; and almost invariably they put on their seat belt, I notice. This procedure is quite sound and perhaps the way to do it. There is of course no absolute compulsion on them because they can get out and walk, but otherwise I think this is the right principle to adopt. I certainly think there ought not to be any question of distance involved in this matter. A close friend of mine had a most serious accident in travelling 300 yards to the local post office. Normally one might think it not worth putting on a belt for that short distance, but if she had had a belt on she would have been saved very serious injury. The injury occurred in the course of covering that very short distance. I am sure it is right that we should have had this discussion to-day. I hope it will be continued, as I expect it will, in the other House and that eventually the Government will come to the right decision on it. I repeat, I personally support compulsion.
  THE EARL OF LINDSEY AND ABINGDON: My Lords, I should like to support this Amendment in principle and to thank the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for allowing us to express our views. I have recently had experience of driving in two countries, one where legislation is in force and the other where

  109
  mechanical devices are used. The first country was Australia, and I am afraid I have to dispute what the noble Lord, Lord Roberthall, said about the discipline of Australian drivers. I did not find that legislation made people wear seat-belts; they were rather apt to wear them loosely across their shoulder if they thought there was a police trap or that they might be caught, and then when they go on to the open road they unfasten them.
  I know, of course, that there is also the added expense to be considered, but the other country where I had recent experience in driving a motor car was in California, where they go in for mechanical devices to compel people to fasten their seat belts. I personally found this much more effective, because the device they used made a noise inside the car that was so intolerable that one was forced to fasten one's seat belt. I am really making these few remarks so that the noble Lord may give consideration to them.
  LORD REDESDALE: My Lords, I, too, should like to take up the invitation of the noble Lord to express my opinion. I also have driven in countries where seat belts have mechanical devices. In America I did not have the same experience as the noble Earl, Lord Lindsey and Abingdon. I found that what in fact drivers did was to pull out the seat belt and then sit on it, which stops the buzzer sounding. That is rather pointless. I am strongly in favour of compulsion in this matter. I have been involved in an accident and I know that I should have been quite badly hurt had I not been wearing a seat belt at the time. The people in the other car were hurt. Motorcyclists, of course, are obliged to wear crash helmets. In their case the campaign slogan was, "You know it makes sense"—as it does, of course, and the same applies to the use of seat belts in cars. I hope the Government will see their way eventually to making the wearing of seat belts compulsory.
  VISCOUNT HANWORTH: My Lords, I should like to make one point that I do not think has been made so far. One's failure to wear a seat belt has an effect upon others. Quite apart from the fact that if there is an acident the ambulance people have to pick you up and you may
  110
  have to pay the hospital bills, there is also the reaction of people to the number of fatal accidents and injuries which occur on the roads, constantly leading to restrictive methods, speed limits, and so on. I, who personally dislike speed limits—at least of 70 miles an hour—am constantly affected by this. Undoubtedly if accidents continue to increase more draconian measures will have to be taken. So I do not think one can argue that it is purely an individual choice; it has an effect upon all of us.
  BARONESS MACLEOD OF BORVE: My Lords, I must take sides with those who do not want seat belts to be made compulsory. I feel that we have so many rules and regulations and laws that I am afraid I cannot agree with yet another one. However, I should like to agree with what my noble friend Lady Hylton-Foster and the noble Lord on the Cross-Benches said about the fear of being trapped in a car. Two people whom I knew very well were burned to death because they were trapped in a car by their seat belts.
  If in the future the Government make compulsory the wearing of seat belts I would ask that the form of seat belt is looked into in far greater depth than hitherto. I would certainly advocate that the "clunk, click" part of the contraption should go on the door side and not down by the hip, because when there is an accident the "clunk, click" part can then be undone by people trying to rescue somebody who is perhaps on fire or very badly injured. At the moment the seat belt cannot easily be undone because the "clunk, click" part of it is too far across the middle of the car. I hope the Government will see to it that this aspect is improved.
  7.6 p.m.
  EARL HOWE: My Lords, I am not opposed to the actual wearing of seat belts, but I am opposed to compulsion. I should like to say that when I first came to your Lordships' House this afternoon I felt that my opposition would be to the timing of this Amendment. I thought that as the Government were busily concerned in consultation with various motoring organisations we should wait until they came to a decision before deciding what we should do about it, but from what I have heard this evening I am still more

  111
  convinced that compulsion is wrong. If we can achieve it by persuasion and publicity—even if it takes 20 years—I would rather it were done that way. As has just been said by my noble friend, I feel that the motorist has far too many rules and regulations to observe all the time, both on the road and on the signs, and if we could do something about this voluntarily instead of by compulsion the motorist would be much happier.
  Speaking for myself, I would never wear a seat belt unless I were compelled. I have seen far too many accidents, both on the racing track and in other spheres, in which the drivers have been trapped by their seat belts, the car has turned over and the driver has been unable to get out in time. Many of your Lordships will remember an occasion when this happened earlier in the year, to a gentleman by the name of Mr. Williamson.
  There are other points which I consider to be of great importance. One, which has been mentioned, concerns the type of seat belt which one might have as the standard. At the moment I believe there is a belt—it is only just being publicised—which has no buckle. Many of the injuries caused by seat belts result from the buckle being pressed into the body, and if a type of belt without that buckle can be devised it would be of advantage.
  There are many other things to be considered by the Government. The question of insurance and other matters will have to be decided very carefully before we are absolutely certain that we are doing the right thing. However, if it is the law of the land that we should wear seat belts, obviously we have to do so. But there again, there is the difficulty of enforcing that law. It is no use just laughing that off—it is a difficulty. Again, there is the difficulty of enforcing the law by ensuring that the seat belt is not left loosely round the body. I had occasion recently to speak to a doctor who said that a young girl came into his hospital at Windsor after having had her head nearly taken off by the seat belt having slipped up round her neck. If that happens once it can happen again.
  I think all these points are important. I was most interested to hear the noble Baroness refer to the accident she had when wearing a seat belt in an aeroplane that crashed. Bearing all these points in
  112
  mind, if anything that we say in your Lordships' House has some interest to Her Majesty's Government, obviously it will be of great advantage to all who drive motor cars, and all of us in different spheres have some experience of motoring.
  THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, I should like to ask my noble friend on the Front Bench two questions. I do so because I am intrinsically opposed to the Executive taking powers in the future unless it knows very well what it is going to do with those powers. My first question concerns the design of these belts. In my particular car, which is of foreign make, when I am wearing my seat belt I cannot apply the handbrake, use the cigar lighter or get at the drawer where I keep the sweets. So in the case of my present car I would regard this compulsion with considerably less than favour. Will the regulation be based on some sort of design of seat belt which will be useful and comfortable with all types of car?
  My second question arises out of subsection (3) of the proposed Amendment. Are the licences of those who are found guilty of an offence, and presumably it will be under some sort of regulation like the Construction and Use Regulations, to be endorsed? One can envisage a situation where the driver may not fasten his seat belt, and if he has a licence I suppose it is equitable that it should be endorsed; but if the passenger, his girlfriend, has no licence, it seems a little unfair that the driver should be so penalised, but not the passenger. If this is an endorsable offence, the next question is, will it count towards the three for the purposes of totting-up? I ask that question because I think the Government will have to think this matter out; they will also have to think out the consequences before they bring in the regulations.
  7.12 p.m.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I am rather against the package as presented this evening. I do not think one can refute the figures and arguments that the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, has brought forward, but I would refute some of the figures brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek. I think it is rather irrelevant to say that an accident on the road costs

  113
  the taxpayer £x and therefore the road user should be restricted in some way when, in fact, accidents in the home cost the taxpayer a good deal more. But we do not say, "You must not have a faulty kettle"—and there is nothing we could do about it even if we were to say so.
  My Lords, it seems to me that if the Government take to themselves enabling powers, it would suggest that at some time these powers will be used. Therefore, seat belt manufacturers will say: "Research and development can now cease; they can put up with what we produce". So we shall get no movement forward. I think so many seat belts are designed down to a price and are utterly unsuitable for certain applications and in certain motor cars. This is largely the point the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, was making, and I agree with him. Certainly on the car I use I can only use what I call an old-fashioned seat belt, incredibly uncomfortable and very dangerous on the occasion of involvement in an accident. Therefore, it would seem to me that while in general terms we think it is quite a good idea (we do not want our liberties infringed any further), we might start at the beginning and say, "If you are to become a new car user, there are certain restrictions which must apply to you. First, you must pass a test and then you may buy a car that is approved"—and we have this type of approval in the Bill. Within the Construction and Use Regulations there should be provided a passive restraint system so that one starts one's motoring life with a whole series of restrictions, in which case the whole motoring package will be more acceptable and one will not feel quite so infringed when yet another new regulation is put on top of 20, 30, 40 or 50 years' motoring. It would seem to me that the Amendment is ill-timed; not ill-conceived, but ill-timed. In view of the fact that we have a Road Traffic Bill at fairly regular intervals, it would be better if we allowed matters to proceed, debate to proceed, inventive genius to proceed, and to come again another day and have another look at giving the Executive enabling powers.
  7.17 p.m.
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, some of your Lordships at any rate will recall
  114
  that it has been my privilege to address your Lordships over a number of years on these matters. I have waited till now because this matter is one that I feel cannot go by without my saying something. I have always thought it more constructive to talk to your Lordships about what I regard as positive road safety measures; that is to say, those that tend to stop people having accidents, than to talk about what I call negative safety measures, which are those which endeavour to reduce the impact of an accident. But if we are going to talk about negative safety measures, there is nothing I would prefer more to talk about than the use of the safety belt.
  My Lords, I came here to-day determined to support the Amendment in the name of my noble friend and his friends. Due to a piece of extraordinarily sensible action by Her Majesty's Government I, too, address myself to the opinion that they should use the powers which they are enabled to have. I shall try to keep my speech relatively short, but your Lordships will also know that apart from many years of almost dedicated experience as a practical motorist and driver, I have had some years in what was then called the Ministry of Transport, and subsequently further experience with the Royal Automobile Club. But that is past experience and obviously I speak for neither. I speak for my own opinion resulting from experience and from all the contacts I had, not only with motor manufacturers and drivers' clubs, but with the Road Research Laboratory, ROSPA and so on. The sum total of this experience convinces me that the compulsory wearing of safety belts is something we ought to have. I will add to that, if I may, two small personal touches. I have actually been through the windscreen, head first, without a safety belt. I did not like it. I have actually been thrown out of an overturning car—I did not like that either. It was some divine dispensation that I was not injured in either case. I would not therefore say that I wish to repeat either experience without a safety belt. Incidentally, I have also crashed my aeroplane and written it off round the base of an oak tree and stepped out with only a bruised knee because of my safety harness. If any further argument is needed—and I will not enlarge on this to spare your

  115
  Lordships' time and the embarrassment of some of my friends—I could give your Lordships a list of 19 people, some of whom I know others of your Lordships know, who so far as I know are alive to-day because they used their safety belts. One of them is a senior Member of your Lordships' House. There are two Peeresses, one is the wife of one of your Lordships and the other is my wife, who are alive to-day because they wore a seat belt.
  My Lords, a certain amount has been said about Australia. What has been said was most interesting. I am told that the Australians did not take quite so kindly to such measures, particularly when there seemed to be no particular point in them. Experience has already been related, and the wearing of seat belts is known to have met with fairly widespread acceptance in Australia. The figure I have in mind for seat belt wearing is, I think, 80 per cent. in Australia as against 30 per cent. in this country. Many years of propaganda and persuasion, such as my noble friend Lord Howe wanted to continue, has resulted only in 30 per cent. success. The figure that was not mentioned—and this is the latest figure I have—is that in the State of Victoria, since the adoption of legislation, the figure for deaths has gone down by 18·5 per cent. We are accustomed to hearing the figures for serious injuries being reduced, but in the State of Victoria the percentage reduction of all injuries in accidents has been 17·3.
  I think that I can be said to have made a case. However, there are two small points I would mention. Much has been made of the fact that one cannot escape from a safety belt. I should like a little more analysis there, because I should like to know how many who could not escape were able to escape. If your Lordships cast your minds back to people you knew who flew aeroplanes in war-time, you will recall that there were very few people who were unable to get out of their harness if they were capable of getting out of the harness and out of the aircraft at all. Most of the reasons why people are trapped in crashed and perhaps burning vehicles is because they are not capable of getting out.
  There are exceptions, I know, that will prove every rule. There are allegedly bad
  116
  safety belts. I do not think quite enough credit has been given in some remarks to the work of the British Standards Institution. But there will inevitably be the odd buckle which is twisted or damaged, perhaps with poor design, although I should think that that is improving daily, where there is a genuine case of somebody not being able to release himself or to be released. It will always happen. But I would say that if you are capable of releasing yourself from your safety belt and getting out, 999 times out of a 1,000 you will do so. If you are not capable, if you are knocked out, heavily damaged or something like that, you will not get out of the car anyway. I think it should be borne in mind that if you have not got a belt on you are much more likely to be seriously injured and maybe knocked out, and even less able to get out of the vehicle in a very tricky situation.
  The noble Baroness spoke of enforcement. Normally I would absolutely agree with this. I have been saying for years that we have too many motoring regulations and very little attempt and very little possibility of enforcing them. I suppose, in principle, the same objection may apply here. But at least we have the consolation that this is something which is a self-evident offence and almost self-enforcing; you either have got a belt on or you have not; it cannot be a matter of opinion. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, made the excellent point, which must be somehow written into the first-line propaganda, about the necessity to adjust the belt. How you might get enforcement of that is a little more difficult. But whether or not you are wearing a belt is self proving. Any policeman with a pair of eyes, or even one eye, would be able to see that beyond dispute, when it comes to the crunch. I said I would try to be as brief as I could. All in all, I think it is time that your Lordships agreed that the Government should use these powers and they should shortly have them.
  LORD HACKING: My Lords, I was going to make a speech in support of the noble Lord who moved this Amendment. I have decided that discussion has gone on quite long enough, and I merely stand on my feet to record my support.
  LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I should like to thank all noble

  117
  Lords who have spoken. My noble friend Lord Aberdare said that he would like to hear opinions, and I am sure I speak for him when I say we are grateful. The three noble Lords who introduced this Amendment can be very pleased at having drawn public attention to what is a matter of great public interest. Perhaps I may deal with one or two points which were raised. The Road Research Laboratory are working with manufacturers on the question of buckles, not just part of the time but the whole time. On this point the Road Research Laboratory point out that the habitual user of safety belts often can undo his or her belt in an instant, whereas those of your Lordships who do not use them regularly probably find it hard to do.
  I would thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, for his kind words about the Department of the Environment's advertising. Since July, 1972, we have spent £1,700,000 on advertising the safety of seat belts. It has got people to use them only up to a little over 30 per cent. We have learned through the people who test public opinion that of road users some 90 per cent. agree that the value of seat belts is self-evident, but there are at the same time indications that by voluntary means alone you would never get the use up to more than 50 per cent. That is a fact that your Lordships must bear in mind. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, for mentioning the Australian experience, which I think is very relevant; injuries and deaths down between 15 and 20 per cent. There are other statistics. Sweden and Australia have shown that there is twice the risk of injury if you are not wearing a belt. That is also a statistic that is rather frightening. I know one meets people who say that if so-and-so had been wearing a seat belt he might or might not have died. It is very hard to ask people who have died whether they would have been able to get out of the car; this is a point which one never knows. On the other hand, one can prove the enormous number of cases where they have helped. I take the point that the country does not like to be nannied too much, but there are points where you ought to nanny people for their own good.
  The noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, asked whether it would be an endorsable
  118
  offence. So far as I am aware, that would not be the case. He asked what would be the likely fines. As it would not be an endorsable offence, it would not rank for totting up. The comparison, I imagine, would be with the wearing of a crash helmet by a motor-cyclist. The fine there is £50. I should expect this to be a somewhat similar type of offence. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said that the Government should give a lead. That is what we should like to do, given an indication by the Houses of Parliament as to what their wishes are. We have the facts. All we have to do is to convince public opinion that it is practical, and the details regarding seat belts are useful to this end. I am grateful for your Lordships' interest to-night.
  EARL HOWE: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether the Government have made up their minds on the action they are going to take?
  LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I think I made it clear at the beginning that we wanted to hear the views expressed in Parliament. We have had a very useful debate here, and I am sure there will be a useful debate in the other place.
  LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, may I briefly close this discussion by thanking the Government for accepting the Amendment. It is a very rare thing for Back-Bench Amendments to be accepted, and it is even rarer for an Amendment of such historic importance which will affect so many people's lives in the future. The Government can certainly take great credit for this, and perhaps it reflects their wisdom in introducing a Bill like this into your Lordships' House in the first place.
  Clause 10 [Extension of type approval Scheme to all vehicles and to vehicle parts.]:
  7.30 p.m.
  VISCOUNT HANWORTH VISCOUNT HANWORTH moved Amendment No. 16:
  Page 17, line 9, at end insert ("and the Secretary of State shall make arrangements for continuing surveillance to ensure that as far as possible vehicle and vehicle parts which are sold or supplied to the public comply with type approval requirements and requirements of section 40 of this Act and for those purposes")
  The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I think it will be for the convenience of the House if I speak to Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 together. They are in the main probing Amendments. What I should like is a clear statement on the degree of surveillance of this type testing. I would ask, first, whether it will be only at the point of sale or supply, or will there be independent surveillance at the manufacturer's factory? I feel that it is not sufficient to leave it to the manufacturer to lay down his method of quality control, with nobody going to see whether it is working satisfactorily and meets reasonable standards. That, after all, is how the British Standards Institution proceeds on its kite mark. It is most definitely necessary to have periodical inspections of manufacturers quality control. The B.S.I. do it twice a year, and initially lays down what that quality control shall be. The second point is what sort of level of surveillance will there be? How many examiners will there be, and what authority will be responsible for these authorised examiners?
  Finally, one has to consider what sanctions there will be when a vehicle does not comply with type approval. Under the Act it seems that the certification is deemed to be a trade description. Will it therefore be a breach of the Trade Descriptions Act if there is a vehicle on sale which does not comply with the requirements of its type test? If the Minister can clearly answer these questions, so far as he has the information, then I shall ask leave to withdraw this Amendment and will not move Amendment No. 17. Since we are on Report stage, if I have to come back and ask any further question I will formally move Amendment No. 17 to give me the opportunity of speaking again.
  LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, to answer the noble Viscount's last point, it is an offence under Section 63(2) of the Trade Descriptions Act. On his main point, in our opinion special arrangements for surveillance of the retail trade in vehicles or vehicle parts are not justified.
  The use of approval marks to enforce type approval requirements is already established and has proved effective. Approval marks may be prescribed under
  120
  Sections 47 and 63(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1972. The unauthorised use of approval marks or the use of false approval marks is an offence under Section 63(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1972 and Sections 1 and 3 of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968. A condition of issue of any type approval certificate is that the Secretary of State shall be satisfied that adequate arrangements have been made to secure that production vehicles and parts shall conform with the relevant type approval requirements. Without the type approval requirement the operator will not get a road licence. These arrangements include surveillance of production methods and procedures by officers of the Department of the Environment. Any requirements of Section 40 of the Act for which special enforcement measures are required are to be prescribed as type approval requirements under the powers to be granted in this clause.
  In short, my Lords, not only do we feel that this Amendment would be undesirable but we feel that it is unnecessary. I have to confess that we should need a great deal more manpower to deal with this problem, and it would mean substantial expenditure without leading to any greater efficiency.
  VISCOUNT HANWORTH: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, which makes the position clear. I am not certain whether I am really satisfied, but I will read what he has said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 12 [Amendments relating to licensing of drivers and vehicles]:
  LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON moved Amendment No. 18:
  Page 18, line 15, leave out ("and") and insert—
  ("(cc) extending by one year the period which must elapse before the holder of a licence which has been endorsed with any particulars is entitled to have issued to him a new licence free from those particulars, and")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Aberdare I should like to move this Amendment and also speak to Amendment No. 36, for which No. 18 is merely a paving Amendment. The purpose of this extension is to ensure that the defendant charged with

  121
  an endorsable offence cannot escape the application of the totting-up procedure by obtaining a clean licence between the date of the offence and the date of the hearing. Amendment No. 36 meets an undertaking that we gave to the Opposition at Committee stage. It deals with the anomaly raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips. I think that at this late hour those few words will probably be enough.
  BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, even at this late hour it would be ungracious of me not to thank the Government for not only having looked at the Amendment that I originally proposed but also accepting it. I may tell the noble Lord that I received a letter from a solicitor about this particular Amendment expressing interest, and he wrote:
  "Without any condescension, I would say that your Lordships show much more common sense when dealing with Bills of this nature than the other place."
  I thought that I should pass on that comment.
  7.36 p.m.
  LORD HACKING LORD HACKING moved Amendment No. 19:
  After Clause 13 insert the following new clause—
  ".—(1) In section 6(1) of the 1972 Act (driving, or being in charge, with blood-alcohol concentration above the prescribed limit) the words from "as ascertained" to "Act" shall be omitted and the words "at the time he provides the specimen" shall be omitted.
  (2) After section 6(2) of the 1972 Act there shall be inserted the following subsection:—
  "(2A) Unless the contrary is shown, an offence under subsection (1) or (2) above shall be deemed to have been committed when the proportion of alcohol in the blood, as ascertained from a laboratory test for which a specimen is subsequently provided under section 9 of this Act, exceeds the prescribed limit."
  (3) In consequence of the amendment effected by subsection (2) above, subsection (3) shall become subsection (4) and subsection (4) shall become subsection (5) and in subsection (5) for the words "subsection (3)" there shall be substituted the words "subsection (4)".
  (4) In section 8(1) of the 1972 Act (Breath Tests) after the words "any person" there shall be inserted the words "who was or is", and in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) for the words "in his body" there shall be substituted the words "in his blood in a proportion exceeding the prescribed limit at the time he was last driving or attempting to drive" and for the words from "but" to "offence" there shall
  122
  be substituted the words "provided the requirement is made as soon as reasonably practicable after that person has ceased driving or attempting to drive."
  (5) In section 8(7) of the 1972 Act after the words "section 5(5)" there shall be inserted the words "or otherwise lawfully arrested".
  (6) In section 9(1) of the 1972 Act (Laboratory Tests) after the words "of this Act" there shall be inserted the words "or otherwise lawfully arrested"."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, before I move the Amendment standing in my name on the Marshalled List, I should tell your Lordships that I am in a bit of a quandary and I seek your Lordships' assistance out of it. I made arrangements to put down eight Amendments in the Marshalled List. Unfortunately, by the time I came to see the Marshalled List, which was to-day, I found that there were six Amendments all together because there had been some neat concertina-ing by the printer. Worse still, I find that there is only one Amendment marked down to my name. I should like to speak a few opening words on all of my Amendments, but I should like to move them in three parts. If I may have your Lordships' leave to do that, I should like to move my Amendments concerning Section 6—and I look towards the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, about this, because he may be able to follow it more closely than other noble Lords—which are the Amendments contained on page 4 of the Marshalled List. Then I should like to move my Amendments concerning Section 8(1), which form the first, much concertina-ed, paragraph at the top of page 5. Finally, I should like to move the two Amendments concerning Section 8(7) and Section 9(1), which appear in the last two paragraphs of the Marshalled List.
  VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I was not entirely prepared for the sub-division of this Amendment. The noble Lord might bear in mind that even if he did not move them separately he could speak to the various points one after the other and keep them separate. If he were to decide that such answer as I may be able to give is unsatisfactory and he wishes to test the opinion of the House, he could do it on the whole Amendment without any great difficulty, because in fact I am going to say in due course that there are drafting difficulties. I am not going to

  123
  elaborate them now. If he wishes to test the matter of principle on any part of this Amendment I think that he could do it on one occasion, but he could speak in three sections.
  LORD HACKING: My Lords, I am much obliged, and I beg leave to move the Amendment standing in my name. May I at the outset address a few opening words to your Lordships upon all of my Amendments. I move my Amendments in a spirit of friendliness and helpfulness to the Government, and indeed to anybody who is concerned with the efficacy of our laws. In doing so, I should apologise for the lateness that these Amendments have been put down, but I hope that the Government will recognise this, too, as part of the spirit of friendliness towards them.
  It arises in this way. After the Second Reading, when I made a speech to your Lordships concerning breathalysers, I wrote to the noble Viscount (who was kind enough to reply to me by return of post) and who passed my letter on to the Department of the Environment. I do not criticise the Department of the Environment, because there were difficult matters to consider, but it took some time for that reply to reach me. The Bill passed through the Committee stage, and hence I am addressing your Lordships at the Report stage. The reply which came over the hand of the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, was most helpful and I therefore tried to accommodate my Amendments to that reply. Indeed, I hope that some good will have come from the delay and that my Amendments will meet in principle with the approval of the Government. I recognise that there are drafting difficulties and I have had warnings not only from the noble Viscount but also from the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, that there are going to be critics of the drafting of my Amendments.
  Laying aside the criticism of the drafting of the Amendments, it is my submission to your Lordships that they are moderate changes to the official Statute; secondly, that they only seek to improve the efficacy of the law; and thirdly, that they do not touch upon the complicated procedure which follows the taking of the first breath-test procedure. That is one of the points made by the noble Lord,
  124
  Lord Mowbray and Stourton, in his letter: that it has taken some time for the police and others to master those complicated procedures, and to change them would be putting the clock back some two or three years. Therefore, I have concentrated in my Amendments on the three areas that cause the greatest difficulty to the courts. The first area concerns the taking of a drink of alcohol, either deliberately or innocently, between the stopping by a police office and the taking of a specimen for analysis. The second area, which is even more vexed, concerns the difficulties that have arisen on the definition of "driving" and "attempting to drive" as being the point in time when the police officer can start the ball rolling and require the first breath test. Finally, I deal with another difficulty—that is, that the breathlyser procedure can only be invoked if the motorist—I use a loose terminology here—has been arrested under certain precise sections of the Act. There are occasions when the police make arrests for other reasons and in those circumstances are unable to put the breathalyser procedure into force.
  I do not think I need enlarge to your Lordships on the need for the changes, because I covered that as adequately as I could in the Second Reading debate. Your Lordships will remember that I told the House of the difficulties regarding the number of cases with which the courts have been inflicted, and I also drew your Lordships' attention to the cost these involve. Your Lordships may remember that in my sample—because no figures I could find gave the precise number of trials concerning the breathalyser law—I reached a figure of 3,700 trials. I was interested to hear the noble Viscount during the Committee stage take a different sample based on 5·5 per cent. I have calculated that to give a figure of some 1,850 trials. By any view, my Lords, it is a substantial number. Your Lordships will remember the argument on the other side. The noble Viscount said, "The law is biting; there are over 40,000 convictions, and taking all things into account we are satisfied that it is working well enough." So I suppose I am trying to be helpful more to the Lord Chancellor's Department than to the Department of the Environment or the Home Office, but as the noble Viscount,

  125
  Lord Colville of Culross, will agree, there is nothing shameful about being helpful to the Lord Chancellor's office.
  Again I do not want to elaborate on the need for these changes, but perhaps I may just pass an observation about the present problems facing the judges. Judges, and lawyers too, if I may include them, really want the assistance of Parliament on the breathalyser law to clear up a confusion which—I must put plainly to your Lordships' House—is not of their making. Defence lawyers have the unedifying task, time and time again, of presenting wholly unmeritorious defences to the court; and, of course, all lawyers have to witness the uncomfortable spectacle of judges, in the many cases that come before them, feeling compelled to stretch the Statute law beyond its natural meaning in order to give some efficacy to the breathalyser provisions. My Lords, I feel this very keenly, and that is why it is something that I emphasise and draw to your Lordships' attention. I feel that it is the rôle of Parliament to make laws, and not the rôle of the courts.
  As I have already indicated, my Amendments are not perfect—and I make a complete confession here. No sooner had I drafted one of my Amendments concerning Section 8(7) than I discovered that I had made a startling error, because in the way that I had drafted the Amendment I was putting a compusion on police officers for all persons arrested, for whatever cause they were in a police station, to be put through the breathalyser procedure. It would be much to the surprise of a number of my clients and those of the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, who on being taken into the police station would have the breathalyser procedure placed over their heads. Let me confess that I made a complete error here and that my drafting clearly needs correction. That is why I am seeking the principle here; that is why I am hoping that the Government will accept my Amendments at this stage, If I am not being impertinent, may I say that there is plenty of time for my Amendments to be examined further and to be improved when this Bill is making its passage through another place and comes back again to your Lordships' House if that other place makes any Amendments to the Amendments that your Lordships make. That concludes my opening words on my Amendment.
  126
  May I turn now to Section 6? I have tried again to assist by supplying some noble Lords with an amended pleading, so that noble Lords who have seen it will be able to follow a little more easily than from the Marshalled List the Amendments which I am seeking to move. The defect in Section 6, in my submission, is that it confuses the offence of driving a motor vehicle with excess alcohol in the body with the proof of that offence. The starting point is that it is an offence to drive or attempt to drive a motor car when you are "over the limit"—if I may from now on use that simple expression rather than the longer expression in the Statute. Clearly it is impossible to prove that you are over the limit at the time of the driving, because the blood cannot be taken from the driver when he is actually in the course of driving or attempting to drive the vehicle. The blood sample is not taken until some time, usually about an hour, later by a medical practitioner in the police station. In order to gel round that difficulty the Statute goes on to say that the reading will be at the time the specimen is provided. It further says—and this is where the confusion lies—therefore this is the reading for the time the motorist was driving or attempting to drive.
  It follows from that, as the Judicial Committee of your Lordships found in the case of Rowlands v. Hamilton, that if a drink is taken in the interim period the laboratory test provides a wrong reading, because it does not provide the reading of the alcohol content in the blood at the time the person was driving. Therefore, my Lords, my Amendment attempts to do two things. Indeed, I am not going to put it so bashfully as to say that it "attempts": my Amendment does two things: it distinguishes the offence from the proof of the offence. Indeed, stripping down, as I have, Section 6(1) of the original Act, I actually set out what is truly the offence; namely:
  "If a person drives or attempts to drive a motor vehicle on a road or other public place, having consumed alcohol in such a quantity that the proportion thereof in his blood exceeds the prescribed limit, he shall be guilty of an offence".
  By stripping down Section 6(1) in that way, your Lordships have the offence in clear and lucid language. I can say that because it is the original draft merely stripped down.

  127
  I then go on, in the second part of my Amendment—that is going on to the new subsection (3) of Section 6—to deal with the proof of the offence, and I have put it in this way: that an offence is deemed to have been committed when the reading which is taken later from the driver is found to be over the limit unless that driver or the defence proves, on a balance of probabilities, otherwise. Again I may be in drafting difficulties. It may be said against me that my expression, "Unless the contrary is shown" is being too economic in language, and it may be said that really there should be another paragraph here in the terms of, "It shall be a defence for a motorist to show that the reading obtained at a later time did not represent the reading of alcohol in the blood at the time the motorist was last driving or attempting to drive."
  If your Lordships are a little concerned—and perhaps I should pass a short observation on this—about an offence being deemed to have been committed, if your Lordships are concerned that the onus of proof is then being shifted from the prosecution to the defence, may I just say this to your Lordships? It happens from time to time that it is necessary, once a certain set of facts has been proved, to shift the burden on to the defence. Indeed, when that happens, as the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, will know, the burden of proof is no longer that of proof beyond reasonable doubt: it is the different test of balance of probabilities. If your Lordships want an example of this being done (although it is more disguised than is the drafting of my Amendment, which is less bashful about it) you have only to look at the "in charge" offence to see that that is precisely what happens. Once the prosecution have proved that a driver is in charge of a vehicle—they have to prove that beyond reasonable doubt—and, secondly, that that driver (there is a problem which arises here in a moment, and I shall deal with it later) was over the limit, then it is for the driver to show that in all the circumstances there was no likelihood of him driving so long as he had in his blood an excess of alcohol. This is Section 6(4).
  VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: It is Section 6(3).
  LORD HACKING: My Lords, I am much obliged. My Amendment says Section 6(4); it is 6(3) on the original Act. My Lords, there are other examples of this, but I need not tax your Lordships with them. If your Lordships raise any point about that, then I can deal with it at another time. So the result of my Amendment is this: he who cares to take a drink between being stopped and giving the specimen, has to show on a balance of probabilities, if it be the case, that he had been taken over the limit not by the drink he had consumed before the driving but by the later drink; and I would submit to your Lordships that there is nothing unfair or wrong in that.
  If I may, because your Lordships will have had enough of me, I think, at this stage I will pause and hear what reply the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, gives, unless it is the wish of the House for me to—
  VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I should go on.
  LORD HACKING: The noble Viscount indicates that he would prefer me to go on. I have one final passing observation on this section, and it is this. Because the reading of alcohol in the blood does not reach a maximum until some 15 or 30 minutes after the last drink has been taken, it would be possible for a driver—not a driver who would perhaps commend himself to your Lordships—to drink a large quantity of alcohol and to start and complete his driving before that alcohol had gone sufficiently into his body to take him over the limit. If your Lordships are concerned about that driver, let me answer that concern in two ways. First of all, under the present law, if he is breathalised, he would go plummetting down; and, secondly, your Lordships may have no sympathy with him if he does so.
  VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, may I say one word to the noble Lord? I only suggested that he should go on because unless this Amendment is divided into rather an elaborate series of manuscript sub-Amendments I shall have only one opportunity to speak and the noble Lord will have only one opportunity to reply. Therefore, unless he wishes to sub-divide it—and I think this is going to be very complicated—it

  129
  might be better if he were to complete his whole argument on the three points, and I will do my very best to reply in sub-divisions.
  LORD HACKING: I am much obliged, my Lords. I was only concerned that your Lordships would become somewhat weary with my voice, particularly when I now have to travel over other difficult areas.
  I now move on to my Amendments concerning Section 8, and, if I may, I should like to address your Lordships on the Amendment to the substantive subsection, Section 8(1)—the inclusion of the words "who was or is", because that is the key to the Amendment in Section 8—and then, at the same time, to take your Lordships straight down to the new proviso that I seek to amend as the end of Section 8(1). I am addressing your Lordships upon those two at the outset because they cover a different problem from that covered by the Amendment to paragraph (a), which in the Marshalled List comes between those two. Those first two—the first Amendment and the last Amendment to subsection (1)—concern the problem of the driving or attempting to drive, and the testing procedure. The second one, to paragraph (a), concerns the problem of random tests. That is why I should like, if I may, to address your Lordships in that order.
  As I said at the outset, the test of when a motorist is driving or attempting to drive has caused the most acute difficulty. It has caused the most acute difficulty because the original section, if you read it by its natural meaning, asks the police constable to do the impossible. It asks the police constable to form the suspicion that there is alcohol in the body or there is a moving traffic offence and to administer the breath test while that person is still driving or attempting to drive. I would ask your Lordships to ask yourselves: what is the ordinary meaning of "driving" or "attempting to drive"? I suppose driving is when a person is sitting in a car when the car is in motion: attempting to drive is when that driver is having difficulty and the car has stalled. Just apply that concept to the police officer having to administer the test. It presents, does it not, some difficulties for a police officer
  130
  who is running alongside a moving motor car and getting out the alcohol test apparatus and trying to place the equipment in the mouth of the driver, since it is quite plain from that that the police officer is being asked to do the impossible. And so the court said, "It cannot mean that; it must mean something more." And the question then is, "How much more does that section mean?".
  The court said, "Where a vehicle has been stopped at the traffic lights, that clearly is a case where the driver was still driving or attempting to drive." Then this further question arose: "What about when he is cleaning the windscreen?" Again that was held to be driving or attempting to drive. Imagine yourself in a motor car when your driver is cleaning the windscreen. Will your Lordships say that he is still driving or attempting to drive? Certainly if the car was moving that would be a somewhat dangerous manœuvre. If the car was stationary I suggest that your Lordships would take the view that it was a ridiculous suggestion. As a result of this the courts have had to go a great deal further and to conclude—there is authority to support this—that a person who gets out of a car for a purpose connected with the driving is still—even if he is outside the car and talking to a police officer—in the act of driving or attempting to drive. But even these many extensions of the natural meaning of "driving or attempting to drive" did not answer the serious problem.
  Even after the latest case before your Lordship's Judicial Committee, the case of Sakhuja v. Ahlen, there have appeared before the courts cases to which I referred on Second Reading; the case, for example, of Edkins v. Knowles. In that case the driver was driving a car fast, erratically and dangerously and was being pursued by a police vehicle driven by a detective officer. The detectives in the police car thought the driver was driving so dangerously that it was not safe to overtake him. Eventually they stopped him at a holiday camp. He sat in the car and he was told to await the arrival of a uniformed officer. The officer arrived as quickly as he could, some 15 minutes later. The driver had a breathalyser test but, despite the extension of the meaning of the original Statute, the court was

  131
  forced to the conclusion that that man was no longer driving or attempting to drive. Yet that man, as your Lordships will not be surprised to hear, had taken a very large quantity of alcohol over the limit.
  Another recent case presented the same type of problem. There a motorist stopped another motorist because he was driving in such a manner that he did not think he could safely be left to drive. The first motorist detained the second motorist for some 15 minutes, until a police officer arrived. It was held that the man who had been stopped was no longer driving or attempting to drive. I am sorry, my Lords, for the length at which I have elaborated on this point, but it is a complicated subject and it has been necessary to present it in some detail to your Lordships. My Amendment recognises that the breath test can be administered only when the driving has ceased, and that it should be done as soon as possible after the driving has ceased.
  Concerning random tests, I am not saying whether they should be permitted or not; I am avoiding any political issue. All I can do is to tell your Lordships that despite the original intention of the Act random breath tests do occur. I will not go into details, but the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, has had these cases brought to his attention. There was the case of Mr. Philip Reid and of Mr. Newsome. I could not draw the attention of the noble Viscount to them on Second Reading for the very good reason that neither of these two cases had been published. They are even later examples of the difficulties. Mr. Reid was stopped by a police officer who was checking on the car documents, and the same occurred in the case of Mr. Newsome. It was only after the car had been stopped that the police officer noticed a smell of alcohol on the breath of these two men. The breathalyser procedure was invoked. Clearly, that was a form of random test. All I say about it is that my Amendment faces up to the situation as it now exists. If your Lordships do not want random tests you have to impose on the police a greater requirement than simply smelling the breath of a man who has had a glass of sherry or half a pint of lager. Following through from that, if your Lordships accept this Amendment there are certain consequential Amendments which would
  132
  need to be made. I am not moving them now; they relate to Clauses 8(5) and 9(2)(b).
  Another observation that I should perhaps make is that this Amendment also stops up an amazing omission from the Act. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, was Chairman of the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills which considered the 1972 Road Traffic Act, and doubtless he has noticed this fact. The noble Viscount does not miss much in Statutes that pass through his hands. There is this amazing omission from the Road Traffic Act; namely, that although it is an offence to be in charge of a motor vehicle with an excessive amount of alcohol in your blood there is no procedure at all to prove that offence. There is no power in the police except by the "back-door" method of "unfit to drive" under Section 5 to invoke the breathalyser procedure. My Amendment would stop that gap because it deals with the driver who has chosen to drive his motorcar, having had too much to drink, and then stops to sleep it off. If that case is proved, doubtless the court would recognise the responsibility of the motorist and that there were "special reasons" for not imposing a full disqualification. The Amendment does not stop up the omission in the Act concerning a motorist who is in charge of a car and has gone from the place of his celebration but, recognising that he was not fit to drive, and having nowhere else to shelter—if it happened to be a rainy or a cold night—has got into the back of his car to sleep it off. It does not cover that case, but perhaps your Lordships would think it is a responsible citizen who climbs into the back of the car, and a man who should have the sympathy of the Legislature. That there is nothing which could be done about him is no worry. One wonders why that is an offence at all.
  I move finally to the last batch of Amendments, those relating to Clauses 8(7) and 9(1). I can put this point simply. Because there is a tight procedure laid down in the original breathalyser law there is a strict requirement that only persons who have been arrested under the specific sections of the Act can have the full breathalyser procedure administered to them, including the taking of a sample. In my experience this has impeded the police in two ways. The first

  133
  is when a person is escaping from a crime of violence, or any other crime, and the police arrest him. Then, having arrested him, they discover that he is driving with an excess of alcohol in his blood, in that he is smelling of alcohol or his eyes are bloodshot. They cannot do anything about it at all. He has not been arrested under the provisions of the Act, and therefore the police can use none of those procedures.
  Then there is another point. Sometimes a motorist is rather obstreperous when stopped by the police in connection with breathalyser law. In a case in my experience the motorist punched the police officer on the nose and, not surprisingly, the police officer arrested the motorist: but having arrested him for that and not under the breathalyser law, the courts found their hands tied and they could not use the appropriate procedure. If your Lordships consider the reality of life, and consider, for example, a man who earns his living by driving a lorry, the temptation to punch the police officer on the nose might well be too much for the lorry driver, when this action might get him 14 days inside or perhaps a suspension, but he will still have his livelihood left, not being disqualified. My Lords, with apologies for the length of my speech, I beg to move.
  8.12 p.m.
  THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, for the Amendments he has put down, if only because they will give the Government time to reflect on the present state of play in the breathalyser laws. I think I mentioned this when I moved the Address in reply to the gracious Speech. What I did not say was that the state of the law is ludicrous as indeed it is; and something ought to be done about it. If I am not introducing a controversial note into the harmonious proceedings this evening, may I say that it is perhaps refreshing to those of us who believe in the hereditary principle that the debate tonight will be conducted by those who belong to that faction. Be that as it may, I am not sure whether my noble friend Lord Colville will be inclined to accept the whole of this Amendment, as it stands, or carts of it.
  134
  I have prepared a few remarks, but I will confine myself to three observations, and each will appertain to one part of the Amendment or Amendments. So far as the left hand part of the page is concerned (and I think that is the best way to describe it), the difficulty there is that at the moment it is not enough for the prosecution to show that the accused was driving, or attempting to drive, having consumed alcohol, and that the result of the test on the specimen later provided showed that the alcoholic content exceeded the prescribed limit. The prosection have to go further and show that the alcohol consumed while the accused was still driving, or before he ceased to drive, was of such a quantity that the proportion of alcohol in the blood exceeded the limit then.
  That is an important matter, because, as I understand it, the effect of the noble Lord's Amendment would be to shift what is at the moment a heavy burden on the prosecution, to produce the evidence and show the facts, and, as it were, throw on the defence a not very well defined task of showing that, whatever may be the result of the test at the time the accused gives the specimen, his blood alcohol ratio was beneath the limit when he was driving. That, it seems to me, is not going to improve the law very much, and what it will do is to make it rather less certain. I should like to see this defence of a drink taken after the cessation of driving completely removed. Certain steps were taken in that direction by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne; but, unfortunately, they were unsuccessful at the time they tried to take them. That is not to say that the Government cannot take such steps when this Bill comes to be considered in another place.
  I very much hope that an Amendment will be inserted into this Bill which will entirely remove this defence. One way in which it could be done would be for some sort of Amendment of, or addition to, Section 6 of the Act (as it now is) to the effect that:
  " The proportion of alcohol in the blood, as ascertained from a laboratory test, for which a specimen is subsequently provided under Section 9 of the Act, shall be deemed to be the same as existed when that Person

  135
  last drove or attempted to drive under the terms of subsection (1) hereof."
  No doubt that sounds absolute nonsense to those who have listened to it, but it may not when it comes to be read in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Something like that would remove the present unsatisfactory state of the law.
  My Lords, I now come to Lord Hacking's second group of Amendments, and here I take serious issue with him, because in my submission the effect of the Amendments would be far more onerous than at first appears, and probably far more onerous than he intends. He says, in effect, that
  "Any person who was, or is, driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle …";
  and he goes on:
  "If the constable has reasonable cause to suspect him of having alcohol in his blood in proportion exceeding the prescribed limit …"
  There would be two effects if that were accepted. First, the driver would be on risk, if I may use that phrase, for a very considerable time after he had finished driving. One may perhaps quote a home example. Nowadays there are many sensible couples who, if they go out to a dinner party, decide that one will drive and the other one will drink. But they will not mix the two. It may be that the husband, because they are late for the dinner party, is driving fast rather than well, and an enraged motorist follows them to the place where the party is due to take place. The couple go in; the motorist goes to report it to the police, and eventually a uniformed officer comes—let us say twenty minutes later. By that time the husband who drove to the party, and who certainly does not intend to drive back afterwards, may well have had two large whiskies and sodas. According to what the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, proposes, he would still be on risk if a constable in uniform had reasonable cause to suspect him, and so on. That is just one illustration.
  But my chief complaint about this particular Amendment is this. How on earth is an ordinary uniformed officer to tell whether he has reasonable cause to suspect a person of having 80 milligrammesworth in the suspect body? The possibilities of cross-examining the police officer are so limitless that it almost encourages me to desert your Lordships'
  136
  House and my other little activities and go back to the Bar. It would be a lawyer's paradise, and a defence lawyer's paradise, in particular. I am sure the noble Lord will realise that.
  So far as random breath tests are concerned, although I am a great believer in the liberty of the subject, and especially of the individual, I cannot see very much wrong with random breath tests on drivers. If people are going to drink and drive, then they must accept the consequences. It is entirely up to them. If somebody has had only half a glass of sherry, or whatever it is, and he is breathalysed, he has nothing to fear beyond the inconvenience of being stopped. I suggest that the time has come—and we have been talking about a number of constraints on personal freedom in this Bill—for the Government to get the bit between their teeth and improve the state of the law to that extent. I take issue, without wishing to give offence, with the noble Lord, Lord Hacking.
  My Lords, as I said, I regard this as being an excellent opportunity for a mini-debate on this vital part of our criminal law. I hope that my noble friend, when he comes to reply, will say at least that the Government have an open mind as to whether something could be done, using this Bill as a vehicle. It is ludicrous to say that everything in this particular legal garden is lovely, because it is not. It is a part of the law which causes considerable distress and dismay to many thousands, not least because of its uncertainty and unfairness. What is far more important, it tends to bring the law itself, and whose who practise it, into disrepute. I very much hope that my noble friend will say that the Government are at any rate prepared to keep an open mind.
  8.21 p.m.
  VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, it really is no fault whatever of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, that this series of what ought to be eight Amendments appeared on the Marshalled List to-day and that the very laborious and well-thought-out note that he was good enough to send to me to explain them arrived at something in the region of 4 o'clock this afternoon. Let me say at once that I entirely absolve the noble Lord of any possible failure. He has

  137
  done everything that could be done to try to get these things properly discussed, and I am only extremely sorry that, because of one reason or another, we are perhaps not in a position to do entire justice to him.
  I think his own speech and that of my noble friend Lord Mansfield both indicate that this is by no means a straightforward branch of the law. It may have been discussed by three hereditary barrister Peers, but that does not improve it; it must stand on its own inherent merits. We have to understand the reason why it is controversial. It is really very simple. For years there was a provision in the Road Traffic Acts whereby a person could be prosecuted and brought before the courts for driving when under the influence of drink or drugs. It was a lawyer's field-day. The case would go to trial in front of a jury, and you never knew what the jury were going to do, except that you suspected that there was a jolly good chance that they were going to let you off, because the machinery, the tests and so on, involved in these trials in the end turned out to be a bit empirical and, in the event, rather haphazard. The Government immediately preceding this one amended the law so as to make it rather more analytical—indeed chemical—in content. As I said, I think, on Committee stage and the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, almost agreed with me, what we are really concerned with is whether or not there are 80 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood; and that is all.
  The reason why an immense body of case law comes up to this House, sitting in its judicial capacity, is simple—because once you establish that chemical fact you automatically become disqualified from driving, and people who drive motor cars will do almost anything that is legally within their power to avoid being disqualified from driving. In turn, this particular measure has been analysed to death by the lawyers and it has been appealed against beyond all credible comprehension on every tiny syllable and comma of the Statute in order to try to stop people from being disqualified. That is why we have had all these cases and that is why the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, has put forward an Amendment under three main sub-headings, all of which reflect a series of judicial decisions
  138
  —and two of them, at any rate, I think have been made by this House.
  What are we to do about this? I do not want to discourage the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, from looking at this matter with very great care, but what I would suggest to the House, certainly at this stage of the Bill and with the notice that we have had, unfortunately, of these Amendments, is that we should be unwise to tinker precipitately with the present wording of the 1972 Act. What has happened is that appeal after appeal has been made to the higher courts. In fact, there were 42,000 convictions under this provision last year. I suspect that the number of appeals which succeeded on some of these technical points was extremely small. I do not know, but perhaps they could be counted on the fingers of two hands. Nevertheless, we have a residue of good solid case law on the minutiæ of this subject. Do we, my Lords, try to amend the Road Traffic Act 1972, with its consolidated provisions, by putting on glosses of this sort that the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, has suggested? Do we, on the other hand, do what we have done heretofore and leave the courts to work out what Parliament may be presumed to have intended, in a comparatively straightforward statement (albeit one that has turned out to be very complicated in practice) the law to mean?
  The courts have, on the whole, dealt fairly well with these issues as they have come up. There is no doubt there are gaps. There are cases, for example, where a flask is taken out and drink is consumed and it is no longer possible to charge a person under Section 6—and it has to be done as a matter of instructing the police—in which case there is no disqualification. That is a great disadvantage. There are other cases, some of which have been very recently talked about, as the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, said. He referred to the Queen v. Reid, and there was another recent case which occurred after the Second Reading of this Bill, under the last two subsections of this Amendment. I think the message emerges that all the police have to do is to get the words right, and if they were to look at the heading notes of the Queen v. Weir in the Liverpool Crown Court and use that form of words when charging people, they would find they were within the ambit of the Road Traffic

  139
  Act and would be able to arrest somebody on the correct and relevant charge. That is yet a further development produced by the courts. It is true that this was only in the Liverpool Crown Court, but it seems to have worked in that case.
  LORD HACKING: My Lords, I assume the noble Viscount is thinking of the case of Edkins v. Knowles. I do not think my Amendment can cover that. In that case the police officer used the wrong section for the arrest.
  VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I am not thinking of that case but of the Queen v. Weir in the Liverpool Crown Court, where they used the wrong words and were told by the judge what would have been the right words to use. It is quite simple: it is quite a short headnote, and I will show it to the noble Lord in the Law Reports if he would like.
  LORD HACKING: My Lords, I should like to be educated in that regard.
  VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I am sure that the police forces of the British Isles will have taken note of that. I do not want to be unsympathetic about this matter. I believe it is exceedingly valuable that we should have discussed some of the difficulties that have arisen in this law. I am purposely not going into drafting difficulties. The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, with all his skill, has not solved this drafting any more than has anybody else. It is not my purpose to try to discredit his series of Amendments on purely drafting grounds; I prefer to be rather more constructive about it. I would simply say to him—and I hope the House will appreciate the point as well—that for all the good will in the world, for all the Amendments and the attempted improvements to this law, we are going to have lawyers picking at this matter as long as we carry into the law a compulsory disqualification. They will go on doing it whether the noble Lord's Amendment is put down, whether my Amendment is put down, or whether anybody else's Amendment is put down. They are going to go on trying to pick holes in it. We have a situation where the law has been stated since 1967 in a certain statutory form.
  140
  It has been subjected to many critical tests; some of them have come to this House, some only reached the Court of Appeal, some the Crown Court and some were dealt with by magistrates. At all levels there have been criticisms. A body of case law has been built up on this matter.
  What the House has carefully to consider is this: do we allow the courts to continue upon the platform of the Statute as it stands, and to continue to try to decide what are genuine loopholes, what are legitimate exclusions from this disqualification—and that is what counts—where, for instance, there is no immediate connection between the amount of drink in a person's blood and the fact he was driving because he had for some arguably legitimate reason drunk some drink in between, or should we now come in the middle and amend the Statute in small ways and therefore destroy the platform of the law upon which all these decisions have been based? If we do that we open the door to more glorious lawyers' arguments. It may be that that is right, but I suggest, with the best will in the world, that this series of Amendments this evening cannot be discussed properly on the notice that we have had. I have looked at them as carefully as I can. I have looked at the case law. I have looked at the Rowlands case. I have looked at Edkins v. Knowles; I have looked at Bates and Reid and a number of other cases with which the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, kindly provided me. I cannot say that the Government could accept either these or any other Amendments to this because it is so complicated and difficult to decide in principle whether one ought to make amendments or proceed upon the basis of the law as we know and allow the courts to interpret it.
  I cannot advise the House to accept these Amendments this evening. I cannot hold out, within the time we have available for this House, any hope for any progress that the noble Lord might make. He has drawn attention to the current areas of crisis on the breathalyser law. He has given us three areas where there is conflict and dispute, and for all I know there may be loopholes. Another place will be grateful to him. But for this House, I think that at this stage of the Bill it is too ambitious to hope that we shall be able to clear this up. Perhaps he

  141
  will be content in knowing that he has made a very profound and useful analysis of the recent decisions on this matter, one which is of great value to the Government (and a great education to me, incidentally) and very useful for my advisers. If he is disappointed at what I have been saying, perhaps he may consider that it will form a basis for other people to discuss the matter in another place. I hope the noble Lord will not press these Amendments. It is in no spirit of ill-will that I suggest this; but this is so complicated and difficult that to rush it would be a great mistake. I hope the noble Lord may think it has been worth while to do it in this way, to make his speech, to produce his erudite comments and allow us more time to consider the matter when the Bill goes to another place in due course.
  LORD HACKING: My Lords, as the noble Viscount realises I have a sense of disappointment at this stage. I should have liked this to be a beginning to end this morass that lawyers are having to battle through. Perhaps the noble Lord has left the Bar for too long; I cannot accept that all our life at the Bar or as a solicitor at the Supreme Court, is directed to finding little loopholes in the Statues in order to get our clients off or acquitted. I hope that lawyers can be thought by the world at large, as they like to think of themselves, as responsible people who frankly say to a client, "You have an unmeritorious case". Frankly, that is not usually the language I use: it is usually rather stronger language which I would not dare use in your Lordships' House. Lawyers do not persist and encourage a client to take a bad case through the courts.
  I am disappointed but, in my disappointment, I am not going to behave badly; I am not going to divide the House and be carping in my attitude. I, alas!, did not even find myself in accord with (may I say?) my learned friend Lord Mansfield. He made some criticisms of my Amendment, with some of which I agree, and with some points I did not agree with him. He said three things, and I ask your Lordships to have those ringing in your ears as I withdraw the Amendment. First of all he said that the present law is ludicrous; secondly, he said it is to be criticised for its uncertainty and unfairness; thirdly he said that it brought us
  142
  into disrepute. That is the present situation. The Government find it impossible to deal with it at this stage, and there have been difficulties facing the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, and difficulties facing me which, in other ways, have faced other noble Lords during these present times of crisis—delivery of papers, and so forth. Taking all those things into account. I recognise that this House cannot deal with these Amendments now. I recognise that I have not set the scene sufficiently to persuade the Government to say: "Let us make a start; put these Amendments down and they can be considered in greater detail in another place."
  In all these circumstances—I hope with maturity—I feel compelled to withdraw these Amendments, but I express the hope that the Government will not treat this as just a few loopholes but as an area of real worry for the legal profession of both sides, and, indeed for the judges. I am glad to see that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is now present, because this law is using up the most excessive time in the noble and learned Lord's courts. With your Lordships' permission, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 14 [Reduction for trainee drivers of minimum age for driving heavy goods vehicles]:
  8.37 p.m.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved Amendment No. 20:
  Page 22, line 5, at end insert—
  (" () In section 126 of the 1972 Act (instruction for payment to be given only by registered or licenced persons) in subsection (1) after the word ("car") there shall be added the words ("and commercial vehicles ")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Aberdare for implementing a promise he made at the Committee stage of this Bill when he offered to have discussions with me over a number of points. One of the points which we discussed, at Second Reading, at Committee and with the noble Lord, was the important matter of the instruction of heavy goods vehicle drivers. Your Lordships will recall that in an earlier Amendment I said that instructors should be registered. There was some doubt (a doubt which I propose to dispel immediately) whether there were qualified

  143
  and approved heavy goods vehicle driving instructors in the country. In fact there are no such "animals". There are no approved or qualified heavy goods vehicle driving instructors. I do not use the words lightly; neither do I wish to bandy words.
  It is perfectly true that the vast majority of men instructing heavy goods vehicle drivers have attended an industrial training board instructors' course, but that is all they have done. There is no statutory obligation upon the industrial training boards to pass or fail such attenders. In practice, men are sent by what are called "in scope" bodies, those within the orbit of the industrial training boards, or, if there is room, by ordinary commercial houses, for a course of instruction at the end of which these men and, more particularly, their employers, receive a certificate of attendance at the bottom of which is an assessment. So there are no approved or qualified driving instructors. Coupled with this is the fact that there is a growing number of men who hold a heavy goods vehicle licence, Class III, II or I, practising commercially in instruction. This leaves a gap, which is wide open, in the whole business of heavy goods vehicle driving.
  The previous Amendment and this later Amendment seek to regularise the position. The Amendment says that nobody may practise for reward in instructing heavy commercial vehicle drivers. How one regularises this position, how one licenses or registers the drivers, frankly, I will not concern your Lordships with to-night. What I wish to establish, by virtue of this Amendment, is that Her Majesty's Government accept that there is a loophole in the area of heavy goods vehicles and the driving and instruction of the drivers, and that they will put this right at an appropriate time. I believe the appropriate time is within the ambit of this Bill's going through this House and during is stages in the other place. I beg to move.
  8.41 p.m.
  LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for saying that he appreciated the meeting that we had. I would reciprocate that. I thought it was an interesting meeting. He put to
  144
  us many of the points he put to your Lordships this evening. Certainly we intend to go into them carefully. In fact, we have not been letting the water flow under our feet, or whatever the expression is. Officials of the Department have already met with the Road Transport Industry Training Board and had some discussions on the points my noble friend has touched upon.
  I must say to him that there was still very little evidence of instruction being given to heavy vehicle drivers by unqualified instructors. I am further advised that the controlling influence of the Road Transport Industry Training Board is perhaps a good deal more effective than my noble friend may realise. I am sure he will agree that we do not want to set up another system of official control in an area in which the road goods transport industry is capable of looking after its own best interest. We continue to look into this matter, my Lords. We have not by any means completed investigating the points made by my noble friend. The Secretary of State is looking further into the matter. I hope my noble friend will be prepared to withdraw his Amendment on that understanding.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I think the Minister in his reply, perhaps inadvertently, used the word "qualified". Normally the word qualification implies that some test or examination has taken place; whereas he will appreciate that in the case of I.T.B. heavy goods vehicle driving instructors, who have attended the course, no such examination, and therefore no such qualification, exists. I accept what he said with regard to setting up another organisation. I would only suggest to him that there is already one in existence which deals with the matter from very similar angles for those people who earn their living instructing potential car drivers. However, I am reassured by what he has said with regard to the further studies which are being made in this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  8.45 p.m.
  LORD CHAMPION LORD CHAMPION moved Amendment No. 21:
  Page 23, leave out lines 10 to 16.
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, on Committee stage I moved a number of

  145
  Amendments to Clauses 16 to 19 of the Bill designed to modify the effects of the Bill on established public bus services, while at the same time permitting some modifications of the existing law relating to the carrying of passengers for hire or reward. I think it will generally be agreed that the control of bus services by traffic commissioners under Act of Parliament was intended to bring a measure of control to the industry and to safeguard public service vehicles and operators from the effects of the piratical creaming off of possible passengers, something of which we experienced a great deal in the inter-war years. Those of your Lordships who are old enough to remember it will know that road safety was very seriously interfered with as the result of the attempts to "collar" the passengers who were waiting for other people's vehicles.
  The Amendments I moved in Committee were, it seemed, too sweeping for the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare. The Amendments to Clauses 16 to 19 standing in my name to-day are more modest in character, and I hope that they will prove to be more acceptable to the Government. Clause 16(1) of the Bill would remove from Section 117 of the 1960 Act all reference to carrying passengers for hire or reward at separate fares and would substitute "9" for "8", thus permitting cars and taxis with up to eight seats to carry passengers along established bus routes, even immediately in front of a bus operating a regular service. It was precisely that sort of operation that led to the Act establishing the traffic commissioners in the interwar years. The control exercised by the commissioners ensured that the control of the public service vehicles led to a vast improvement in bus services generally, ended the creaming off of possible bus passengers by pirate operators, and also led to regular services operating at a reasonable profit to the operators.
  Now, under the clause as it now stands, owners of cars and taxis with up to eight seats could advertise in the Press, and by other means, a service which could cripple established operators. This is not only my opinion, it is the opinion of responsible associations which cater for the public road transport of this country, people with vast experience in this whole field. I say that it would affect a number of operators, and not only in the towns. It would also
  146
  seriously affect, in particular perhaps, small operators in country districts, with the result that their services may become uneconomic, so causing local am authorities in the area to increase their subsidies in order to keep a regular service on the road, otherwise the regular service may have to cease altogether.
  My Lords, if I owned a small vehicle and were permitted to operate under the terms of the Bill, I should use my vehicle at peak loading times, thus ensuring a full load at a slightly lower fare than the fares charged by the regular service, but taking care never to run my vehicle at periods when I could not ensure filling the vehicle to capacity. In that way I should get peak profit from the use of my vehicle. So I should not run my vehicle at periods when, in order to maintain a regular service, all public service vehicles ran at a loss. Every service that I know anything at all about has to do just that in order to ensure a regular service and properly to serve the public, as is their job.
  The prospect of this Bill, the way it will work out, is a frightening one for the operators of public service vehicles working within the rules laid down up to now by Parliament. For there would be no regulation of routes or stopping places; no timetables to be adhered to; no control on the maintenance of vehicles or of the hours of work of the drivers of the vehicles with which they would hive to compete. The operators of these unregulated vehicles could penetrate into certain town centres from which even the established bus services are prohibited. They could stop anywhere, with no regard to safety and could stop at regular bus stops to collect passengers waiting for the established service. The only maintenance requirement would be the same as that for private cars: that is to say, no inspection annually for the first three years, as against inspection annually by the competent officers of the Department of the Environment. The driver could work any hours he pleased and would require only an ordinary driver's licence and not the harder-to-acquire public service vehicle driver's licence.
  I am of course aware of the fact that the operation of such vehicles would be prohibited where there are hackney carriage regulations in force. But, as I mentioned in Committee, there are very

  147
  considerable areas of the country where by-laws governing hackney carriages are not operative or it is the case that in only a few cities are hire-cars controlled at all. But even in those places where hackney or hire-car regulations are in force they would not prevent the operation of such vehicles—the vehicles I am speaking about now—coming into towns from outside, provided that they operated on the basis of return fare.
  The Amendment to leave out lines 10 to 16, while leaving unchanged subsection (2) of this clause, would have the effect of putting in one group all vehicles, with up to 12 seats, used commercially for carrying passengers at separate fares. Perhaps I ought to add here that the Amendments I am proposing to Clauses 16 to 19 of the Bill, viewed as a whole, are intended to achieve the stated objects of the Department of the Environment. These I understand to be to legalise genuine lift-giving for vehicles with up to 12 seats in areas outside Greater London, the passenger transport areas or areas where hackney carriage regulations are in force. In addition, my Amendments would free vehicles with up to 12 seats, when operating commercially, from all the regulations which apply to public service vehicles, provided that they are operating outside urban areas or on a specified bus route as defined in the Amendments. At the same time, the Amendments would ensure a continuation of the safeguards devised by Parliament in the past to regularise the carrying of passengers for hire or reward or on given bus routes under the control of the traffic commissioners.
  I do not want—and I am sure that anyone supporting these Amendments would not want—to do anything that would make life more difficult for those who might in reasonable circumstances benefit from lift-giving, particularly in country areas. But I think it would be a grave error if, in order to facilitate lift-giving, irreparable damage were done to regular services which have rightly been granted by the traffic commissioners. These Amendments are put down in what we think—what I certainly think—are the best interests of the country. They will hold to what has been established in the past as an excellently
  148
  devised scheme to cover public service vehicles, and at the same time will permit some lift-giving which may help a little in some of the country areas, which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, as well as the rest of us, has in mind in this connection. My Lords, I beg to move.
  8.55 p.m.
  LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I rise strongly to support the noble Lord, Lord Champion. He has put his Amendment in strong and lucid terms and extremely succinctly. I am only disappointed that the House is extremely empty at this moment. I should like to see it very much fuller because the House could well have listened to and understood the noble Lord's points. The noble Lord's opening words referred to "the creaming off" of private transport and other things in the inter-war years. I think that is very important. It was certainly before I was born, which was not until towards the end of 1934. But one has read and known of the great problems that public transport suffered in the time from 1918 onwards, particularly in the early 'twenties. The only point I should like to state about that is that vehicles are now very much better than they were, which is a point I believe the noble Lord, Lord Champion, did not mention. There are fewer breakdowns. But there was this awful "creaming-off" and we certainly do not want to go back to that. It is something America has suffered much more recently, as I mentioned at the Committee stage.
  This Amendment seeks to qualify subsection (2) of Clause 16, and while I support the intentions underlying the Amendment I must nevertheless say that I think the same effect could be achieved more positively. Indeed, it is unfortunate that the phrase, "ply for hire" should have been introduced into the Bill because it has become almost a music hall joke. This phrase relates particularly to hackney carriage law, and that also is associated with music hall jokes. I have indicated in earlier debates that the hackney carriage law is totally outdated and comes from an Act of 1847, and that in all logic it requires to be rewritten as a necessary preliminary to any legislation altering the law on public service vehicles as affecting cars and minibuses. I would emphasise that even

  149
  though we are told that everyone understands what is meant by "plying for hire", the fact is that over the past 100 years or more our courts have been unable to find an adequate definition. They have distinguished between the facts in different cases so as to cause very considerable confusion as to the precise interpretation of this undesirable phrase.
  It is unfortunate that, rather than speaking of "plying for hire", the Bill does not more specifically indicate, as does the Amendment, those activities which would not be allowed by drivers of vehicles adapted to carry not more than 12 passengers. In passing, I would mention that the provision allowing the Secretary of State to increase this capacity is of considerable danger. The vehicle with its passenger seats mentioned in this clause is related to international classifications. I understand that already there are suggestions in working parties of the Economic Commission for Europe that the figure of 15 (the noble Lord, Lord Champion, mentioned 12, but they are now talking about 15) might be increased to 17. This is the thin end of the wedge. Where will it stop? Whatever justification there may be for small vehicles to have relaxed operating conditions, this must not apply to vehicles of an unquestionably commercial size. I seek assurances from the Government that they have no intentions whatsoever of further eroding, through widening the exemptions provided for in this clause, the ability of the public road transport industry to serve the community—and I insist that that is what they are in fact doing.
  Finally, while we are discussing Clause 16 I ask your Lordships' indulgence if I deviate slightly from the terms of the Amendment before us. My point is of relevance to the Amendment in that it seeks to clarify the provisos to subsection (2), and I have given prior notice of it to my noble friend Lord Aberdare who will be replying to the debate.
  In considering whether a vehicle adapted to carry not more than four passengers shall be treated as being, or not being, a public service vehicle, it must be considered whether it is customarily operated in the course of a business. Would my noble friend confirm that these words relate precisely to the judgment given in your Lordships' House in the case of Albert v. The Motor
  150
  Insurers' Bureau in 1971. In that case the late Lord Donovan, while admitting that it might sound a little grandiose to describe a motorist's passenger-carrying activities as a business, took the view that when passengers were carried regularly to and from work for a reward which he, the motorist, expected to receive, there was no difference from the work of a taxi driver, except the informality of the arrangement. Anyone who has read that or who has discussed that case will find it extremely relevant. It was a business, if a part-time one. It is interesting that in this judgment the word "customarily", which is used in the Bill, does not appear but in speaking of the carriage of passengers in this context, the words "systematic", "normally", "habitually", "as a matter of practice", frequently" and "regularly" are used to describe the activity. Will the Government assure the House that paragraph (a) of subsection (2) clearly legislates that the operators of small vehicles carrying passengers to or from work—or for other purposes in any way analogous to that considered in Albert v. Motor Insurers' Bureau—will not be able to rely on the exemption contained in this subsection?
  I have very little to say on any of the other Amendments to Clauses 16 and 17 but in this small House if the noble Lord, Lord Champion, wishes to press this Amendment I am ready to go with him.
  9.3 p.m.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with the purpose of the Amendment, not so much for the competitive commercial actions which may follow the Bill's being passed, because I am afraid I believe that people must look after themselves in this direction, so long as the conditions are equal. I can recall, when I was engaged more deeply in the motor trade, being an agent responsible for the examination of certain glasses of vehicles. Various different pressures are applied commercially in regard to the fitness of such vehicles, and I fear that if anybody is allowed to engage in the transportation of people without having any control as to the fitness of the vehicle we may well find ourselves in a great deal of difficulty. I

  151
  imagine that there must be other regulations which could be brought to bear on an operator. Nevertheless I think it would be quite wrong if anybody could take a vehicle, without any mechanical examination as to its fitness, to work for reward.
  The other point on which I have sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Champion, is in connection with the question of hours. I can foresee many of these vehicles being used on social occasions. I think when we discussed this before we mentioned the women's institutes. I do not wish to joke on this matter, but there are also dance clubs, football clubs, and so on. I can see this happening and I can see the hours being extended long past the end of the occasion, well into the small hours of the morning, all of which time the driver has to be ready to return with his passengers; and there will be no control here. I can well see men—and women, for that matter—working a reasonable day of seven, eight or nine hours and then embarking upon perhaps an eleven or twelve hour job, free of regulation, on a journey bringing back passengers in a vehicle which may or may not mechanically satisfy a reasonable inspectorate. So far as these points are concerned I have some sympathy with the Amendment.
  9.6 p.m.
  LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Champion, sought to steal a bit of a march on noble Lords on this side of the House by referring to matters that he remembers between the wars, about which some of us are less well informed than he is. However, I am reliably told that before 1930 the competition to which he referred was between buses and there is no reason to think that cars played any significant part, or indeed that they would do so now. But I readily grant, with him, that the system of traffic commissioners under which we work at the moment is a great improvement on the system that we had between the wars.
  We have gone a little wide of Amendment No. 21 but it is still a pretty sweeping Amendment, although the noble Lord seemed to suggest that he was only really titivating the Bill and being less sweeping than he was last time. This is a fairly
  152
  sweeping Amendment, designed to retain the present definition in the Road Traffic Act 1960 of a public service vehicle, and it would completely negate our objective of freeing from bus licensing vehicles that carry less than nine passengers. I went into this issue in some detail at the Committee stage and I cannot help thinking again that noble Lords are really raising ghosts when they are so frightened about what Clause 16 does. We are only talking about people using private cars and giving casual lifts, and to say that this will interfere with all the operations of the bus companies seems to me to be nonsense, if I may say so. These cars are not allowed to be operated in the course of a business—and may I immediately say to my noble friend Lord Teviot, who was kind enough to give me notice of this very detailed legal question, that I can agree with him that Clause 16(2)(a) relates to a public service vehicle being not customarily operated in the course of a business. The idea underlying this phrase is embraced in a House of Lords decision in the case of Albert v. The Motor Insurers' Bureau in 1971.
  We agree with that, and are quite prepared to accept that definition. I hope that will help your Lordships, because again that was a case—and I am not a lawyer—of people doing something for reward regularly, and not in the least casually. I do not wish to repeat myself because I said in Committee that people go on giving these lifts now; they go together in a private car, they make an arrangement between themselves and they contribute towards the petrol. One could well say that they know what they are doing. The noble Lord, Lord Champion, said that it is a bad argument, but I say it is a practical one. It is what happens. All we are seeking to do is to make it a little easier for those voluntary bodies who can really provide a social service in a great many cases, but who are unable to do so now by reason of passenger service vehicle licensing.
  My Lords, we are convinced that the threat from these marginal activities is unreal, and although we are quite prepared to look at any specific suggestion where we have not got it right, where we have gone too far, I cannot accept this Amendment, which goes too far. The only thing that has happened since we

  153
  last discussed the matter is that the Secretary of State for the Environment has today given a general authority which, while we are in our present difficulties over the supply of oil, will have the same effect in relation to small vehicles as the provisions of this clause. This will give us an opportunity to assess the reality of the alleged threat before the Bill completes its various stages in another place. In other words, because of the emergency we shall be seeing what effect the clause would have, and we can rejudge the situation if necessary. I do not agree with my noble friend Lord Teviot that plying for hire does not mean anything. We shall be coming to that in another Amendment. As for the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, about the fitness of vehicles, these are private vehicles and will be looked at in the same way as other private vehicles. I cannot accept this Amendment. It goes against the ideas of what we are trying to do to make things a little easier.
  9.10 p.m.
  LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I am grateful for the support I had from the noble Lords, Lord Teviot and Lord Lucas of Chilworth. As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, rightly said, my age is greater than his. But his personal experience is greater than mine in this particular sphere. I think he was absolutely right. When one is setting up competition in this sort of sphere, or in any other, the conditions ought to be equal if, in fact, one is going to establish competition which will have an element of fairness about it. What I fear is that because of the fact that on one side there are vehicles which have to be strictly maintained in accordance with all the regulations, and on the other side vehicles that will be maintained after three years only sufficiently to pass the M.o.T. test, it would seem to me not to provide a fair element of competition. The same thing applies to drivers' hours, and the competence of the driver to drive.
  My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, suggested that I am raising ghosts. I cannot imagine for one moment that the associations which have been in touch with me are frightened by spectres. These are experienced people, most of whom have spent a large part of their lives in the industry. They really do know what they are talking about. They have had to
  154
  defend their experience before the Traffic Commissioners in the past. They have the experience of running buses in competition. I note what the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said about the decision of the Secretary of State for the Environment and the possibility of testing this during the emergency period. All I can say is that I hope the emergency will be too short for any conclusion to emerge from this decision.
  My Lords, I feel strongly about this matter, but not so strongly that I am going to attempt to get the serried ranks behind me to accompany me into the Division Lobby. I rather think that the fact that this whole business will have to be gone into again in another place means that it is best to leave it to the other place to attempt to do what I and others have tried to do in this House. In the circumstances, I ask leave of the House to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
  9.12 p.m.
  LORD CHAMPION LORD CHAMPION moved Amendment No. 22:
  Page 23, line 34, at end insert:
  ("(4) For the purposes of subsection (2) above the expression "ply for hire" shall include any case—

  (a) where the owner or operator of the vehicle causes or permits the display or publication of any form of advertisement in respect of its availability for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward; or

  (b) where passengers are taken up in respect of whom arrangements for their carriage on the journey in question were not made at least one hour in advance of the vehicle starting its journey.")

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an Amendment which is, to some extent, different from the last one, and does not necessarily arise out of it. The Amendment I am proposing here is designed to define the phrase "ply for hire". Subsection (2) of Clause 16 gives as one of the conditions exempting a minibus from being treated as a public service vehicle that "it does not ply for hire in the course of the journey on which the passengers are carried". The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, in Committee, when replying to a statement of mine that the phrase "ply for hire" is nowhere defined in Statute law, and that case law on these words leaves a great deal of uncertainty, said:
  "The noble Lord was quite right whet he said that plying for hire is not defined, but

  155
  it is an expression which is used in various Acts, for example, the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act of 1869, under which London taxis are licensed by the police, and it is an expression the ambit of which is understood by the courts and the cab and bus trade."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4/12/73, col. 544.]
  The Association which caters for most of the large bus undertakings of the country is not able to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, and, after all, it is the most experienced in this matter. It is strongly of the opinion that the expression "ply for hire" is so lacking in definition as to render the enforcement of the law a matter of doubt. The purpose of the Amendment is to show that a vehicle should be treated as plying for hire, apart from any other meaning of the expression, if it is advertised as being available, and also in any case where arrangements have not been made in advance to pick up passengers. The Amendment I am proposing is, I think, faulty in one detail, namely, in the words "at least one hour". I am informed that that part would be quite unenforceable, but if the noble Lord will accept the Amendment in principle we shall ensure that we leave out those words on Third Reading. What is chiefly intended by paragraph (b) of the proposed new subsection (4) is to avoid the situation in which a vehicle sets out on a bona fide journey within the spirit of subsection (2) of the existing clause but in fact invites or encourages casual passengers to join it en route. I beg to move.
  LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, this Amendment seeks to gloss the meaning of "plying for hire" and would further curtail the activities permissible under Clause 16(2) of the Bill. I agree once again with the noble Lord that "plying for hire" is not specifically defined in any enactment. But in our view it is well understood by the courts to include making an explicit or implied offer of immediate transport in a public place. The effect of the first part of the noble Lord's Amendment, paragraph (a), is so to extend this meaning of "plying for hire" that it would preclude the availability of informal lifts being brought to public attention in any way whatsoever on or off the vehicle, and this, for example, would effectively preclude any communication in a village hall, to a
  156
  local magazine and so on, and thus would destroy the idea that we are keen to encourage local initiative. The noble Lord has already said that the second part, paragraph (b), of the Amendment is unenforceable and I agree with him.
  The restriction on plying for hire already contained in the Bill is, in our view, sufficient to preclude hailing down, in exactly the same way as the Hackney Carriage Regulations preclude the operation of unlicensed taxi services; and a further Amendment of this kind would only serve to prevent many acts of spontaneous kindness without adding significantly to the protection already afforded to licensed bus services. I cannot accept this Amendment. I can say to the noble Lord that any further safeguards that he can legitimately put forward which are consistent with our underlying policy we will certain look at, but we feel this one really goes a little bit far because it would not allow the sort of communication and local initiative which we value.
  LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I certainly accept the invitation of the noble Lord to look at this point again. I might have a chance to do so between now and Third Reading, though I am not certain when Third Reading will come. Certainly I will take the opportunity to try to do that. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 17 [Use of minibuses as public service vehicles]:
  9.20 p.m.
  LORD CHAMPION LORD CHAMPION moved Amendment No. 23:
  Page 24, line 2, after ("road") insert ("or urban roads").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Amendment that I here propose is a simple one. Under the terms of Clause 17 a minibus carrying passengers at separate fares shall be treated as a contract carriage unless, among other restrictions, it both takes up and sets down passengers at different places on an urban road, and those places are so situated that the minibus could travel between them without traversing any highway which is not an urban road. It seems to me that the term in the singular ought not to be used. As there may be more than one urban

  157
  road between the two separate points at which passengers are both picked up and set down, the reference should be changed to include "urban roads". I beg to move.
  LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I think that I can reassure the noble Lord that in the light of the Interpretation Act the singular includes the plural and explicit provision is not necessary.
  LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, with that assurance I beg leave to withdrawn the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD CHAMPION LORD CHAMPION moved Amendment No. 24:
  Page 24, line 4, leave out ("traversing") and insert ("travelling along").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is designed to clear up a doubt. It is felt that there is some ambiguity about the word "traversing". As I understand it, "traversing" means to cross. Is that what is meant in the context of paragraph (b), or does it really mean travelling along? If the latter, then the words "travelling along" ought to be used and not the word "traversing". I beg to move.
  LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am glad to be able to tell the noble Lord that evidently "traversing" in its legal sense means both the crossing of, and travelling along, a road. Therefore, the clause as drafted is wide, and to have just "travelling along" would not have the full effect that the noble Lord would want. He will see that "traversing", in the sense of both going along the road or crossing it, is the best wording we can use.
  LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, except that he has not been very forthcoming up to now, the noble Lord has come nearer to accepting an Amendment of mine than I thought possible. In the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD CHAMPION LORD CHAMPION moved Amendment No. 25:
  Page 24, line 29, leave out ("passengers are") and insert ("the same passenger is").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a purely drafting Amendment designed to make it clear that if any passenger is
  158
  taken up and set down within a specified bus route the journey will be treated as on a bus route. I should point out that the reference should be to line 28 and not line 29. I believe that this is a printing error. I beg to move.
  LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I do not think that it is the noble Lord's error. It is in the Bill. At page 24 there are six lines between line 25 and line 30. I found this confusing when I saw it this morning. We do not think that this Amendment has any effect. The existing form of words is already established, for example, in Section 19 of the Transport Act, 1968, and Section 23 of the Transport (London) Act, 1969, and it has always appeared satisfactory and apt for its purpose. I do not think that the noble Lord's Amendment really has any effect.
  LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that explanation, and ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  9.24 p.m.
  LORD CHAMPION LORD CHAMPION moved Amendment No. 26:
  Page 24, line 30, leave out ("which forms part of a specified bus route") and insert ("or highways which form part of a specified bus route, or at places which are within 400 metres of any point at which a road service operated by stage carriages on a specified bus route is authorised to take up or set down passengers").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, with permission, I should like to move Amendment No. 26 and with it to discuss Amendment No. 27. These Amendments to lines 30 and 34 are intended to alter the reference to a highway to allow for more than one. In this case, too, I wish to substitute the plural for the singular. As subsection (5) is drafted, it would be possible for a minibus operating a service under the provisions of Clause 17, and therefore not requiring a road service licence, to travel along a specified bus route, but by making a deviation of only 20 yards into a side street it could pick up or set down passengers and then revert to the route of the scheduled stage carriage service. This would clearly abstract traffic front the scheduled service. This we would regard as being undesirable. I beg to move.
  LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, on the point of the highways, I can again inform

  159
  the noble Lord that the Interpretation Act ensures that the singular includes the plural, so I hope he will accept that that meets his points. The substantive element of his Amendment would enhance substantially the protection afforded to licensed services and would diminish in the same proportion the advantages given to mini-bus operation. In our opinion, the implication of the Amendment once again is greatly to exaggerate the threat from the mini-bus to the traditional bus services which have advantages that the mini-bus can seldom match other than in highly rural areas. We do not think it would be wise to write into the Bill what is in effect a cordon sanitaire of 400 metres round the point at which a road service operated by stage carriages on a specified bus route is authorised to take up or set down passengers. I hope that again with the relaxations that we are issuing under the emergency provisions the noble Lord may find that this does not really affect the issue.
  LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, persists in error, but in the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  9.27 p.m.
  LORD CHAMPION LORD CHAMPION moved Amendment No. 28:
  Page 24, line 36, leave out ("the conditions attached to").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this line in Clause 17 refers to:
  "a route which is specified in the conditions attached to a road service licence…"
  As I understand it, it is the case that in some traffic areas the route itself is specified in the substance of the licence and is not a condition attached to it. I would imagine that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has been informed that this is so and I am hoping that he will accept my Amendment. I beg to move.
  LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am afraid that my advice is different from that of the noble Lord. I am informed that the licence itself is not couched in terms to specify any particular route and that routes can be specified only by way of conditions attached to a road service licence, but if after this debate
  160
  is over the noble Lord would care to give me an example, if I am wrong I will most certainly have a look at it.
  LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I will certainly endeavour to do that, and if I do not get it to the noble Lord before Third Reading I hope it may be of some advantage to him in advising his right honourable friends at the other end. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 18 [Modifications of provisions relating to permits for certain bus services]:
  LORD CHAMPION LORD CHAMPION moved Amendment No. 29:
  Page 25, leave out lines 40 to 45.
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 18(4) would widen very considerably the discretion of Traffic Commissioners to grant a permit for a bus service in lieu of a road service licence by adding,
  "public interest as a consideration to take into account".
  This is objectionable on two main counts to those who are experienced in appearing before the Traffic Commissioner: first, it is too vague and could be damaging to established services; and, secondly, this condition takes the place of the traffic commissioner being satisfied that there are no other available facilities to meet the needs of the travelling public on the route proposed. It is strongly contended that the change proposed in the Bill may well lead to the inference that existing services are not to be taken into account. This is the point of this Amendment, that these existing services certainly ought to be retained as one of the factors to be considered by the traffic commissioners when applications are before them. I beg to move.
  LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, this Amendment would retain the present wording of Section 30(2) of the Transport Act 1968, which states that the traffic commissioners, when granting permits in lieu of road service licences, are to satisfy themselves, as the noble Lord has quoted, that:
  "there are no other transport facilities available to meet the reasonable needs of the proposed route".

  161
  It is in the light of our experience of the 1968 Act that we are convinced that this wording is unduly restrictive, and indeed can often be prejudicial to proposals for which, on their merits, a strong case could otherwise be made. It seems to me that to make the public interest the deciding factor, the underlying requirement for the traffic commissioners, really makes good sense and could hardly be criticised for being unfair.
  To give one small example of the sort of thing that can happen at the moment, the effect under the wording "no other transport facilities available" could be that one bus a week running down a route would completely freeze that route and no other vehicle could be given a licence. That seems wrong to us, and we propose that the commissioners should be required to consider whether a proposed service is in the interests of the public. The distinction is not, or ought not to be, a great one. Nevertheless, it is clear to us that a change of emphasis along these lines is now desirable if the permit is to be more widely used, as we hope it will be. But I hope that the noble Lord will agree with me that the interests of the public should really come above all other interests.
  LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  9.32 p.m.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved Amendment No. 30:
  Page 25, line 45, at end insert—
  ("(5) In subsection (1) of section 69 (revocation, suspension and curtailment of operators' licences) after the words "curtailed on any" there shall be inserted the words "one or more"").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am most reluctant to keep two Front Benches and my noble friend here any longer than necessary, but I think for the sake of the record it is right that I should remind your Lordships that this Amendment seeks to regularise the position whereby commercial vehicle operators' licences can be revoked, rescinded or removed under Section 69 of the 1968 Act. This was one of the points which my noble friend Lord Aberdare was kind enough to discuss with me following the Committee stage, at which there was no
  162
  Amendment down. In those discussions I sought to explain to him how situations might arise whereby prohibition notices were issued, and clearance notices subsequently issued, where no work had taken place. The examples are particularly in the case of a vehicle smoking in particularly adverse conditions. I mentioned another example of a coupling freezing up while the vehicle waited five hours for a road traffic examiner to come and look at the vehicle, which had been involved in an accident.
  As a result, I sought to persuade my noble friend that under that section the traffic commissioners were able to consider only all of the various criteria that are set down in the consideration of a revocation of a licence, rather than considering only those which were pertinent to such a rescinding or revocation, leaving the numerical superiority of minor and unqualified infringements at rest. This Amendment seeks to provide the traffic authority with that specific power; that is, to look at any one or more of the criteria which are required to be looked at in the consideration of a revocation. I beg to move.
  LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for putting down this Amendment; it gives me a chance to confirm what he said about our discussions. In fact, it is misplaced. It is tabled as an Amendment to Clause 18 dealing with permits for bus services. The Amendment deals with disciplinary powers of licensing authorities in respect of heavy goods vehicle operators' licences. But it gives me a chance to say to my noble friend that we listened with interest to what he had to say when he came to see us the other day. It was a valuable meeting. I explained to my noble friend that the Department have arranged with the Freight Transport Association and the Road Haulage Association an administrative procedure to avoid the possibility of an injustice being done. If the circumstances of the prohibition are explained in writing to the licensing authority's senior area mechanical engineer and it is accepted that the prohibition was unjustified, the record of prohibition is deleted from the operator's maintenance record and it will not then appear in any submission to the licensing authority for disciplinary action under Section 69 of the Act.

  163
  As a result of the undertaking which I gave to my noble friend at that meeting, the Department wrote again to the Association on December 11 reminding them of this administrative procedure, and on the same day a further circular was sent to all senior area mechanical engineers for the same purpose. I hope that my noble friend will agree that we have tried to overcome the difficulty by these administrative methods.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend for his reply, and I am delighted to hear that, following our discussion, action was taken which I feel sure will set at rest those fears which have been expressed to me over this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 19 [Modifications of criteria for grant of and attachment of conditions to road service licences]:
  9.37 p.m.
  LORD CHAMPION LORD CHAMPION moved Amendment No. 31:
  Page 26, line 9, leave out ("(b) to (d)") and insert ("(c) and (d)").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, with permission I should like to discuss with this Amendment, Nos. 32 and 33. If this clause is left in its present form the requirements of Section 135(2)(b) of the 1960 Act, that the traffic commissioners, in exercising their discretion as to the group service licence shall have regard to,
  "the extent, if any, to which the needs of the proposed routes … are already adequately served"
  will disappear. This has always been an important consideration by the traffic commissioners when considering applications made to them, or on appeals from existing operators. It is conceded that the principle of the public interest must be a primary consideration. But the effect of the application of the clause as it is now drafted may well be seriously to damage established services. If that happens the losses they suffer may well have to be made up from public funds, or the services may have to be withdrawn altogether. Such an outcome would certainly not be in the public interest, even if in the short term that might appear to be the case.
  To allow the clause to operate as it stands would put an existing bus operator, who felt he had good grounds for objecting to a new service over his established route, in the position of having no effective around of appeal. I am strongly of the opinion that Section 135 of the 1960 Act has served the public well. It is understood, and has been operated over many years by the traffic commissioners in a reasonable manner. It has provided bus operators with a soundly based around for appeal when their interests have been challenged.
  LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I should like to add a few words in support of the Amendment. Bus routes which have been established over a great number of years have come from a history of state carriage routes not only considered in the 1960 Act, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Champion, and not only since the advent of stage carriage motor buses. They date back to the time of the mail carriages used in the middle half of the 18th century. It would be a great tragedy if, by legislation, this whole thing was swept away. I hope that the Government will give serious consideration to the Amendments and perhaps in another place they will look carefully before they sweep away what has been good for so many years.
  LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, Section 135(2) prescribes the matters to which traffic commissioners are to have regard when considering the grant or variation of road services licences, and one of these, as the noble Lord, Lord Champion, pointed out, is in paragraph (b), the extent, if any, to which the needs of the proposed routes, or any of them, are adequately served. It is true to say, as both the noble Lord, Lord Champion, and my noble friend Lord Teviot have said, that over the years a good deal of case law has grown up round the workings of this section, and, in particular, traditional interpretations of the criterion set out in paragraph (b) have made it difficult for new bus services to be authorised when such proposals originate from operators not currently established in the neighbourhood concerned. The noble Lord, Lord Champion, says that this is not a good thing, and presumably he would rather not see new operators coming into the areas concerned: nor would

  165
  my noble friend. But we believe that there is a lack of flexibility here, and that this is undesirable.
  We believe that the commissioners should have greater scope for deciding upon applications in terms of their individual merits, and, in particular, the extent to which they meet the interests of the travelling public. I come back again to what I was saying on the previous clause, that what we have in mind here is to make the criterion the interests of the public. This certainly is not to say that in recasting Section 135 services provided by existing operators will not continue to be taken into account. Indeed, they must be, and it would be a strange interpretation of the public interest if they were not. But we think it important that the commissioners should be fortified in taking a fresh view of their duties uninhibited by the present formulae. This is what the simplified wording of Clause 19(1) seeks to do. We differ on this. We feel the need for leaving the traffic commissioners with greater freedom in the interests of the travelling public, and this is what we are out to achieve. I cannot advise your Lordships to accept these Amendments.
  LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I can only say that I hope it will work out as the noble Lord thinks it will. I have grave doubts about this, otherwise I should not have moved the Amendment. But having regard to the reply, I can only seek leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I think at this moment we have probably taken this, Report stage as far as we can this evening, and I beg to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned.
  Moved, That consideration on Report be now adjourned.—(Lord Aberdare.)
  LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I wonder if I may ask the Government what their intentions are in this matter. Are they honourable? Is it intended that we should further consider the Report stage on Thursday and then take Third Reading some time after the Recess, or is it the intention that we should drive the whole thing through on Thursday? If that is done, it will certainly shorten
  166
  the possibility of putting down Amendments on Third Reading. I wonder what the Government have in mind.
  LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I understand that there have been conversations, through the usual channels, on this matter and that the intention is that we should complete the Report stage on Thursday, and then take the Third Reading afterwards.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I assume that the noble Lord will give an explanation to the House on Thursday as to what the Government's intentions are? We are a very thin House, and I shall probably have something to say about the conduct of business when we take the last item of business to-night. But it is very much in the hands of the House as to whether we should take the Third Reading and remaining stages on Thursday.
  On Question, Motion agreed to and Report stage adjourned accordingly.

  INTERNATIONAL COCOA ORGANISATION (IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES) (No. 2) ORDER 1973
  9.45 p.m.
  BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I beg to move that the International Cocoa Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) (No. 2) Order 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on November 20, be approved. In June of this year an Order was made under the International Organisations Act, 1968, to give legal personality to the International Cocoa Organisation. On July 25, the International Cocoa Agreement Act 1973 was passed, and on August 2 we ratified the International Cocoa Agreement 1972. This agreement, which will undoubtedly be of great benefit to developing countries whose economies depend very largely on their cocoa exports, is administered by the International Cocoa Organisation. As I said in commending the previous Order to the House, we hoped that the Organisation would establish its headquaters in London. I am glad to say that, despite considerable competition from two other European countries, our offer was accepted. I am sure the House will welcome the establishment of the Organisation in this country. It is now in process

  167
  of setting up its offices in the same building as the International Coffee Organisation.
  We are at present negotiating a Headquarters Agreement with the International Cocoa Organisation on the lines of those already concluded with the organisations cencerned with coffee, wheat, sugar and tin. Until this has been done, no immunities can be granted to the Organisation. However, Article 21 (4) of the International Cocoa Agreement requires the Headquarters Government to accord certain tax exemptions to the Organisation and its employees) other than our own nationals), and this is the purpose of the present Order. The exemptions it provides are based on the principle that one State should not tax another State through the intermediary of an international organisation whose funds are derived from the contributions of the member States. I commend this Order to the House.
  Moved, That the Draft International Cocoa Organisation, (Immunities and Privileges) (No. 2) Order, 1973, laid before the House on November 20, 1973, be approved.—(Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie.)
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, we welcome this Order.

  INTERNATIONAL SUGAR ORGANISATION BILL
  9.48 p.m.
  BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. The purpose of the Bill is to ensure that if, as is probable, the United Kingdom has temporarily to leave the International Sugar Organisation, there will be no difficulty about continuing to extend to it the immunities and privileges it currently enjoys. The International Sugar Agreement, 1968, of which Her Majesty's Government is a member, set up the Organisation in 1969. When this Agreement expires at the end of this month it will be replaced by a new, but more limited, interim Agreement, without economic provisions. This interim Agreement is designed, first of all, to
  168
  keep in being the Organisation as a forum where preparations can be put in hand for the negotiation in due course of a fully comprehensive International Sugar Agreement with economic provisions. As your Lordships will be aware, it was not possible to conclude a comprehensive Agreement during the Renegotiation Conference which was held earlier this year in Geneva under UNCTAD auspices. This was mainly because of important differences between the major importing and exporting participants.
  Now that we are in the European Economic Community it is necessary that we should move in step with the Community and take part in the new interim Agreement. Although we hope that a decision by the Community on taking part will be reached soon, it is unlikely that this will be before the current Agreement expires. This means that Her Majesty's Government will be unable to become a party to the interim Agreement (and therefore continue to be a member of the Organisation) as from January 1, 1974. There is therefore a strong probability that there will be a gap in our membership of the Organisation from the end of this year until such time as we can join the interim Agreement or a new comprehensive Agreement. We expect such gap to be of short duration and we shall be doing all we can to persuade the Community to join the Agreement without undue delay. But it will be necessary to ensure that, during any gap in our membership, there is no uncertainty about the status of the Organisation, which is located in London.
  The International Sugar Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1969 gave effect to the Headquarters Agreement between the Government and the Organisation which was signed in May, 1969. Administration of the interim Agreement will also be the responsibility of the Organisation. If we have to leave the Organisation it is doubtful whether the 1969 Order will continue to be effective to carry out the Headquarters Agreement. This is because, under Section 1 of the International Organisations Act 1968, an Order such as the 1969 Order can be made only if the United Kingdom is a member of the Organisation. Because of this uncertainty the present Bill is necessary to ensure that the 1969 Order can

  169
  continue in force during any temporary United Kingdom absence from the Organisation. The only alternative to this Bill would be termination of the Headquarters Agreement, which can be done only by agreement with the Organisation or if the Headquarters are moved from the United Kingdom.
  I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, is deeply interested in this Bill and therefore I should be grateful for his attention. I should just like to say—
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, if the noble Baroness will permit me to intervene, since she was really being a little bit naughty, may I say that I was seeking to give my noble friend some advice on how to deal with this particular matter.
  BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, that had crossed my mind. Nevertheless, it is good to be listened to occasionally.
  LORD SHEPHERD: Occasionally, yes.
  BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government would be most reluctant to end the Agreement or to see the Headquarters moved from London. Such action could have serious repercussions in respect of the other commodity organisations which are already in London; those on tin, wheat, coffee, and cocoa. Moreover, action of this kind could in the longer term affect London's position as the main centre of the world's sugar trade.
  My Lords, as any absence of the United Kingdom from the Organisation is unlikely to be of long duration, I trust that you will agree that the United Kingdom should continue to act as host to the Organisation, and I commend the Bill to the House. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie.)
  9.58 p.m.
  LORD HOY: My Lords, I do not want to delay your Lordships at this late hour, although we get little assistance from the noble Baroness who apparently was much more prepared to argue than to explain the meaning of the Bill, and then wound up by saying that she did not mind being listened to occasionally. There are a great many speeches made
  170
  in this House and frequently a great many people do not listen to them. The Bill is not quite so straightforward as the earlier Order dealing with cocoa, and there are some considerable differences in it.
  I was interested to hear the noble Baroness refer to certain aims with regard to the International Comprehensive Sugar Agreement, although this Bill does not cover that. As one who was associated with the sugar-producing countries, the sugar-producing Commonwealth, I can say that this matter gave us considerable trouble and difficulty, but we felt it well worth while reaching agreements over a considerable number of years. Some doubt has arisen in recent times about the part that the Commonwealth sugar producers are going to play. All the noble Baroness could say tonight—and I hope I am not in any way detracting from what she said—was that she hoped Britain would get some agreement with her partners in the E.E.C. All I can say is that there are still countries in the Commonwealth which are dependent on sugar for their economic survival.
  This we cannot exaggerate in any way. So if agreement must be reached it is most important to a considerable part of the Commonwealth. The Bill, as I see it, provides some tax reliefs, concessions on income tax and duty free supplies. I think this is what it means and this is what we have to extend to certain countries if we want them to come here. I do not dissent from it at this moment, although the noble Baroness is bound to know that in another place and on many occasions she has heard this disputed because these concessions were becoming so extensive we were nearly reaching a stage when more people in the centre of London were enjoying concessions than those who were paying taxes. It gave this Government some trouble and they had to take action over it. While I do not dispute this concession that has been made, let us remember that the Government had to take action to deal with what they thought was becoming an abuse.
  The other point that arises is that we propose to extend these concessions to an organisation of which we are not a member. I think this is an innovation such as we have not had to face before. The noble Baroness is saying that as from

  171
  January 1 we shall be outside this organisation, perhaps temporarily—she hopes temporarily. But we shall be outside, and having got outside we propose to give an organisation of which we are not a member concessions which were born out of our membership of the organisation. In all my long time in Parliament I cannot remember this ever having happened before. I find it difficult to understand how it is done, although I accept the noble Baroness's word for it that we are passing an Act of Parliament in that respect and then we are going to put it right. I should like her to confirm or deny whether there is a precedent for this action. I cannot remember one. So while I will raise no objection at the moment, because I can see the purpose of it, I certainly would like some assurances specifically with regard to our own sugar producers, and in that respect I am speaking about Commonwealth sugar producers; secondly, on the benefits that we are giving to this organisation, or will continue to give it; and thirdly, has there ever been a precedent for taking action of this kind?
  9.57 p.m.
  BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, was so busy consulting with his noble friend Lord Shepherd that he did not hear my explanation of the Bill in detail. I should like to reply to the three questions he put to me. They were very important questions.
  LORD HOY: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Baroness? I do not want to take this matter too far, but I began by saying that the noble Baroness wanted to prolong the proceedings. I would give an assurance now that she is going the right way about it. I listened to every word she said, and if there has been any deficiency in understanding it has been due to her own lack of clarity.
  BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I am sure I am greatly lacking in clarity, naturally, but the fact remains I gave a rather extensive explanation of the Bill—perhaps rather longer than most people would expect at this time of night. But the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, said that he thought that maybe I had not explained it sufficiently yet. However, I should
  172
  like to reply to his specific questions, of which there were three. The first was: What are the implications for the hopeful agreement on the Commonwealth sugar entry? The Bill which I have presented to this House in no way affects the assurance which the Government gave to the developing Commonwealth sugar-producing members, or the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, at meetings in Lancaster House, which are well known, in June, 1971, and March, 1973, which were all about the access of their sugar into the enlarged Community after the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement expires in 1974. It is hardly necessary for me to repeat that the Government stand by those assurances. But your Lordships will recall that we have assured the Governments concerned that the Community's undertakings on sugar represent a firm assurance of a secure and continuing market in the enlarged Community on fair terms for the quantities of sugar covered by the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement in respect of all its existing developing member countries. We have clearly made it known to our Commonwealth partners that we attach great importance to the developing Commonwealth countries continuing to have this assured market in the Community after 1974, and for the full quantity of sugar which they, at present, send us under the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement.
  My Lords, we are confident that satisfactory arrangements on Commonwealth sugar will be concluded. We are encouraged by the fact that the Commission seemed to agree our interpretation of the Community's undertakings on sugar. The proposals which they tabled in July, and which are being considered within the Community, include provisions to import 1·4 million tons of sugar from the developing countries, mainly the Commonwealth, covered by Protocol 22 of the Treaty of Accession, and India. The noble Lord, the Lord Hoy, was rightly exercised about the privileges and immunities which are enjoyed by the International Sugar Organisation. I think that every time such an Order or Bill is presented to your Lordships' House this is a question which exercises all of us. In the case of personnel, they consist of full diplomatic status for the Executive Director, whereas the other members of the staff, who number 27 altogether, have

  173
  immunity from jurisdiction only in respect of their official acts. They are also exempt from United Kingdom income tax on their emoluments which are subject to an internal tax for the benefit of the Organisation. As the present Executive Director is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies he in fact enjoys only the same privileges and immunities as the other members of his staff.
  The last question was: does this Bill extend privileges and immunities to any additional persons? My short answer is that it does not extend them in any way. It continues the scale of privileges and immunities accepted by the House when it approved the draft International Sugar Organisation Immunities and Privilege Order 1969. I think I have answered the noble Lord's three questions.
  LORD HOY: There is one question that I did put to the noble Baroness—I am sure she heard it, but I expect that she forgot it. What about having a precedent for an action of this kind in extending this to an organisation of which we are not a member?
  BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, it is not a question of extending this to an organisation. I said that it does not extend the privileges or immunities in any way. But I think maybe what the noble Lord was asking was whether there was a precedent for our not being a member of an organisation to which these privileges and immunities which were approved by this House apply. To my knowledge there has not been a precedent, and we hope that the gap between now and our entering into this new agreement will be very short indeed.
  On Question, Bill read 2a.
  10.3 p.m.
  BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I beg to move this Bill be not committed.
  Moved, That the Bill be not committed.—(Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie.)
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Earl, the Chief Whip will now appreciate that he is very much at the mercy of your Lordships' House because, quite clearly, if we had a Division on the Motion that is now before us, a quorum would not exist, and the agreed procedure
  174
  between the usual channels would not be fulfilled.
  I raise this point only because here again we are meeting at just beyond 10 o'clock. This is not the first time, and it looks, so far as this week is concerned, that we shall be sitting very late right through the week. Many noble Lords who ought to be here are not here because of the problems of getting home. It may be that Ministers sitting opposite will have their cars to see them home. Noble Lords on this side may have their own, or there may be difficulties.
  I put the point to the noble Earl: is it really tolerable that we should sit and take legislation under these conditions? We are not like another place, where the Members receive a salary. We have other work to do before we come to your Lordships' House, and when we do come some of us have been in this building for at least 12 hours. There is no meal provided during the course of the evening. I should not have thought that the noble Earl would regard this as a tolerable situation. I in no way criticise him, because I recognise the difficulties, but I hope he will approach the noble Lord the Leader of the House and say that if this is being forced upon the House, putting the House in a position that we have to undertake the procedures which the noble Baroness is putting before us, then the proper services of a Second Chamber ought to be provided. If they are not provided, there will be a moment in which the worm will turn and the Government will find themselves without the quorum that is needed for the passage of their legislation. I say this to the noble Earl in the friendliest of terms because I am fully appreciative of all his difficulties, but I hope the noble Earl will accept, and will respond to me, that the situation to-day is intolerable and that steps will be taken.
  I know the difficulty in terms of the Refreshment Department, because the provision of meals is an important factor. They do not wish to run into a deficit, but if another place can have its departments sustained by a Treasury grant in order to provide a service to a Chamber of this Parliament, I should have thought that this should not be a prohibiting factor in the provision of the proper services which your Lordships require. Perhaps if such services were provided we might get a much better attendance in this Chamber

  175
  and the noble Earl would not be quite as exposed as he is to-night to the generosity of an Opposition.
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I accept a great deal of what the noble Lord has said. He knows almost, if not quite, as well as I do that, try as one will, one cannot always forecast satisfactorily how business will develop, particularly when we are dealing with the Committee stage or the Report stage of a Bill, where a number of noble Lords are taking a very keen interest. One can only attempt to forecast how long the discussions on various Amendments will take. I appreciated that the discussions on the Report stage were going a great deal slower than either I or his noble friend thought was likely, and therefore I agreed with noble Lords opposite that we would finish at a certain point in the Marshalled List of Amendments.
  Equally, I did my best to try to meet the requests of noble Lords opposite when I extended the debate which we are having tomorrow over to Wednesday, so that I hope it will be possible to rise at a reasonable hour. Dinner will be available if there are sufficient speakers. I fully accept that this is not a reasonable hour and I am grateful to the noble Lord for his co-operation.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I would not wish to detain the House, but I am sure the noble Earl will know that he has lived on borrowed time since half-past eight this evening. There were occasions on the Report stage when it might have been justifiable to have a Division, but if there had been a Division that would have brought the procedure to a dead stop, which would have created infinitely more difficulty for the noble Earl on Thursday. All I am raising is this question: Is this the right way for the Second Chamber of the British Parliament to conduct its business?
  Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution):
  BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords I beg to move That the Bill be now read a third time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Baroness Tweedsimuir of Belhelvie.)
  LORD HOY: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lady for the
  176
  explanations and what she had to say. I am sorry that the questions put were not put with the greatest clarity, but her explanation was very good. May I say I do not object to the Third Reading?
  On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (DEFINITION OF TREATIES) (NO. 2) ORDER 1973
  10.10 p.m.
  BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I beg to move that the European Draft Communities (Definition of Treaties) (No. 2) Order 1973, the draft of which was laid before your Lordships' House on December 3 be approved.
  My Lords, the House will be familiar with the procedure involved. This is now the third Order in Council of its kind and follows a precedent set in December 1972 and in July this year. The text of all the Agreements specified in the Schedule to the Order are available to the House either as Command Papers or in the Official Journal of the European Communities. I think the purpose of the Agreements listed in the Schedule will be clear to your Lordships from this text, but perhaps I should briefly draw attention to certain aspects of them. The first item listed provides for the opening of tariff preferences for products covered by the European Coal and Steel Community originating in Norway. Items Nos. 2 and 7 in the Schedule are exchanges of letters between representatives of Her Majesty's Government and of the Norwegian authorities and the Finnish authorities, and relates to the Agreement between the two countries and the E.E.C. They contain undertakings governing the opening of duty free quotas for imports of paper products over the period 1974 to 1983 inclusive. Items 3 and 4 in the Schedule are inter-related. Item No. 3, the protocol of May 1973 to the Agreement on Trade and Technical Co-operation between the European Community and member States and the Republic of Lebanon, provides for the United Kingdom, together with Ireland and Denmark, to become contracting parties to the agreement itself.

  177
  My Lords, Item No. 4 in the Schedule is an Agreement the effect of which is to renew the European Community/Lebanon Agreement until June 30, 1974. Neither of these items can enter Community affairs until the parties to them have notified that they have completed the national procedures necessary. The making of the present Order in Council will enable the United Kingdom to notify to that effect. Item 5 in the Schedule relates to one particular aspect of the establishment of the European Monetary Co-operation Fund, namely, its provisional location in Luxembourg. The part of the Instrument establishing the E.M.C.F. is a Council regulation, but the question of the location of the Fund could not be dealt with in this regulation because under the terms of Article 216 of the E.E.C. Treaty, decisions on the setting up of Community institutions must be adopted by common accord of the member States.
  My Lords, lastly I come to Item 6 in the Schedule. This is the E.C.S.C. Agreement with Finland, which parallels the main Agreement between Finland and the E.E.C. The E.E.C. Agreement is already a Community Treaty within the meaning of the European Communities Act, but the E.C.S.C. Agreement was also signed by the member States. Therefore, under Section 1(3) of the Act this Order in Council is required to give the Agreement the same status. As I have said, the draft Order is in accordance with precedents. All seven items listed in the Schedule are new treaties within the scope of Section 1(3) of the Act. I recommend that this Order be approved and beg to move.
  Moved, That the Draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (No. 2) Order 1973, laid before the House on December 3, be approved.—(Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie.)
  LORD HOY: My Lords, we are most grateful to the noble Baroness. It would be less than courteous not to acknowledge the explanation she has given us at this
  178
  late hour. It is helpful when noble Lords have explained to them the meaning of all these Orders. I think the noble Baroness has done it exceedingly well to-night, and we are most grateful to her. We shall not object to the passing of this Order.

  RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE MINISTER FOR EUROPE
  RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE MINISTER FOR EUROPE
  GARDEN MACHINERY AND PETROL PURCHASES
  GARDEN MACHINERY AND PETROL PURCHASES
  WORLD FOOD PROBLEMS AND THE UNITED NATIONS
  WORLD FOOD PROBLEMS AND THE UNITED NATIONS