Sitting of 12 July 1973

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

    Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles
    Mr. Evelyn Kingasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce new legislation dealing with taxi and private hire vehicles.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Lane): We recognise that there is a need for such legislation, but I cannot at present say when it will be introduced.
    Mr. King: Is not current law based upon an Act of 1847, which was designed to deal with the horse and cab and is wildly inappropriate to radio-controlled hire vehicles? Did not the Home Office promise legislation as long ago as 1954, for local authority associations, having regard to the difficulties arising in Portland, Dorset, and elsewhere? Will my hon. Friend try to hurry this up?
    Mr. Lane: Certainly new legislation is overdue. That is quite accepted. But my hon. Friend will remember that we recently passed an Act bringing up to date the situation in London in certain respects, and we are looking at the present legislation for the rest of the country outside London. I realise the urgency of this matter.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Is it fully realised how urgent this matter is now becoming? In many of our towns serious problems of semi-violence are occurring because of the unfairness of the treatment of the taxi-cab operator as against the private hire operator. This is very deeply felt.
    1752
    I ask the hon. Gentleman to hasten action on the matter.
    Mr. Lane: I know that this matter is urgent. I have said that previously. But it is not a simple matter to get new legislation right if we are covering the whole country, where circumstances differ very much from area to area. We are pressing on as quickly as we can.
    Sir T. Beamish: Is my hon. Friend aware of the near impossibility of telling whether a taxi in London is for hire, particularly if the sun is behind it? Is it impossible to devise a system that will cause less frustration than the present one?
    Mr. Lane: I should not fancy myself as a designer of cab signs, but I hope that the new London Cab Act, which the House passed a few months ago, will help considerably in a number of ways in the London area.
    Mr. John Fraser: As the Home Office has now had for a considerable time the Maxwell Stamp Report, which deals with hire cars and taxis and could well be applicable outside London, may we have a statement of the Government's views early in the next Session, as a prelude to legislation?
    Mr. Lane: Certainly, I hope that we shall be able to say something more in the next Session. Meanwhile, we are resuming our discussions with the Greater London Council about the Maxwell Stamp Report and we shall press forward with that also.

    Race Relations Board and Community Relations Commission
    Mr. Sorefasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the cost to public funds of the Race Relations Board, the Community Relations Commission and community relation council, over the period since their inception; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Robert Carr): Between 1968–69 and 1972–73 public expenditure on the board and the commission, including grants by the commission to local community relations councils, has totalled

    1753
    about £3 million. I will, with permission, circulate detailed information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Soref: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the mounting feeling about the expenditure of this money, which it is felt in many quarters is being spent to promote rather than abate racial friction and disharmony? In many cases are not community relations officers employed by the commission and the council Black Power agitators? Will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that there will not be a recurrence of a pamphlet that was published two years ago, financed by the Race Relations Commission, intimidated by Michael X, which cost the taxpayer and ratepayers a considerable amount of money?
    Mr. Carr: I do not accept that the amount of money, over the four-year period about which I have spoken, is an unreasonable amount in relation to the work that these bodies do. I most cer-

    Financial Year

    1968–69

    1969–70

    1970–71

    1971–72

    1972–73*

    £

    £

    £

    £

    £

    Race Relations Board† (Home Office grant)

    108,958

    161,066

    162,159

    184,816

    233,515

    Community Relations Commission† (Home Office grant-in-aid)

    185,000‡

    265,000

    365,000

    462,000

    772,000

    Grants by Community Relations Commission to community relations councils, etc.§

    66,896

    138,666

    182,187

    234,533

    305,136

    * Provisional figures subject to audit.

    † As shown in Appropriation Accounts.

    ‡ Including part-year grant-in-aid to National Committee for Commonwealth Immigrants.

    § These grants are made from the commission's own grant-in-aid from the Home Office

    Accommodation costs and certain other expenditure of the Race Relations Board are borne on other Departmental Votes and are not included in the table above.

    Shoplifting
    Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress of his Department's review on shoplifting.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Mark Carlisle): The Home Office Standing Committee on Crime Prevention recently received the report of the Working Party on Internal Shop Security. The main report, and a short version intended primarily for the small shopkeepers, will be made available as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Adley: I am most grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for his continuing interest and help with this subject. Does he accept that the large super-
    1754
    tainly cannot accept my hon. Friend's interpretation of the intention, let alone the effect of their work.
    Mr. Molloy: Does not the Home Secretary agree that this endeavour is one of the most civilised upon which any civilised nation could embark, to ease tension among all sorts of people in various communities? Does he not further agree that if there is anything that can damage race relations it is the sort of question that he had to answer a moment ago?
    Mr. Carr: There are many sorts of questions that can damage race relations. One important thing, which I hope all of us will always keep in mind when we draw attention, for example, to some of the difficulties suffered by minority groups, is the overall success of race relations in this country and the overall very high level of tolerance that the British people sustain.
    Following is the information:
    markets are the main cause of the problem, and that there has been an unfortunate and simultaneous increase in the number of grocery supermarkets and in shoplifting? Does he agree that one of the worst byproducts of the present system seems to be that people who have never previously been dishonest are finding themselves up on criminal charges and being convicted of having committed crimes?
    Mr. Carlisle: I have always accepted that the modern methods of shopping and the ways in which goods are displayed inevitably lead to greater temptation, but I do not think that is any reason why any of us should condone dishonesty as such.
    Mr. Greville Janner: Is the Minister of State aware that none of us would defend

    1755
    the dishonest? What worries so many of us is that the honest are likely to be charged and prosecuted, and that many of those prosecutions fail, by which time those concerned are ill? When will he take this type of prosecution out of the hands of the private shopkeeper and put it into the hands of the police, where it belongs?
    Mr. Carlisle: The hon. and learned Gentleman knows full well that under the general law either the police or a private individual can prosecute. I see no basis on which to withdraw that right from the private individual in one sector while leaving it to private individuals in all other sectors.

    Prisoners (Conjugal Visits)
    Mr. Meacherasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce conjugal visiting in prisons and other places of detention.
    Mr. Carlisle: My right hon. Friend has no such plans.
    Mr. Meacher: In view of the desirability of preserving marital relationships for the purposes of rehabilitation, in view of the needs of prisoners' wives, in view of the need to reduce homosexuality in prison, and because of the dangers of increased personality breakdown arising from the trend towards longer sentences, will the Minister consider carefully a limited experimental introduction of conjugal visiting in prison, since this has already been tried successfully in several countries?
    Mr. Carlisle: No, we shall not. I fully accept the importance of retaining family ties—that is why we have extended the opportunities for home visits towards the end of sentences and are also encouraging more visiting of prisoners and granting them more opportunity to correspond by letter—but the idea of conjugal visits is wholly unacceptable to many people. I believe that it would do nothing but cause embarrassment and, indeed, indignity to many of the wives concerned.
    Mrs. Renée Short: Does the Minister of State recall that an all-party Select Committee made precisely this proposal to his predecessor in 1968? Is he aware that in all the countries where this has been operating for some time there has
    1756
    been a considerable reduction of tension within prison and, therefore, a much easier life for prison officers, who are able to do the job they are intended to do, which is not simply to keep prisoners under lock and key but to do rehabilitation work? Will the hon. and learned Gentleman consider the report again and see whether it is not possible to carry out an experiment on a limited scale?
    Mr. Carlisle: Of course we are aware of the report to which the hon. Lady refers. We have given consideration to it and also to the views of the committee under Professor Radzinowicz, but we have come firmly to the view that the practical problem of producing a system of conjugal visits that could in any way be acceptable are overwhelming. It is a question of the selection of the prisoners concerned, the selection of the relationship to the women outside from whom they wish to receive a visit, and the selection of the places in which the visits could take place. We believe that the practical arguments against overwhelm the arguments that the hon. Lady has mentioned.

    Urban Aid
    Mr. Horamasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will establish a comprehensive index of social deprivation for the purposes of disbursing urban aid.
    Mr. Lane: In allocating urban aid to particular areas and projects my right hon. Friend takes account of the assessment made by local authorities of their needs and priorities, as well as of national considerations, but he is considering how the system of evaluation can be further improved.
    Mr. Horam: I am glad to hear that. Is the Minister aware that considerable concern is being expressed about the way in which urban aid is being dispersed? It appears to many local authorities that this is a very hit-and-miss method. Several years ago there was an attempt by the Home Office to establish an index of social deprivation of the kind for which I am asking, but that work was discontinued. Will the Under-Secretary re-establish this kind of work and give it priority?
    Mr. Lane: As I said in my original answer, we are trying to find a more

    1757
    sophisticated method of assessment. It may be that something on the lines the hon. Gentleman suggests will some day be right. I am not at present convinced that it is right. If the hon. Gentleman has any suggestions to make from his own experience in Gateshead, which has had a large amount of urban aid, we shall be glad to consider them. I discuss this matter with local authorities when I go round visiting and we are trying to improve our methods in the light of experience.
    Mr. Kaufmanasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what specific aid he plans to provide for the Ardwick constituency in particular and for the City of Manchester in general, in fulfilment of his responsibilities for coordinating Government aid for deprived urban areas.
    Mr. R. Carr: Manchester City Council has submitted a number of schemes in response to the latest urban programme circular, and I hope to announce by the end of September which have been approved. Of the schemes approved in the past for Manchester, 11 can be identified as relating particularly to the Ardwick constituency.
    As to the future, I shall be considering with my colleagues how best to coordinate all the relevant programmes designed to help deprived urban areas in order to try to increase their combined effectiveness.
    Mr. Kaufman: I thank the Minister for that helpful answer. May I ask him to add to his list of projects for the city of Manchester two in my constituency, which are being starved for lack of funds? One is playground facilities for the Wenlock Way area, where mothers have had to barricade the roads because of the dangers to their children, and the other is benches for old people in the Park Crescent area, an amenity badly needed in that part of Manchester.
    Mr. Carr: I note the hon. Gentleman's suggestions and shall consider them. He probably knows that one of the 11 schemes I mentioned was for a playground elsewhere in his constituency, so it will be seen that that sort of project certainly qualifies.
    Mr. Charles R. Morris: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that during his
    1758
    recent visit to Manchester—which, coincidentally, was on the day he assumed responsibility for co-ordinating Government aid to deprived urban areas—he commented that human needs seemed to have been forgotten? When considering the schemes he has announced today, will he bear in mind the need for more youth clubs in the Openshaw area?
    Mr. Carr: Yes, indeed, Sir. When I see some of the concrete deserts, not only in Manchester, I think they are a disgrace—and I do not care who built them. In future urban development we must pay far more attention to trying not to break up old communities and to meeting the community needs of the new communities in the new development.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: May I press the right hon. Gentleman a little further on the question of the scope of his powers of co-ordination of other Departments? It is becoming increasingly clear that many hon. Members feel that a wide co-ordination is now needed to deal with urban property. In particular, are the right hon. Gentleman's powers such as to suggest that wherever there is a major housing programme provision should be made for such things as facilities for young people, nursery accommodation, and provision for old people within the estates—which can normally be done far less expensively than if they are added on by a departmental budget afterwards?
    Mr. Carr: These are early days yet. I must learn to walk before I start to run in this difficult matter. It was just because my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister felt the great importance of bringing these things together that he asked me to act as a co-ordinating Minister.

    Firearms Control
    Mr. Luceasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations he has received from the public on the Green Paper entitled "The Control of Firearms in Great Britain".
    Mr. Carlisle: The Home Office has received more than 3,200 letters.
    Mr. Luce: In view of those representations and the widespread concern that many of these administrative controls proposed may prove to be unnecessarily burdensome, will my hon. and learned Friend

    1759
    consider extending still further the period of consultation on the Green Paper? I fully support any measures which will effectively control the use of firearms in crime, but does not my hon. and learned Friend agree that the strongest deterrent is the fuller implementation by the courts of the new powers of imprisonment they have available?
    Mr. Carlisle: We are giving the greatest possible consideration to the large volume of representations that we have received, and we shall continue to do so. I am grateful to have the opportunity of repeating that this is a consultative document, on which we wish to hear representations. I cannot agree to extending beyond the end of July the time limit which we have already extended once, as we believe that it is important that we should be able to introduce legislation at an early date to do what we consider is necesssary about this matter. The final part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question is a matter for the courts and not one on which I should comment.
    Mr. Raphael Tuck: It is now some time since the Green Paper was published. It not the Minister of State aware that since the Green Paper came out there have been further cases of intimidation with imitation weapons? Will he expedite either a White Paper or legislation? Has he given any consideration to my suggestion that all imitation firearms should be brightly coloured, so that people know the difference?
    Mr. Carlisle: We are giving consideration to all suggestions. It has been pointed out to us that someone could sell a brightly-coloured firearm and a pot of paint alongside it. I am not prepared to expedite matters further. It is reasonable to allow until the end of July for representations, and that we propose to do.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Will my hon. and learned Friend confirm that it is not the Government's intention to restrict the lawful use of smooth-bore firearms for such activities as clay pigeon shooting or normal legitimate sport?
    Mr. Carlisle: We have made it clear that there is no intention to prohibit the legitimate use of firearms and shotguns.
    Mr. Pardoe: Has the Minister of State's attention been drawn by the Leader of the House to the suggestion I made in
    1760
    business questions about two weeks ago that this question should be referred to a Select Committee, particularly in view of the direct conflict of evidence between the statistics in the Green Paper—which many hon. Members on both sides may well have believed at the time—and those given in the book by Colin Greenwood, based on research done at the Cambridge Institute of Criminology?
    Mr. Carlisle: I do not accept that it is a disagreement on the statistics as such. It may be a disagreement on what should be deduced from them. I see no basis for a Select Committee. I repeat that we are receiving numerous representations. I have already received certain deputations and made it clear that I am available to receive others, and officials will continue to be available.

    Illegal Immigrants
    Mr. R. C. Mitchellasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many immigrants who entered this country illegally have been detained by the police; and how many have been deported since the recent House of Lords judgment.
    Mr. R. Carr: The information available to me is that since 1st January 1973, 94 Commonwealth citizens have been detained as suspected illegal entrants, of whom 20 have been detained since the decision of the House of Lords on 11th June. Since that date, one illegal entrant has been removed from this country and this was at his own request.
    Mr. Mitchell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a breakdown of the 20 who have been detained since the House of Lords judgment into categories of those who were known to the police and had reported to the police before the House of Lords judgment?
    Mr. CarrI cannot do that at the moment because these and all the other cases are being considered, Of the total of 94, 72 had entered before 1st January this year. Of these 72, 14 will have been removed, 13 of them before the House of Lords decision and the one that I have mentioned at his own request since. The other cases are under consideration and the point raised by the hon. Member is one of the factors about which I am inquiring.
    Mr. Deedes: In view of the amount of investigatory detail likely to be involved in my right hon. Friend's policy, which may either swamp him and his officials or tend to be skimped, will he give some thought to the possibility of an independent board with powers to make recommendations to him about these matters?
    Mr. Carr: This is a matter in which ministerial examination and discretion are the most appropriate ways of proceeding. So far, we are not being swamped. If we were to be swamped I should have to consider the matter.
    Mr. John Fraser: Has the Home Secretary studied the report in The Times this morning that those affected by the House of Lords decision are being subjected to blackmail and intimidation and are providing for certain right wing racialists a new sport of illegal immigrant manhunting? Will he keep a careful eye on this situation and the damage it can cause to race relations?
    Mr. Carr: I saw that report and I was also glad to see the remarks of the acting chief constable who made clear that there was to be no witch-hunt—those were not his words, but that is what he meant. I am about to send a circular to chief constables advising them in the terms of the statements I have made to this House and stressing the "no witch-hunt" point and the need to avoid anything that could be construed as harassment and in particular the development of any practice of asking for passports in connection with minor crimes.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Will my right hon. Friend put firmly on the record that the proper enforcement of the law is not and cannot be a witch-hunt, even if officials in the community relations industry think that it is?
    Mr. Carr: Of course, proper enforcement of the law cannot be a witch-hunt. What can become a witch-hunt is the way in which people inform on their fellow citizens, and that is what we should all be concerned about. We have always taken a serious view about that in our society and I do not believe that any of us would wish to see that become any part of the enforcement of the law.

    Drugs Trafficking ("Truckers' Bible")
    Mr. Ronald Bellasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in view of the publication of information and instruction on trafficking in drugs, such as the "Truckers' Bible", a copy of which has been made available to him, he will make an assessment on the effect of such publications on the illegal drug traffic; and if he will issue advice designed to counter these publications.
    Mr. Lane: I deplore the publication of this pamphlet and I understand that it is being considered by the Director of Public Prosecutions. I doubt whether the assessment suggested by my hon. and learned Friend is practicable, but we shall continue to watch the situation very closely. The Government are determined to do everything in their power to prevent drug trafficking and have strengthened the resources available for that purpose.
    Mr. Bell: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the effect of this demoralising, coarse and essentially evil document is to excuse and glamorise the trafficker in drugs and thereby to enmesh the more impressionable young people? Will he bear in mind that this document is published by a body that is a registered charity, and will he do something—if it lies within his power—to get this body unfrocked as a charity?
    Mr. Lane: Some of the pamphlet certainly amounts to encouragement, but I understand that the Release organisation itself is not a charity, although it gets some finance from the Release Trust, which is a registered charity. I understand that the Charity Commissioners have recently asked for the latest accounts of the Release Trust.

    Borstal (Allocation Centres)
    Mr. Fowlerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement on the length of time spent at allocation centres by young offenders under borstal sentence indicating how many, during the last year, have spent over one month awaiting allocation.
    Mr. Carlisle: Most young men sentenced to borstal training in England and Wales spend two or three weeks at an allocation centre. I regret that the information requested in the second part of the Question is not readily available and could not be obtained without disproportionate cost.
    Mr. Fowler: That is a pity, because one young offender from Nottingham spent six weeks at an allocation centre awaiting allocation to borstal. Is not the most unsatisfactory feature of these allocation centres that they are within the walls of two prisons—Wormwood Scrubs and Strangeways Prison, Manchester, which were built in the last century? When can we afford proper allocation centres?
    Mr. Carlisle: I cannot provide the answer in the form requested, but I can state that on 3rd July this year only 19 offenders in allocation centres had been there for more than one month. In the middle of 1970 the average period spent there was four months before being sent to borstal, and I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that this represents a great improvement. I accept what he says about allocation centres within existing prisons. They are in separate wings of the prisons. No doubt my hon. Friend will be aware of the two new purpose-built remand and assessment centres now being built at Glen Parva. in Leicestershire, and Feltham.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: In view of the high recidivism rate in borstals, the encouraging reports in the newspaper this morning about community service orders for young offenders, and the encouraging reports from two borstals that are deeply involved in community service projects, will the hon. and learned Gentleman consider giving to these projects, which have had such an encouraging effect both within and outside borstal, greater priority over the rules that applied in the past, which may no longer be appropriate?
    Mr. Carlisle: I am grateful for what the hon. Member has said, and I welcome her comments about the community service order. The Government are anxious to expand the experiment to other areas of the country as soon as possible and we hope that the new
    1764
    powers for the courts will be used. I am aware of the hon. Lady's comments about the two borstals, and here again there is encouraging evidence. We are anxious to expand all we can in dealing with more offenders in the community, and it is at that that a large part of our policies are aimed.
    Mr. Grieve: Does my hon. and learned Friend accept that the rate of recidivism in borstals is high, as the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) has said? Will he give the present rate? Is it not the case, in view of the frequent use of borstal as a last resort in dealing with young offenders, that the rate of those who do not return is considerable?
    Mr. Carlisle: I do not have the figures that would answer my hon. and learned Friend's question. Regrettably, I have to accept what the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) said. The rate of recidivism is higher than we would wish, but we are involved here with more intractable cases, and therefore any success at non-recidivism at this stage is a success that has not been achieved at some earlier stage in the penal system.

    Animal Experiments
    Miss Fookesasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of animal experiments carried out for the last year for which figures are available were for strictly medical purposes; and what proportion were for the other categories.
    Mr. Lane: All experiments under the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876 must be performed with a view to the advancement by new discovery of physiological knowledge or of knowledge which will be useful for saving and prolonging life or alleviating suffering, but I regret that within this definition the figures are not subdivided so that "strictly medical purposes" can be identified.
    Miss Fookes: Will my hon. Friend tell me why they are not so subdivided?
    Mr. Lane: Because they never have been. But I shall be as helpful as I can. Of the total experiments carried out in 1971, 35 per cent. were accounted for by experiments for the diagnosis of

    1765
    disease in man and animals, for the mandatory testing of drugs, and for cancer research. A large proportion of those not classified were carried out for medical purposes.
    Mr. Pardoe: Will the Minister confirm that in exercising its responsibilities the Home Office interprets the law to mean that any experiment that will further scientific knowledge is legitimate? Is he aware that this is a licence to commit atrocities for any scientist who sells his moral judgment for a mess of molecules?
    Mr. Lane: I reject completely what the hon. Member has said. I should like him to see several letters that I have received from my own constituents this week defending the administration of the Act for the purposes of human wellbeing and for the protection of animals.
    Mr. Woodhouse: Will my hon. Friend confirm that at least wherever possible everything is done to encourage those engaged in medical research to use methods of research that do not involve experiments on animals?
    Mr. Lane: Yes, Sir. The latest provisional figures that I have seen of total experiments indicate that the trend may be levelling off, or turning downwards, which rather bears out the point that my hon. Friend has made.

    Consumer Protection
    Mrs. Sally Oppenheimasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce measures to comply with the Consumer Protection Charter adopted by the Council of Europe on 28th May 1973.
    Mr. Lane: I understand that this charter is still being considered by the Council's Committee of Ministers, but so far as measures to ensure the safety of consumer goods are concerned, we shall pay proper regard to its general principles.
    Mrs. Oppenheim: Is my hon. Friend aware that in 1971, the latest year for which figures are available, 8,170 children were treated in hospitals in England and Wales for the toxic effects of non-medicinal substances? Is he satisfied at having to make judgments on the need for regulations on the basis of figures already 18 months old?
    Mr. Lane: We never have figures as up-to-date as we should like. I know that it is a very serious problem, and I am grateful for all that my hon. Friend does to keep it in our minds. We are now involved in particular in work in the EEC to prepare new directives for the safety and labelling of products such as the household products that my hon. Friend particularly has in mind.
    Mr. Greville Janner: Is the Minister aware that the number of young children who are accidentally poisoned each year is growing considerably and that the Government are doing absolutely nothing to introduce regulations requiring poisons to be sold only in child-resistant containers?
    Mr. Lane: I do not accept that for a moment. It is not a simple matter to have a totally safe system where children are involved. We must produce sensible regulations, steadily more effective, and increase our publicity—which we are doing—so that potentially dangerous things are kept out of children's reach.

    Race Relations
    Mr. Whiteheadasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will seek to amend the Race Relations Acts to cover incitement through the medium of films.
    Mr. Lane: It would be for the courts to determine whether the Act as it stands covers incitement through the medium of films. My right hon. Friend has no proposals for introducing legislation to amend the Act.
    Mr. Whitehead: As the letter of the Act, in Section 6, specifically covers published and therefore printed material, wilt not the hon. Gentleman order an investigation into the use to which films are sometimes put? Will he in particular exercise his right as a member of the Conservative Party to see a film called "England, Whose England?"—a film made and circulated by elements of the Monday Club and which many people feel is a disservice to those working for racial harmony, including the hon. Gentleman's own Department?
    Mr. Lane: I should strongly condemn any film that might inflame racial feelings. If we find that it is necessary to have an

    1767
    investigation, of course we shall have it. But the question of what is published turns a good deal on how public the performance may be, and I have no evidence that the film the hon. Gentleman mentioned has been shown publicly, in that sense. However, we shall watch the position carefully.

    Parking Offences (Diplomatic Immunity)
    Mr. Greville Jannerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many and what percentage of diplomats guilty of parking violations claimed diplomatic privilege during the last 12 months for which records are available.
    Mr. Worsleyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons have been charged with infringement of the parking regulations during the last convenient period and subsequently have been shown to have enjoyed diplomatic immunity.
    Mr. Carlisle: The great majority of parking infringements are dealt with under the fixed penalty procedure and do not result in charges being brought. According to police records, the total number of fixed penalty notices cancelled on grounds of diplomatic immunity during the six months to the end of April 1973 was 17,557. The police report the number of incidents and the missions involved, but I regret that the records do not enable us to identify the number of different diplomats concerned in these incidents.
    Mr. Janner: Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the figures show a disgraceful abuse by some diplomats of the hospitality so willingly accorded to them in this country? Will he consult the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary on how the matter can properly and decently be dealt with?
    Mr. Carlisle: I will, indeed, Sir. It is the duty of persons enjoying immunity to respect the laws of the country to which they are accredited. Every month the attention of the heads of diplomatic missions is drawn to fixed penalty notices incurred by members of their staff.
    Mr. Worsley: Does not my hon. and learned Friend agree that it is a com-
    1768
    plete nonsense that diplomatic immunity, intended to allow diplomats to pursue their affairs without intervention by the Government, should be extended in any way to parking regulations of this sort?
    Mr. Carlisle: The question of diplomatic immunity is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. At present diplomats are entitled to claim it and, as we hear, they do claim it.
    Mr. Paget: Would not a simple plan be to instruct the police to tow away any diplomat's car guilty of a parking violation?
    Mr. Carlisle: That seems to be another question. One of the difficulties might be to be sure that the car is that of a diplomat and not of someone else.
    Sir J. Rogers: Has my hon. and learned Friend any figures for the number of British diplomats abroad who enjoy similar immunity? If they were published, would not such figures look just as bad as the figures that he has announced today?
    Mr. Carlisle: I am not in possession of those figures. Indeed, they would not come from my Department even if I had them.

    Deported Persons
    Mr. Atkinsonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of those deported or removed under police supervision during the last two years from the United Kingdom still remain overseas; how many thus remain separated from their wives and children left in the United Kingdom; and if he will reconsider their position.
    Mr. Lane: The total is 1,120, of whom 15 left dependent wives and children here. We review all such cases periodically or on application for a deportation order to be revoked. There is a right of appeal where revocation is refused.
    Mr. Atkinson: Does the Minister thoroughly understand the suffering of those 15 families? The suffering of young families who have the husband taken away for an unspecified time and who do not know whether he will ever be allowed to rejoin them must be near to the suffering endured by a young

    1769
    widow. Will the Minister instruct high commisions to inform him immediately a person is deported or forcibly extracted from this country? Will he consider directly such matters, and sympathetically encourage husbands to come back again?
    Mr. Lane: I do not think that there is any need to take further steps. Many of the people deported are rejoining their families, who have been overseas all the time.
    Sir D. Renton: Are the families of those who are deported given the opportunity of returning with their husbands and fathers to their country of origin at our expense?
    Mr. Lane: Yes, that is so.
    Mr. John Fraser: In those cases where a man has been deported and separated from his English-born wife, is not that a clear case of the immigration rules discriminating against women? Will the Home Office consider that matter afresh?
    Mr. Lane: The rules about which the hon. Gentleman is talking were introduced by the Labour Government in 1969. I am glad that the Opposition now view the matter differently and disapprove of it. There is no case for altering our present rules. We look at these sorts of factors before we make a final decision about every individual deportation case.

    Violent Crime (Detection Rates)
    Mr. Norman Lamontasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is satisfied with the detection rates for crimes of violence in the London metropolitan area.
    Mr. R. Carr: In each of the three years from 1970 to 1972 the Metropolitan Police have cleared up more than seven in 10 of known crimes of violence against the person. I regard that as a commendable performance, taking into account the policing problems of the London area.
    Mr. Lamont: Has my right hon. Friend had any report from the Metropolitan Police about the deplorable attack on Professor Eynsenck at the LSE? Does he agree that the matter should have been investigated by the police? Will he comment on existing police practice in the light of the statement attributed in the Press to the
    1770
    police, that as the attack took place on private property and as no complaint has been made no investigation was called for?
    Mr. Carr: It is a fact that unless they are invited into private property the police do not have the right to enter, except when they have reason to apprehend in advance that there will be a major disturbance to public order. In the case to which my hon. Friend refers they had no such intimation that such a thing might happen. Subsequently—I think that my memory is right—Professor Eynsenck was interviewed and he specifically requested that no further inquiries should be made by the police.
    Mrs. Castle: When considering the problem of crimes of violence, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that although many battered wives are the victims of such crimes they are debarred under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme from any compensation for their injuries? Will he carefully study the case of Mrs. Joan Rosina Smith, of which I have sent him particulars, and urgently review the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme so that people like Mrs. Smith can receive some compensation for their appalling injuries?
    Mr. Carr: I am reviewing the scheme at the moment. I shall take into account in the review the general point made by the right hon. Lady. I shall look most carefully at the case which she has written to me about.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: I revert to the supplementary question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Norman Lamont). Is it not the case that many university authorities are now incapable of keeping the peace and obtaining free speech. That being so, should not consideration be given to the question whether a university should any longer be treated as a private place?
    Mr. Carr: That would raise rather profound issues. I suspect that many people in the university world, or people interested in it, might take such a change very seriously. It is a very difficult matter.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: I absolutely agree that the record of the Metropolitan Police is excellent in respect of crimes

    1771
    of violence and organised crime. However, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the area in which a shortage of manpower shows up most severely is that of what might be described broadly as routine non-violent crimes, such as thefts and actions against property? Last year the clear-up rate of the Metropolitan Police for such crimes was 30·3 per cent. as against 49·9 per cent. for the provincial forces. Does not that indicate how serious the position is for that kind of crime in the Metropolis?
    Mr. Carr: It is serious in the Metropolis and much more prevalent there than elsewhere. The more prevalent such crime is, the more difficult it is to get a high rate of clear-up.

    COUNTER-INFLATION POLICY
    Mr. Norman Lamontasked the Prime Minister what plans he has for further meetings with the TUC.
    Mr. Adleyasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the progress of his talks with the TUC and CBI.
    Mr. Carterasked the Prime Minister when he next expects to meet the TUC.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): As I told the House on Tuesday, I shall be meeting representatives of the TUC on 27th July and of the CBI on 30th July.
    Mr. Lamont: Is it not the case that the common interest between the Government and the TUC is in maintaining the rate of economic growth? As more concern has been expressed about the amount of spare capacity available for expansion in the economy, will the Government consider making available publicly, as does the Federal Reserve Board of the United States, regular estimates of the amount of spare capacity in the economy? At the least, as this matter affects confidence, will the Government, particularly in the light of the NEDO report, make fully known precisely what their views are about the amount of spare capacity in the economy?
    The Prime Minister: I shall consider my hon. Friend's suggestion. We have
    1772
    already told the House that we have offered to make available to both the TUC and the CBI all the information that we have about the future path of growth in this country. If my hon. Friend thinks that it would be helpful for the Government to consider whether to indicate where there is spare capacity, I am perfectly prepared to have the matter investigated.
    Mr. Carter: I remind the Prime Minister of two statements that were made in the Conservative election manifesto, "A Better Tomorrow". First, it was said in that manifesto that the Conservatives were utterly opposed to wage control, and, secondly, that inflation was the direct result of devaluation. Given those two statements, how can the Prime Minister and his Government possibly expect to get a reasonable agreement from the trade unions?
    The Prime Minister: We have had a perfectly reasonable arrangement since last November. We went in detail over the whole of this ground with the TUC and the CBI. We then accepted responsibility for taking the action. There has been co-operation from the employers and from the leaders of most of the unions. I do not see why, in continuing the talks as we are doing, we should not work out a situation that will allow greater cooperation between all concerned and a steady increase in growth. That must be to the interests of the unions just as much as to the rest of the country.
    Mr. Adley: Has my right hon. Friend seen, published today, a general household survey? Further, has he seen the third leader in The Times this morning entitled, "Britain: a rather comfortable country"? Whilst I recognise that there are selected pockets of hardship which need to respond to selectivity, does not my right hon. Friend agree that the survey shows a picture of a country very different from that which is frequently and vehemently painted by the Opposition? Are not the Opposition, as usual, being thoroughly hypocritical in the way that they are trying to use food prices and other issues to damage the Government?
    The Prime Minister: I agree that that is the outcome of the survey. It is true

    1773
    that the Government have done more than any other Government to help specific deprived groups in the community. Nobody can deny that. It is also true that much still remains to be done. That can be achieved only by sustained growth, which we hope to keep at its present rate. It is in the interests of everyone that that Growth should be sustained.
    Mr. Healey: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how he will justify to the TUC the fact that since last November real wages have been falling although the nation's wealth has been increasing at the rate of 5 per cent. and that profits have been increasing at more than twice that rate?
    The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman wants to deal with profits first I can tell him that the TUC has acknowledged—this was part of the structure of the talks—that if the investment which it wants is to be achieved there must be an increase in profitability over the very low levels of the last part of the 1960s. There is no disagreement about this. In any case, profits are controlled under the code, and the code has as one of its key features the firm control of the level of profitability.
    Mr. Healey rose—
    Sir Harmar Nicholls: Is there any way whereby the Government and the TUC can get together to work out a formula that will deal with the situation which sometimes arises at works meetings when people are honestly trying to work out disputes but disruptive elements infiltrate as though they were bona fide employees with a view to upsetting the whole thing?
    The Prime Minister: There may be difficulties of a particular kind such as my hon. Friend mentions. I think I know the case to which he refers. This is a matter in which those concerned in the factories must be able to use their influence and reach a reasonable understanding.
    Mr. Healey: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that a moment ago the Prime Minister said that he would first deal with the question why profits had risen—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I was about to call the right hon. Gentleman again for a
    1774
    supplementary question. The content of an answer is not a matter of order.
    Mr. Healey: I am grateful. Now that the Prime Minister has purported to explain why profits have been rising at over 30 per cent. will he tell us how he will explain to the TUC that wages have been falling, in real terms, over the past nine months?
    The Prime Minister: What I will tell the TUC is that with the standstill having extended over the last quarter of 1972 and the first quarter of this year a comparison with the previous six months will show that during the standstill real disposable income rose by 2·1 per cent. That is what I will tell the TUC. I will go on to say that during the first six months of the Labour Government's freeze in 1966 personal disposable income fell by 2·5 per cent. compared with the previous six months. That is the difference between the two standstills.
    Mr. Harold Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the 12 months following the Labour Government's four-and-a-half-months' statutory freeze the cost of living index rose by 1·4 per cent.? Is he further aware that during the whole of his six-months' freeze the cost of living rose at 9½ per cent. per annum?
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    The Prime Minister: I will answer all right. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman recognises that the terms of trade during that time remained almost stationary. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman professes to be an economist and statistician, yet he cannot understand the simplest thing about the terms of trade. The terms of trade in that period remained stationary, whereas the Economist index showed that during our period of freeze the cost of raw materials had gone up 70 per cent.

    SPEECH THERAPY
    Mr. Pavittasked the Prime. Minister if he will make one Minister responsible for all speech therapy training and provision..
    The Prime Minister: Speech therapy services will become the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of

    1775
    State for Social Services in England and of the respective Secretaries of State in Scotland and Wales as part of the reorganisation of the health service. No decisions have yet been reached on the recommendations in the Quirk Report about speech therapy training.
    Mr. Pavitt: Is the Prime Minister seized of the importance to a specially deprived group of the crisis that exists in this service? Is he further aware that, although after 1st April next the responsibility will rest with the health services rather than the education services, the crisis is such that there will be little left of speech therapy, first, unless action is taken immediately to implement the Quirk Report recommendations and, secondly, unless it is taken by the end of September to deal with the anomalies between the pay scales of those employed in the education sector and the health sector, respectively?
    The Prime Minister: I recognise the importance of this matter, which the hon. Gentleman has previously raised in the House. My right hon. Friend has made an announcement about the organisation. The other decisions are now being considered. Included in such matters is that of provision of therapists. The Department has been consulting all the organisations concerned which naturally takes a little time. I recognise the urgency of the matter. It has not been suggested, so far as I am aware, that the anomalies might be put to the Pay Board. I shall look into this.
    Mr. Costain: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the excellent work that this profession is doing, particularly of rehabilitation after a road accident involving brain damage? Will he make sure that nothing is done to hamper that good work?
    The Prime Minister: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that undertaking. The real problem is how to get a greater supply of those who can help in these circumstances.
    Mr. Driberg: Does the phrase "speech therapy training" include training for autistic children and adolescents, for whom, at present, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the provision is totally inadequate?
    The Prime Minister: This is part of the same problem. Obviously these children are included among those for whom provision has to be made.

    SPAIN
    Mr. Ridsdaleasked the Prime Minister if he will seek to pay an official visit to Spain.
    The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so, Sir.
    Mr. Ridsdale: Even if the Prime Minister does not make this visit, will he look into the position of 41,000 retirement pensioners abroad, 3,000 of whom live in Spain, who have not been getting the increased pension from the date they left the United Kingdom? Since these pensioners are no strain on our resources, because they do not use our housing, food or fuel, surely we should do something to help these least well-off, following the fall in the value of sterling. Is this not a debt of honour that we owe to such pensioners?
    The Prime Minister: We are trying to reach reciprocal agreement with Spain on this matter. We have made progress in recent weeks and I hope that before long it will be possible to conclude an agreement dealing with the problem.
    Mr. Terry Davis: Would the Prime Minister not like to have the opportunity to talk not only to British pensioners living in Spain but to those Spanish citizens who have just returned from Mozambique?
    The Prime Minister: That is an internal matter for the Spanish authorities. It is not a matter for me.

    FOOD SUBSIDIES
    Mr. Joel Barnettasked the Prime Minister if he will institute an interdepartmental inquiry into the consequences of selective food subsidies.
    The Prime Minister: As I have already made clear, the Government have considered this question very carefully. There are overwhelming arguments against any general measures of this kind. But I am always ready to discuss any particular proposal for action on prices.
    Mr. Barnett: Does the Prime Minister agree with the Chancellor's massive condemnation of food subsidies, which presumably would be endorsed by his hon. and right hon. Friends? If he does, is he really acting in good faith in negotiating with the TUC and telling it that he is prepared to consider food subsidies?
    The Prime Minister: What my right hon. Friend said was that there were certain specific instances of food subsidies that were not only being considered or discussed but had been implemented, and are still being implemented. What he was arguing against was what would undoubtedly be massive and expensive subsidies for particular items that are in short supply in the world.
    Sir Gilbert Longden: Will my right hon. Friend once again make it clear to the Opposition that if necessities are scarce, and therefore dear, and are artificially made cheaper by State subsidies but are not rationed, those who are rich will get more than those who are poor?
    The Prime Minister: That is absolutely true, but it is difficult to get that into their heads.
    Mr. Elystan Morgan: Will the Prime Minister give an undertaking that if the floating pound is devalued in the next two months by the same amount as it was devalued in the past two months, namely, 6 per cent., he will give the matter his urgent reconsideration?
    The Prime Minister: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's hypothesis. What I said was that if the TUC or the CBI wish to put arguments on any aspect of food prices I am prepared to listen to them.
    Mr. Redmond: Does my right hon. Friend realise that many of us have no objection whatever to being taxed in order to help those worse off than we are, but that we object very strongly to being taxed to provide cheaper food for wealthy people, like the Leader of the Opposition—to name but a few?
    The Prime Minister: That has always been one of the major arguments against food subsidies across the board. It is an argument that the TUC has discussed with us in previous talks, and that it
    1778
    accepts. It has no desire to see indiscriminate and vast food subsidies given across the board because it knows perfectly well that they can be paid for only out of additional taxation, which is either indirectly putting up prices or directly cutting back the pay packet.
    Mr. Thorpe: As the cost of food has increased by 35 per cent. since the Government took office, and as the right hon. Gentleman thinks that what the Labour Government did, compared with the Tory Government, is producing dividends to the Tory Party of only three-figure votes at by-elections, will he tell us whether, when he meets the TUC—[Interruption.] I am sorry that the Prime Minister has difficulty in hearing me because of the wild men behind him. I shall try to speak louder. Will he confirm that when he meets the TUC and the CBI at the end of the month he will be fully briefed from the "think tank", or such other sources as he draws upon, about the possibility of extending the credit income tax system to cover both housing and rates, the possibility of guaranteed minimum earnings, threshold agreements and, last but not least, implementing—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The House has a great deal of business to do today. It will do it better with less noise and, perhaps, more brevity.
    Mr. Thorpe: —and, last but not least, implementing the Tory Party's promise that it would increase family allowances? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that he will put all those forward in the talks at the end of this month?
    The Prime Minister: At previous meetings with the TUC we have discussed these matters—the question of a minimum incomes policy, thresholds and family allowances—as well as the general situation of earnings and prices. As I have told the House before, both the CBI and the TUC said that they wished to do further work on these matters before our next meetings. We shall be able to consider the results at the next meetings on 27th and 30th July.
    Mr. Harold Wilson: Why does the right hon. Gentleman refuse to provide money to keep prices down when, under the terms he negotiated with the Common Market, he must pay hundreds of millions

    1779
    of pounds of housewives' money to keep prices up in Europe? Is he prepared to accept the payment of a further £30 million fine from the taxpayers and housewives of this country in order to maintain the butter mountain?
    The Prime Minister: The world prices of most commodities that we receive from the European Community are already higher than the intervention prices for the Community. Therefore, the problem that the right hon. Gentleman continually imagines does not arise.
    Mr. Wilson: Does the Prime Minister accept or repudiate the estimate of £500 million given to the Lobby journalists by the then Minister for Europe two years ago?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that what he has said is untrue and that the figures of hundreds of millions which are constantly mentioned by him and the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) bear no relationship to the truth.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Mrs. Castle: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Does it deal with Questions'?
Mrs. Castle: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It arises out of my Question No. Q12 to the Prime Minister.
I am well aware that you are powerless to prevent the Prime Minister from transferring Questions even when they relate to his direct responsibility for co-ordinating the work of Government Departments. However, may I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether you can protect back-bench Members to the extent of ensuring that the Prime Minister does not delay informing the Member concerned that the Question has been transferred until the day after the Minister to whom it has been transferred was top for Questions, as was the case with my Question to the Prime Minister, which asked him to ensure that North-East Lancashire did not suffer as a result of the Hardman Report?
Mr. Speaker: As the right hon. Lady pointed out, that is not a matter for the Chair, but I have no doubt that her point will have been noted.

COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY
Mr. Shore(by Private Notice) asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy towards a request by the EEC Commission for a further £29 million to help finance the CAP.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Davies): I am aware that the Commission is considering the need for supplementary provision for the 1973 Community Budget but no proposal has yet been put forward.
Mr. Shore: Is it not the case that on all the Government's own estimates such a request will come before the Council of Ministers' meeting on Monday and that once the request is accepted this House will have no opportunity to deal with it but will be faced with a fait accompli? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the sums of money which have been widely reported as being part of the Commission's request—sums equal to 800 million dollars this year alone—indicate that the CAP is absolutely out of hand?
As the matter is due to come before the Council of Ministers early next week, will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what will be the attitude of Her Majesty's Government to it? Will he take the same view as he took when the question of the butter mountain and the Russian subsidy came before them on the last occasion when they said that they had no responsibility in the matter and abstained? Will he this time exercise his proper responsibilities?
Mr. Davies: I have no advice to the effect that this matter will come before the Council of Ministers early next week.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: If and when the matter comes before the Council of Ministers, will my right hon. Friend lend his powerful support to the proposition which I have put before the European Parliament that these matters be canvassed in public in the Council of Ministers so that the consumers in the nine member States may have a close-up view of some of the anomalies and absurdities of the present workings of the common agricultural policy, which may hasten its review and revision?
Mr. Davies: The matter of procedural changes in the work of the Council of Ministers will come before the Council later this month. Issues of this kind may then be discussed. It does not seem to me that public access to at least anticipatory information is lacking.
Dame Irene Ward: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In order to get the record straight, may I ask how the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) obtained leave to ask a Private Notice Question if his information was not correct?
Mr. Speaker: The one question which the hon. Lady is not entitled to ask is how an hon. or right hon. Member obtains or does not obtain leave to ask a Private Notice Question.
Mr. Shore: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has not been able to tell the House, will he guarantee that he will not agree to any such proposal until he first reports the matter to the House?
Mr. Davies: I shall await the arrival of a formal proposal before considering what action the Government should take.
Mr. Milne: When will the right hon. Gentleman cease treating the House with contempt in regard to information about the Community? On the last occasion that he addressed the House he adopted an identical tactic, thus underlining the fact that the House no longer has any authority over decisions taken in the Community and that what is now needed is a drastic review of the decision which we took on 28th October 1971.
Mr. Davies: On the contrary, I have always taken the view, since I have had to discuss these matters in the House, that the House is not only fully informed of proposals but has access to many methods of discussing them in the House. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am never loath to discuss practical matters. However, the point raised by the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) was entirely hypothetical.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must protect the Opposition's time. This is a Supply Day and there are two topics for debate.
1782
There are also two statements to be made.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: If it is not in order to question the acceptance of Private Notice Questions, may I ask how it is that a question which has no relevance—as we know from the answer—and which is based upon an untrue hypothesis, is accepted? When back-bench Members wish to ask a Private Notice Question they have to give a clear explanation of what is behind it. Why does not the same rule apply to Front Bench spokesmen?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is not entitled to go into this matter. It is a matter for my discretion. I am entrusted by the House with the power to make a decision. I decide and I do not give my reasons.
Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you, Mr. Speaker, take into account that on several recent occasions—including the last meeting—question time at the European Assembly has been brought to a halt because the Minister concerned was attending a function in this country? Will you ensure that this disease is not catching?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I can tell the hon. Gentleman straight away that that is not a matter for me.

SECURITY COMMISSION'S REPORT
The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement.
I told the House on 14th June that the Security Commission had been invited to verify that security was not endangered as a result of the incidents referred to in my statement on 24th May 1973 or by the actions of the persons involved.—[Vol. 857, c. 666–8.]
The Commission has now submitted its report to me. It is being published in full this afternoon. Copies are available in the Vote Office.
As a result of its inquiries the commission concludes categorically that no classified information was in fact communicated directly or indirectly to the intelligence service of any potentially

1783
hostile power as a result of the incidents in question. It concludes that, in the case of the right hon. and noble Lord, Lord Jellicoe, there was no potential danger to security that would have justified denying him further access to highly classified information, had he continued in office. In the case of the former hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, the commission would have felt compelled to recommend that he should be denied access to classified information.
The commission has come across no evidence worthy of credence that any Minister other than the former hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed was involved with Norma Levy or other members of that ring.
The commission has found no related failure of security arrangements as they existed at the time in the Civil Service Department, the Ministry of Defence or elsewhere. It does, however, make a number of suggestions for ways in which the existing security procedures could be improved.
The commission concludes that the practical difficulties involved in trying to apply the process of positive vetting for Ministers are insuperable, but it does make the following recommendations:

(i) Any Minister appointed to a post in which he will handle more sensitive information than he has been used to handling in his previous appointment should be given a supplementary briefing by the Security Service additional to that which he receives on his first appointment.

(ii) Security containers are already provided in the homes of those Ministers who request them because they take secret documents home more than occasionally. In future security containers should be provided in the homes of all Cabinet Ministers. They should also be provided in the homes of other Ministers who handle any substantial volume of sensitive material. There should be a careful reexamination of the need for this precaution in the homes of all Ministers not in the Cabinet.

(iii) Permanent Secretaries should ensure that the attention of Ministers who do not have such containers should be drawn to any significant increase in the number of secret papers that they take home, and that all Ministers should receive all possible help in fulfilling their personal security responsibilities.

(iv) For Ministers in some appointments, Security Service briefing on arrangements for personnel and physical security should be expanded or supplemented.

(v) Whenever a new Minister joins a Department, the Permanent Secretary should ensure that that Minister is appropriately briefed on
1784
departmental security arrangements, and is content with the adequacy of the security briefings provided.

(vi) When a Minister is first appointed he is already briefed by the Security Service on the basic threat to our security and the system of protective security, and his attention is drawn to the standing instructions on precautions against unauthorised disclosures of information. The Prime Minister should additionally issue guidance for Ministers on the potential security implications of scandalous behaviour and of other circumstances which might expose them to pressure by hostile intelligence agents; and Ministers should be required to refer to such guidance on appointment and from time to time subsequently.

The commission also suggests that any Prime Minister contemplating the appointment as a Minister of someone who was not until recently a Member of either House, and who may not therefore be well known to him or his senior political colleagues, should bear in mind the desirability of satisfying himself that there is no character defect or other circumstance which would mean that the appointment of that person would endanger security.
I have accepted all these recommendations and suggestions. I am also arranging for the attention of all Ministers to be recalled regularly to the standing instructions and guidance on security matters.
Mr. Harold Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to give me a copy of his statement, as is the usual practice in these matters. When the House has had time to study the report, which raises important questions, I suggest that there should be a debate on the report and on its implications for security. The House may feel, after studying the report, that some of the announcements made by the right hon. Gentleman about containers and other factual security arrangements cover very sensitive matters.
Is it a fact that Ministers were not given the same degree of specific briefing on security that was instituted in 1964 and 1965? Despite what the right hon. Gentleman said in his statement, it appears from a brief public statement by one of the ex-Ministers concerned that he seemed not to have much recollection of the briefing and was not clear whether he had been positively vetted. We all know that Ministers are not positively vetted.

1785
The statement refers to the ring of call girls. Was the commission able to secure direct evidence from the prostitutes concerned, or was that precluded by their absence abroad and by the police threat of charges were they to come to this country?
On the question of departmental procedures—which were discussed in exchanges between the right hon. Gentleman and myself and to which reference is made in the statement and in the report—is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the departmental procedures are working as thoroughly as hitherto, for example, in relation to the duties of Private Office as opposed to Permanent Secretaries' special responsibilities and the control of the use of official cars for extramural activities?
The Prime Minister: I think that the House will wish to study the report carefully, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested. Then, no doubt soundings can be taken on whether the House wishes to debate the matter further.
There has been no weakening in the security procedures which were introduced in 1964 by the right hon. Gentleman. Briefing of all Ministers on security continues as before and is as full as possible. I was asked about instructions to Ministers, given out by every Prime Minister when he takes office and revised from time to time. In many ways they have been strengthened, quite naturally, with recent developments, and in the course of years, from the instructions which were sent out by the right hon. Gentleman. This process normally takes place from administration to administration.
On the right hon. Gentleman's question about call girls, he will recall from his time as Prime Minister that the Prime Minister of the day has no information from the Security Commission other than that which is presented in the report. The report does not state the names of those who were interviewed by the Security Commission, but it is known that Norma Levy, who is referred to in the report, has been abroad and that a warrant has been out for her arrest. I think this means that it must not have been possible for the Security Commission to
1786
see her. I have no knowledge of those who were interviewed by the Security Commision. That is the Commission's responsibility.
As for the private office, there is no mention of that matter in the Security Commission's report. There was one allegation in the Press of an official car having been seen outside the block of flats which was used by the former hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, but it is also mentioned in the course of the Security Commission's report that this block of flats was only a few yards from his home and there is no mention in the records of the car driver of a particular journey to that place. As the right hon. Gentleman probably knows, there are certain specific regulations covering the use of official cars at the Ministry of Defence.
On the question of official briefing, it is true that in a television interview the former Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed gave the impression that he had been positively vetted. He was obviously confusing this with the briefing he received when he became a Minister. It is perhaps understandable, in the circumstances of his resignation and the interview, that this confusion occurred.
Mr. Wilson: I am grateful to the Prime Minister for those answers, and indeed for his statement that there should be discussions through the usual channels about a debate on the report. I do not wish to anticipate the main finding in the report, because hon. Members in general have not had an opportunity to read it, but would the right hon. Gentleman agree that, compared with Press reports, there is a new dimension in the situation, namely the drugs dimension, which clearly worried the Security Commission and which is a matter to which all of us, without rushing into the matter, should give a lot more thought—and this applies to Government, Opposition, the security authorities and the House as a whole'? Is he aware that there is son-le reason to believe—without my going too much into painful matters—that so much were drugs in the centre of this picture—rather than some of the salacious matters covered in the Press—that there is reason to think that the noble Lord, Lord Jellicoe, was to some extent an innocent victim of the

1787
use of the name "Jellicoe", with no relation to himself at all, because of code words in connection with drug passing? Would he agree that in regard to the noble Lord, Lord Jellicoe, one should treat this matter with a certain degree of humanity and sympathy?
The Prime Minister: The House always considers these matters with humanity and understanding. I know that the right hon. Gentleman would want it to be clear that there was no question whatever of drugs of any kind in regard to the noble Lord, Lord Jellicoe. It is obvious from the report, as hon. Members will see when they read it, that in respect of the former Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, this matter did give the Security Commission considerable anxiety. This is a matter which must be considered, in the view of the Security Commission in regard to the position of Ministers, the Opposition and all those who may have access to security information.
Mr. Tapsell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is some anxiety in the country lest the growing obsession with security may itself pose certain threats to the future good government of this country, bearing in mind that many of the great men in the past who have guided this country through great national crises might have been excluded from British national life if some of these criteria had been applied?
The Prime Minister: I think that when my hon. Friend the Member for Horn-castle (Mr. Tapsell) reads the report, he will see that the Security Commission has put forward proposals which it thinks will be a practical means of dealing with security. At the same time it expresses the view that it is not its responsibility to make moral judgments.
Mr. Grimond: Although no doubt this is a valuable report which will need study, and although it contains practical recommendations, will the Prime Minister, following the question which has just been put to him by the hon. Member for Horn-castle (Mr. Tapsell), guarantee that security is not made an excuse for investigations into the private lives of Ministers in cases where it is obvious from the start that no security can possibly be involved?
The Prime Minister: The Security Commission makes it quite plain that it does not consider it its duty to make moral judgments on people's behaviour or to inquire into them for that purpose. When the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) says that it is obvious that there was no security risk, he must remember that those who have had to deal with security matters know that the situation may not always be quite as simple as that.
Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Am I entitled to move that we proceed to the next business?
Mr. Speaker: It is within my discretion to decide whether I would accept such a motion.
Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Will this report mean that in future any hon. Member who is unable to pass the standard positive security vetting—for instance for having as a young man been a member of the Communist Party—will never be able to be appointed Secretary of State for Defence under any Government?
The Prime Minister: The Security Commission makes it absolutely plain that it regards positive vetting of Ministers as out of the question, and one has only to consider the practical difficulties of the formation of a Government, and so on, to recognise the difficulty. But the Commission also says that in a political party colleagues have been working together for a long time and therefore a Prime Minister must accept his responsibilities and recognise the characteristics, but it makes a suitable recommendation about somebody who is brought into a Government and into either House from outside.
Mr. Wellbeloved: Does the Prime Minister recall that paragraph 10 of Command 9715 on security, published in 1956, laid down in terms of civil servants and members of the Armed Forces that loose living was a security risk? Will he ensure that we do not apply double standards—one standard for political Ministers and another standard for civil servants and members of the Armed Forces? Will he also bear in mind that there is concern about the delay which occurred from early April to 21st May in

1789
taking action in the Lambton case, which seems to suggest that if it had not been for public disclosure in national newspapers this matter might not even have reached the Security Commission?
The Prime Minister: There is no question of double standards. When the hon. Gentleman reads the Security Commission's report he will see that the action of Ministers was judged in the light of what they themselves laid down for those in the Civil Service. This is the first occasion on which the Security Commission has considered a question in which a Minister was involved.
The Commission points out that the character of the person concerned whether a Minister or a civil servant, has to be taken into account in assessing a security risk in particular circumstances. This applies to all those who have to handle security matters.
There is absolutely no truth whatever in the allegation contained in the hon. Gentleman's comments at the end of his supplementary question. As the Security Commission points out, this matter was brought to the notice of the security services long before any question of it appeared in the public Press or in public discussions. Action was taken at once because I asked for immediate advice whether any security factor was involved, and I was told that it was not. That matter also is set out.
Dr. David Owen: Is the Prime Minister satisfied that he is exercising his democratic responsibilities in not knowing the full basis on which the Security Commission came to its findings? Is there not a case for the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition at least to know the basis on which the Commission comes to its conclusions, the people from whom it takes evidence, and so on? How is the House to exercise democratic control of the security of the country when the matter is pushed off to a body which is not answerable on any democratic basis?
The Prime Minister: My two predecessors took the same view as I do—that the Security Commission is an entirely independent body and that when it produces a report, that report must contain its arguments for its conclusions and any recommendations it may make. The same
1790
applies in this case. I agree that the hon. Gentleman has raised a very important issue, but it is a matter of judgment whether the independence of the Security Commission should not be completely safeguarded in this way.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Harold Wilson: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. James Prior): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 16TH JULY—Supply (28th Allotted Day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion on Scottish Affairs.
Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Social Security Bill.
Proceedings on the Statute Law (Repeals) Bill (Lords).
TUESDAY, 17TH JULY—Until Seven o'clock there will be a debate on the visit of the Portuguese Premier, which will arise on a motion for the adjournment of the House.
Afterwards, remaining stages of the Insurance Companies Bill (Lords).
Any Lords Amendments to the Northern Ireland Constitution Bill and to the Water Bill.
WEDNESDAY, 18TH JULY—Supply (29th Allotted Day). The Question will be put on all outstanding Votes.
Debate on an Opposition motion of No Confidence on Inflation.
Consideration of any Lords Amendments to the Fair Trading Bill.
THURSDAY, 19TH JULY—Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.
FRIDAY, 20TH JULY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY, 23RD JULY—Remaining stages of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.
Debate on the Reports of the Pay Board and Price Commission.
The House will wish to know that, subject to the progress of business, it will

1791
be proposed that the House should adjourn at the end of the week after next, until Tuesday, 16th October.
Mr. Harold Wilson: The House will have heard the right hon. Gentleman's last few words with some degree of satisfaction, although a great deal of important business remains to be debated before then.
On Tuesday, we shall be debating the visit of the Portuguese Prime Minister. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, following the discussions through the usual channels about the debate, we would like to thank him for his part? The time will be supplied by the Opposition from the half-day borrowed by the Government during the last Session. I understand that the Government had intended to devote the whole day to the other business which the right hon. Gentleman has announced for Tuesday, and in view of the accommodation of the Government in the matter, we shall do our best, as he has been told, to facilitate the Government's business on the Insurance Companies Bill and the other legislation and we shall try to get it through by a reasonable hour.
Mr. Prior: I confirm that the position regarding Tuesday's business is as the right hon. Gentleman stated. I shall be grateful for the co-operation of the Opposition on the other business following the debate on the visit of the Portuguese Prime Minister.
Sir F. Bennett: Is my right hon. Friend aware that on 20th March I asked when an announcement would be made, one way or another, on the review of the law of picketing by the Home Secretary? I was told that it would be made within two weeks. The two weeks have long since passed and a whole series of other reasons has been given for not making the announcement, the most recent being that there is a case before the courts. Will there be an announcement before the recess or is the House to be kept in the dark until next Session?
Mr. Prior: My hon. Friend has had an answer from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on this subject, and I have to tell him now that, as notice of appeal to another place has been lodged in a case which concerns an important aspect of the law relating to picketing,
1792
my right hon. Friend proposes to defer his statement giving the Government's conclusions about the law of picketing until the appeal has been decided.
Mr. McBride: My Private Member's Bill, the Alkali Inspectorate Bill, passed through the Committee stage on 13th and 20th June. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at 3.5 p.m. today no copies of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee proceedings were in the Vote Office? Does he realise that this places an inhibition on hon. Members in preparing for the Report stage? In view of the importance of this measure to deal with pollution of the air, will the right hon. Gentleman see that sufficient time is given to the Bill to enable it to have a complete Report stage and proper discussion, since obviously, on 20th July, it is likely to receive hopelessly inadequate time for its Report stage, with four other Bills preceding it?
Mr. Prior: I must tell the hon. Gentleman that I could not allow any additional time for discussion of his Bill or any other private Members' Bills which hon. Members might like to see on the Statute Book. I am sorry if there has been some printing delay of the reports of the Committee proceedings, but I understand that the transcripts are now available and I hope that the printing will soon be carried out.
Major-General Jack d'Avigdor Goldsmid: Are we to have a debate on the report of the Nugent Committee, and, if so, when?
Mr. Prior: There could not be a debate on the report before the recess, but I will consider it along with other outstanding issues for debate at a late stage.
Mr. Thorpe: Now that the right hon. Gentleman has announced the dates for the recess, is he aware that unless a writ for Berwick-upon-Tweed is moved before we rise, the electors of that constituency will remain unrepresented for very nearly six months? May we take it that the writ will be moved next week, or at any rate the week after?
Mr. Prior: As the right hon. Gentleman knows quite well, that is a matter for the Government, since the last Member for the constituency was a member of

1793
the governing party. I can never quite understand whether the Liberals think they gain most from an early by-election or a late one.
Mr. Evelyn King: Has my right hon. Friend seen Early Day Motion No. 354, which draws attention to the slightly unusual decision by the Government that war widows—that is, young war widows—whose husbands were killed in 1973 or thereafter are to receive an additional pension, whereas older and sometimes more infirm war widows whose husbands were killed many years ago receive no comparable benefit? The motion is signed by hon. Members of all three parties in almost equal proportions. There is considerable concern about the matter. Will my right hon. Friend give the House an opportunity to discuss the principle which lies behind the decision?
[That this House, while expressing its deepest sympathy to recent service widows and acknowledging that no financial payment, however great, can compensate them for their loss, welcomes the Government's payment from 31st March 1973, to service widows of £2,650 and a pension of £39 per week, but finds the differentiation in terms of compensation to these service widows, compared with war widows, whose loss was no less great, inequitable, and calls upon Her Majesty's Government, who have done more for pensioners, including war widows, than any other government, to end this injustice by awarding a non-retrospective pension to all war widows not in receipt of a National Insurance Retirement Pension, equal to that which is being awarded to 1973 service widows.]
Mr. Prior: I am aware of the anxiety that hon. Members feel on this subject. The difficulty for the Government is that any improvement one makes at any time shows up perhaps some other things one would like to do. The basic war widow's pension has been increased from £8·80 to £10·10 and the special war widow's age allowance from £1 to £1·30. An elderly war widow will thus be getting £11·40 compared with £9·80, which itself compares with only £7·25 in June 1970. The Government are also committed to annual reviews. While I appreciate that hon. Members want to go further more
1794
quickly, the Government have an excellent record.
Mr. Spriggs: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. McBride) about the final stages of the Alkali Inspectorate Bill? Large numbers of my constituents live in fear of damage to the health of their families through pollution of the atmosphere. Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an opportunity to pass judgment on this valuable Bill?
Mr. Prior: The views on this Bill are, to say the least, mixed, and I do not believe that it would be right for the Government to give special time for it when there are so many other considerations before the House.
Mr. Money: In the light of the deep concern which has been expressed in certain sectors of the Press in the past week over the recent series of tests on Department of Health and Social Security invalid vehicles, can my right hon. Friend either arrange for a debate on this subject or invite his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services to make a statement?
Mr. Prior: Certainly I will talk to my right hon. Friend about this matter, which everyone in the House knows to be an important issue. It could perhaps form the subject of a short debate in the business for next week.
Mrs. Castle: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen Early Day Motion No. 397 which already has been signed by nearly 200 hon. Members representing all parties in the House and which sets out a way in which we could begin at last properly to remunerate the secretaries to whom hon. Members owe so much?
In view of the unfairness of the present situation, both to secretaries and to hon. Members themselves, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that we have an opportunity at an early date to discuss this matter in the House?
[That this House considers that the salaries of Members' secretaries should be aligned to an appropriate Civil Service salary structure, and that payment should

1795
be made front a central body with each Member nominating a secretary who shall receive the payment and with each Member retaining the right of appointment and termination.]
Mr. Prior: Before the House carried out a suggestion of this kind it would need very careful thought. It would be a considerable change, as the right hon. Lady recognises, in the method of employment of secretaries. Certainly it is not an easy problem. But I am considering the whole matter. Hon. Members in all parts of the House will know that this is not a particularly easy one.
Mr. Waddington: On Tuesday we are to have another three-hour debate. In view of the fact that such debates can be very successful but can also be ruined by the selfishness of one or two backbench Members, may I commend to my right hon. Friend's attention Early Day Motion No. 388 on the subject of shorter speeches? Will my right hon. Friend try to arrange a debate on the subject as soon as possible?
[That this House, noting the success of recent short debates, instructs the Select Committee on Procedure to propose a scheme for limiting the length of speeches in such debates.]
Mr. Prior: The best way for the House to help on all this is to implement the suggestion in that motion. It is what the House did in a recent debate. I hope that the practice will be followed.
Mr. George Grant: In view of the announcement in the national Press this morning that the National Coal Board is negotiating the hiving-off of the profitable Northern Brick Company, bearing in mind the fact that the unions have just completed protracted negotiations on the possibilities of setting up holding companies and subsidiaries, and bearing in mind also the damaging effect that this development could have on industrial relations for the mining industry, will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will make a statement on this matter next week?
Mr. Prior: I shall consult my right hon. Friend on this matter. But it seems to me that it lies primarily within the responsibility of the National Coal Board to make such a decision.
Mr. Marten: In view of the fact that between now and the time that we rise for the Summer Recess there are to be several meetings of the Council of Ministers, may we have an assurance that each Minister' attending a meeting of the Council of Ministers in Brussels will come back to this House and report on that meeting? We want to know what goes on.
Mr. Prior: I think that it would be much better if we stuck to the usual arrangement, which is that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster makes a general report when appropriate on what has been happening in the Council of Ministers. But if some specific point arises concerning another Minister and it is of sufficient importance to take up the time of the House. I shall arrange for that Minister to come to the House to make a statement.
Mr. Jay: As there is to be a series of meetings of the EEC Council of Ministers between 16th and 24th July, cannot we be assured that each Minister involved will report to this House?
Mr. Prior: It will "be much better for the progress of the business of this House if we carry on in the way in which we have arranged these matters in the past few months.
Several Hon. Members rose—

CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL (PROCEDURE)
Mr. Speaker: We must move on. I have a statement to make.
For the debate on Thursday 19th July, on the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, hon. Members may hand into my office by 9.30 on the morning of Wednesday 18th July, their names and the topics which they wish to raise. The ballot will be carried out as on the last occasion. An hon. Member may hand in only his own name and one topic.
The debate on the Second Reading of this Bill is, in the words of Erskine May on page 729 of the 18th Edition,
"commensurate with the whole range of administrative policy".
It covers, for example, all the main Estimates originally presented for the,

1797
current financial year (in House of Commons Papers 112 and 114) and the Revised and Supplementary Estimates presented since then (in House of Commons Papers 315, 316 and 317). It will
1798
be in order, on Second Reading, to raise any topic falling within the compass of these Estimates.
I shall put out the result of the ballot later on Wednesday 18th July.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SUPPLY
  [27TH ALLOTTED DAY],—considered.

  LIVE ANIMALS (EXPORT)
  4.15 p.m.
  Mr. Eric Deakins: I beg to move,
  That this House shares the growing concern about the conditions under which animals for slaughter are exported, transported and slaughtered overseas; welcomes the recent Government decision to suspend the issuing of export licences for live sheep; and, mindful of animal welfare, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to establish an independent inquiry into this trade, and in the meantime to suspend the issuing of licences for the export of live animals for slaughter overseas.
  Mr. Speaker: I should inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister and several of his right hon. Friends, in line 6, at end add:
  "to any country where there is evidence that the Balfour Assurances are not being kept".
  I have a very long list of speakers.
  Mr. Deakins: The House will know of my interest in agricultural matters. But the interest that I have in animal welfare is, I believe, one which is shared by every single hon. Member present today.
  The subject of animal welfare is an emotional matter for some people. But on such an occasion as this I think it is best debated rationally. What we lose in heat we may hope to gain in clarity.
  Public concern about this matter has been expressed in a number of ways: in the size of the postbags of Members of Parliament, in the volume of Parliamentary Questions, in the three motions on the Order Paper, and above all, in the dedicated work of animal welfare societies and individuals basically responsible for the evidence which earlier this year forced the Government to suspend the operation of licences for sheep exports. These societies and individuals have now produced an even more impressive body of evidence on the cattle export trade—evidence of breaches of the Balfour Assurances.
  1800
  The evidence is very long and I wish to refer to it only briefly. There is evidence collected by the RSPCA. For example, to Belgium in 1970 calves were being exported under the minimum weight. Calves were being taken more than 100 kilometres for slaughter. Calves were being stunned with a claw hammer at an obscure Belgian slaughterhouse. In 1973, cattle were being taken from Scheveningen to Leeuwarden in Holland, a distance of well over 100 kilometres.
  There is evidence from the News of the World in March of this year from Belgium of cattle being taken to Isegem, an approved slaughterhouse in Belgium, by our own authorities and subjected to inhumane treatment and slaughter of a kind which would be found intolerable by any British farmer who sent his stock for slaughter. There are examples of cattle travelling far more than 100 kilometres. There are examples of cattle passing from Belgium into Holland. There are examples of cattle travelling from Zeebrugge to Antwerp, which is not an approved slaughterhouse. There are examples from Holland in 1973 of cattle going from Ostende to Arnhem, well over the 100 kilometres' limit, also involving transit from one country to another, both breaches of the Balfour Assurances.
  Finally, there is evidence, which I do not have at my disposal, from the Council of Justice for Animals and Humane Slaughter relating to calves earlier this year which the council has refused to release for the purpose of this debate but which I know to have been for some time in the possession of the Minister. No doubt the Minister will have something to say about this evidence when he replies.
  For several months now there has been pressure for an independent inquiry into this trade not only from animal welfare organisations but also from the National Farmers Union of England and Wales. The Government have now given way to this pressure by agreeing finally to an independent inquiry. We must thank them for this.
  However, we ought to ask the Minister a few questions on the form and scope of this inquiry. For example, will its hearings be in public? What are to be its terms of reference? Will it be widely drawn so as to include the whole of the

  1801
  export trade in live animals, perhaps taking in the 18 points for consideration listed recently by the Animal Defence Society?
  Will the inquiry be able to consider evidence already accumulated? This is an important point, because the trade on the Continent is now far less willing to talk about its activities to strange people wearing Union Jacks.
  Will the inquiry be free to make any recommendations whatsoever, ranging from a total ban on the trade to much tighter restrictions—for example, ensuring that sales to the Continent are made on a dead weight and grade basis only, which would give British farmers a genuine interest in the conditions of transport and slaughter of their cattle on the Continent? Will the inquiry be able to recommend the licensing of individual consignments to individual slaughterhouses on the continent?
  I turn now, because this is the crux of the debate, to the Government's amendment. Hon. Members on both sides of the House agree on the need for an independent inquiry. It is important to note that the Government's amendment relates only to our proposal for the suspension of licences pending the outcome of the inquiry.
  The amendment implies that where there is no evidence of a breach of the Balfour Assurances the trade should continue. But this in turn implies other matters: first, that the Balfour Assurances are satisfactory, and, secondly, that they are being observed unless evidence is produced to the contrary.
  First, the Balfour Assurances are out of date. Conditions both in this country and on the Continent have changed substantially since 1957.
  Secondly, there is nothing in the Balfour Assurances to prevent the resale of cattle in a market within 100 kilometers of a port and subsequent slaughter anywhere on the Continent.
  Thirdly, there is nothing in the Balfour Assurances about bringing them to the notice of Continental buyers and dealers. A large number of Continental hauliers and slaughterers questioned by independent investigators have been
  1802
  unaware of the existence of the Balfour Assurances.
  Fourthly, there is no incentive in the Balfour Assurances for foreign authorities to enforce them rigorously. So there has been, and can be, no effective control on the ground. Indeed, this was virtually admitted by the former Minister of Agriculture in the summer of last year in reply to the President of the British Veterinary Association.
  The second point on the amendment is that it implies that the Balfour Assurances are generally being observed. First, it is a fact that transit movements from one country to another regularly take place. That is a breach of the Assurances.
  Secondly, it is a fact that the 100 kilometers' limit for the journey on the Continent is regularly being exceeded, often to slaughterhouses where the conditions of slaughter and lairage would be illegal in this country.
  Thirdly, there is the fact that the evidence on sheep last year and early this year showed breaches of the Balfour Assurances to such a considerable extent that no control was possible, so the Government were forced to suspend sheep export licences. The evidence on cattle shows the same pattern, and rightly so, for the same people are dealing with cattle as were dealing with sheep.
  Fourthly, we in this country had official assurances from Continental Governments about the treatment of sheep. These assurances turned out to be valueless. Why should we have any more trust in official assurances about cattle?
  In this connection I should like to quote an extract from a letter which the Minister of State wrote to one of his hon. Friends in November 1970 when the matter was first raised:
  "We understand from Dr. Latteur"—
  who is the chief veterinary officer in the Belgian Ministry of Agriculture—
  "that animals imported into Belgium for immediate slaughter are sent to a specially approved national slaughterhouse and that their movements are controlled by the Belgian Veterinary Inspection Service."
  The hon. Gentleman clearly stated that there was no possibility of re-export.
  Dr. Latteur, in a letter dated 31st January 1973 to a French animal welfare

  1803
  association—I have copies both in English and in French if hon Members want them—said:
  "A report of April 1972 submitted by these same people about a journey from Ostend to Marseilles admits that the sheep were in good condition on arrival at Marseilles."
  That shows that Dr. Latteur, the head of the enforcement authorities in Belgium, which is one of the main points of entry for British cattle to the Continent, has no idea of the Balfour Assurances because the move from Ostend to Marseilles breaks two points of the Assurances: first, over 100 kilometres and, secondly, re-export from one country to another.
  Furthermore, in the same letter he said:
  "No legal provisions, not even the Balfour Assurances, would enable us"—
  the Belgian authorities—
  "to refuse transit permits".
  There we have it in the words of the chief official of the Belgian Ministry of Agriculture responsible for trying to ensure that these Assurances are enforced.
  The Balfour Assurances have been completely discredited. How often are they to be breached before the Ministry will act?
  This leads me to a consideration of what the amendment means by the word "evidence". What kind of evidence would satisfy the Ministry so as to lead to a suspension of licences pending the outcome of the independent inquiry? Does it have to be direct evidence? This obviously cannot be obtained because it is impossible to produce at Whitehall Place a Belgian slaughterman from Putte with a clawhammer in one hand and a signed confession in the other. Animal welfare organisations have no power to compel continental witnesses to come to England. So it cannot be direct evidence.
  Is it to be official evidence? How is this to be obtained from other Governments? Foreign Governments do not report breaches of the Balfour Assurances. We in this country have to prove them.
  Perhaps the Ministry will accept unofficial evidence. But this puts the burden and expenses on animal welfare societies, which is quite wrong. Also, the Ministry has so far thrown a great deal of cold water on the unofficial evi-
  1804
  dence that has been submitted to it. What assurance is there that the Minister will take such evidence any more seriously from now on? For example, he has suggested that some evidence may relate to Irish cattle. It does not. The evidence from the News of the World about Irish cattle going to Iseghem has been confirmed by both the manager and the sales manager of the slaughterhouse in question. Even if the evidence related merely to Irish cattle, should we not rightly deduce that if Irish cattle are being maltreated by hauliers and drovers and are not being slaughtered humanely, the same must be true of British cattle going on the same routes to the same destinations? Surely hauliers and slaughterers do not vary their treatment according to the nationality of the cattle that they are handling. Therefore, how can we take seriously a promise to consider evidence when such evidence has been available for some months with no action resulting?
  The Ministry has been dragging its feet on this issue. For example, it has not accepted the offer by Miss Lawless of the News of the World to give evidence. It has not taken the matter as seriously as we have a right to expect.
  If accepted, the amendment will create a muddled and confusing situation. We shall have two inquiries going on into the same subject at the same time. There will be an independent inquiry, which will obviously take some months to gather evidence and report, and there will be an ad hoc Ministry inquiry at the same time into suspected breaches of the Balfour Assurances.
  This leads to two conclusions. The first is that the same evidence will obviously be submitted both to the independent inquiry and to the Ministry. That leads to the possibility that the Ministry could accept the evidence and the inquiry could reject it, or vice versa. Would that not lead to a ridiculous situation?
  The second conclusion is that if the Ministry gives a verdict on the basis of the evidence submitted to it, it will be pre-judging, if not prejudicing, the findings of the independent inquiry. It is nonsense to have two inquiries on the same subject at the same time.
  Basically, the amendment is a device for preventing interim action to suspend all these licences. It

  1805
  merely states what is already Government policy; namely, to look at the evidence and take appropriate action. The evidence has been available for some months, but no action has been taken. We must have action now.
  The amendment, in effect, seeks to delete the reference in the motion to the interim suspension of licences. If the amendment is passed, the trade will go on. That must be made clear. Surely it is much cleaner and more sensible, in view of the overwhelming weight of evidence, to make a break, to suspend licences as soon as practicable—we do not expect miracles—and to start the new inquiry and let it decide in what circumstances and with what safeguards the trade should be reopened, if at all. The burden of proof should now be on those who want the trade to continue and not, as at present, on those who want it stopped.
  The real issue is the motion without the amendment. We must stop further animal suffering while waiting for the inquiry to report. The Opposition think that the British people and, we hope, the House of Commons will not be satisfied with less.
  4.31 p.m.
  The Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Anthony Stodart): I beg to move, at the end of the Question to add:
  "to any country where there is evidence that the Balfour Assurances are not being kept".
  Though there is much to say, I want to follow the example of the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins) and make a short speech in order to allow as many hon. Members as possible to take part in this debate. I agree with the hon. Gentleman when he says that if the size of our mail bags is any evidence, many hon. Members wish to participate in the debate.
  I should like to say two things first. I must declare an interest—or at least a possible one—because I sell about 800 store lambs every year and it may be that some ultimately go abroad live.
  Secondly, I want to put something on record in reply to those—and there are some—who have said that all that farmers are interested in is the cash which the sale of their stock produces. He is a most unusual farmer who has
  1806
  done a season's lambing, or had the joy and satisfaction of seeing animals bred on his farm grow up, who would countenance cruelty being done to them. I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman on this. I believe that all of us here are seeking to prevent or to reduce suffering among animals—not just my animals, not just animals from this country, but all animals—and I hope that that is something that we may all accept despite the differences that may divide us on how that can best be achieved.
  A fortnight ago when I told the House that one of the difficulties confronting us about the photographs and the story in the News of the World was that there was considerable uncertainty about whether the cattle had come from this country at all—and I must tell the hon. Gentleman that what he said does not coincide with the information coming to us—I heard one of my hon. Friends exclaim, "They are all cattle" and that is very true.
  Irish cattle go to European countries in large numbers, and the Balfour Assurances about resting, feeding and watering, no re-exporting and slaughtering humanely, do not apply to them. They can, and do, travel much longer distances from port to abattoir after having had, in many cases, a much longer sea crossing.
  Because of breaches in the Balfour Assurances through sheep being reexported from one country to another, we stopped the export of all live sheep for slaughter as from 1st February, and since then none has left this country. There are those who argue that our carcase trade should thrive instead, but in fact it has shown virtually no change at all from the same period last year. But what has happened is, I suggest, not without significance.
  Exports to Europe of live sheep from the Irish Republic during February to May rose from 734 last year, to just short of 12,000 this. And half the number of live animals which leave the United Kingdom for purposes other than breeding travel from Ulster to the Republic across a border which it has always proved impossible for any Government to close. Nor, I believe, is it possible to close that border, considering that, I am told, some farms literally have fields

  1807
  lying on each side of the border, and also realising, without any disrespect. the temperament of the Irish people.
  I think that people are alarmed about four particular aspects of the trade—the sea voyage, the road journey in the overseas country, the conditions at the abattoir and the possibility of animals being re-exported from the country to which they are sent.
  First, there are regulations governing the conditions under which animals are transported to and from United Kingdom ports. Vessels used for the overseas transport of livestock are regularly inspected by the marine superintendent of my Department, and conditions are laid down about the number of animals which may be carried on each ship and the size of the pens. The regulations also cover proper ventilation, protection of the animals from the elements, and so on. And these same conditions are applied to the boats which take store animals from the Scottish islands to the mainland or from Northern Ireland to Great Britain.
  The Balfour Assurances provide that the animals must be sent to an abattoir within 100 km. of the port of disembarkation, and this is a most stringent requirement. I remind the House that animals are often carried far further than that in this country, although I entirely accept that they are, as it were, under our control. But even so, if people are worried about the 100 km.—or 60 miles to put it in easier language—from the port at which animals land, I am bound to say that, despite all our regulations, the distances which animals travel from the sales in Scotland to the Midlands of England—and I say this with the considerable experience that I have had of animals from the North of Scotland arriving on the farm—arriving in very good order, makes 60 miles look pretty modest.
  We come to the place upon which the main anxiety centres, and I believe rightly, and that is upon the abattoir itself. Without any reflection upon those who work in it, a slaughterhouse is not a pleasant place, no matter how high the level of humanity practised within it. I have visited many, always out of duty, never out of pleasure, for watching animals die is a horrible experience, no matter how clinically perfect the conditions may be. But I go 100 per cent. with every hon.
  1808
  Member in saying that there is no excuse for anything other than the highest levels of humanity. This is what the Balfour Assurances, given by the various Governments concerned, are designed to secure.
  Last in this list of points about which people are concerned, and on which the hon. Member touched, is the fear that animals which are sold for slaughter in a country specified on the export certificate are re-exported from that country to another. The hon. Member said that the Balfour Assurances are being broken virtually right, left and centre. There is no evidence, in the way that one would normally interpret the word, that this is so.
  Since 1970, four complaints of specific infringements of the Balfour Assurances have been made to the Ministry. The hon. Member referred to them all. One in 1970 involved the transport of calves beyond the 60-mile limit. As a result of our representations, the Belgian Government banned the use of that slaughterhouse for British animals.
  Last year reports were received from two or three animal welfare organisations that sheep exported to Belgium were being re-exported to France, and possibly even further afield, totally contrary to the Balfour Assurances. It was clear that there was a loophole in the arrangements. We therefore introduced stricter controls. In order to make it impossible for sheep to be sent on to France without being detected, a new documentary procedure was introduced on 1st November 1972 by which exporters were required to produce, on request, certificates from the Belgian slaughterhouses concerned, countersigned by a Belgian Government official, to show that these sheep were in fact slaughtered in an abattoir within 100 km of the port. None of the exporters concerned was able to comply fully with this requirement and indeed we continued to receive reports of sheep being sent on to France.
  My right hon. Friend suspended all licences to export sheep for slaughter or as stores from 1st February 1973. This suspension still applies and it well illustrates the concern of the Government for the welfare of animals and their determination to see that the Balfour conditions are fully honoured. More recently there have been allegations accompanied by photographs of breaches

  1809
  of the Assurances with respect to cattle. Anxiety has mounted, and, I think, understandably. The hon. Member said that Irish cattle were not involved. Our investigations are going on at the moment, as I told the House a fortnight ago they would. What I can tell the hon. Gentleman is that at least at one of the lairages in Ostend, Irish cattle and cattle from this country often arrive on the same day. The Irish cattle are separated out and they are then treated as being able to go to abattoirs further than 100 km because the Balfour Assurances do not apply. The British cattle are sorted out there and treated under the Balfour Assurances.
  It seems to me that the divisions between us can be summed up like this. Is the best way of securing the conditions we want to stop our trade with other countries and let animals from elsewhere take the place of ours, or is there another way? I think there is. We should continue to clamp down on any breaches of the Assurances where we are satisfied that these have taken place.
  At the same time the Government recognise that public anxiety is now such that the wisdom of an objective committee of inquiry could contribute to the consideration of these problems. We propose to appoint such a committee and to announce the terms of reference and the membership as soon as possible. We shall take most careful note of any views expressed by hon. Members during this debate on these two very important aspects of such an inquiry. I have already taken note of what the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West said. The amendment which I propose would still enable exports of live animals to be suspended where there is evidence that the Balfour Assurances are not being kept.
  I hope that the House will agree that it is a fair and practical point to make that, if the committee of inquiry is to investigate this matter thoroughly, its members will want to visit the Continent to see for themselves the way in which our animals are treated, and the measures which are taken to enforce the Balfour Assurances. I have no doubt at all that the Governments concerned would be willing to offer every assistance to the committee in this investigation; but if, in
  1810
  the meantime, we suspend the export of live animals, as the Opposition's motion demands, the committee will have reasons which are far less legitimate for asking the Government concerned for their cooperation, because United Kingdom animals would not be involved. Even if the Committee were to go in such circumstances they could not hope to satisfy themselves as to exactly how the Balfour Assurances were enforced since they do not apply to animals other than from the United Kingdom.
  This is why I believe that our amendment is logical, reasonable and in accordance with our obligations under EEC legislation. I therefore ask the House to accept it.
  4.47 p.m.
  Mr. Phillip Whitehead: I welcome the opportunity that has come about as a result of the initiative taken by this side of the House to have at least a half-day debate on this very important subject. My only regret is that I believe that the House should have had this debate on the private Member's motion which was brought forward by an hon. Member opposite earlier in the year and which time after time was killed for the purposes of further debate by one or two other Conservative Members.
  This debate takes place against a background of increasing cruelty to animals generally. That should not be forgotten.
  Mr. John E. B. Hill: Surely the hon. Member is referring not to a private Member's motion, which would have allowed the sort of debate that we are now having, in which the full arguments may be deployed, but a motion for the Second Reading of a Bill which would have given the principle on the nod. Surely that would be most objectionable.
  Mr. Whitehead: Time after time on a Friday I and other hon. Members listened to that Bill being killed. It could have gone into Committee, where all the arguments of principle could have been aired at leisure and at the disposal of the House. In parenthesis, I do not think that that principle of destroying Private Member's Bills is a very good one and I hope that the House will abandon it in the near future.

  1811
  I was saying that I think that the difficulty that we face is that this subject is only part of the whole question of how animals are treated, not just by the farming community or exporters, but generally, as they fit into the needs of a vast industrialised society with a great demand for food and not too many scruples about how that food is acquired. Factory farming and all that goes with it has some aspects at least as deplorable as the matters that we are discussing today.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins) made a succinct and admirable speech. This has been the first time that I have heard him speak from the Front Bench, and I congratulate him sincerely on the reply that he received from the Minister.
  My hon. Friend said that in many ways the Balfour Assurances are themselves already to some degree discredited. They are discredited because of at least some occasional examples which have been reported consistently over the last few years, and certainly in 1970 and 1971, as well as this year, by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to the Government of the day, concerning both the distances travelled and, in some cases, re-export.
  These infringements occur just as much for cattle as for sheep. As the Government saw fit to alter the conditions for the export of sheep and to ban the live animal trade there, it does not seem to me that the Minister of State made a very convincing case against a similar stoppage in the case of cattle. The Minister of State said—and this is correct—that some animals are transported under our control in this country for very great distances, far further than the 100 kilometers, about 60 miles, which is permissible under the Balfour Assurances once the animals have gone to the Continent. It does not seem that that should give us great cause for satisfaction. That is no more than a debating point. It may well be that, as the road system has improved in this country, we ought to look at the internal conditions in which live animals are transported immediately before slaughter. We ought to be asserting ourselves in that area as well as being concerned about exporting animals to the Continent.
  1812
  The National Farmers Union and the British Agricultural Export Council have bombarded hon. Members with a great many arguments why both the Private Member's Bill and the principles embodied in the motion today should not go forward. The NFU has been disingenuous in the extreme in the three arguments which it principally advances. The NFU argues, first, that if we were to take the action contemplated in the motion, this would be incompatible with the regulations of the EEC. The NFU argues, secondly—this was an argument on which we heard a great deal from the Minister—that it would increase the sufferings of animals elsewhere. Thirdly, the NFU says that it would cause a slump in fat-stock prices.
  In addition, the NFU has submitted to us its survey of one trip from Boston, conducted by its investigators presumably as a counterbalance to the investigation of Miss Maureen Lawless. Let us take these things one after the other. I do not, as hon. Members will know, share the extreme hostility to the EEC of some of my hon. Friends. But we ought to be robust about this matter. We ought to be able to say to the EEC, in regard to its existing regulations, that if we find the conditions of this trade wanting—as we do—we shall stop it, and stop it forthwith.
  We are dealing here with a matter which is entirely under our jurisdiction, with animals leaving our shores for export. We would have no difficulty whatsoever, whatever the NFU says in its piece of special pleading, in saying to the EEC that we proposed to ban the export of all live animals to the Continent forthwith. That is the first NFU argument.
  The second of the arguments, which was also mentioned by the Minister, is that this will increase the sufferings of animals elsewhere, and that, somehow, the sum total of animal suffering will be increased in the balance if we do something to diminish and ameliorate the sufferings of animals being exported. That argument is the purest humbug. That was the kind of argument that was advanced against the cessation of the slave trade. Over one hundred and fifty years ago people said "If we take action unilaterally against the slave trade and stop this enormous cruelty to these

  1813
  people, we shall drive trade elsewhere. It will be very bad for trade. Bristol will suffer."
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: And Liverpool.
  Mr. Whitehead: Perhaps people said that Liverpool would suffer. Perhaps Liverpool did suffer initially. People said "Trade will go elsewhere. Others will lay down more ships and will carry more slaves and do rather better. In total there may well be more slaves carried and suffering at the end of the day than if we had not busied ourselves with this legislation." That argument is a load of rubbish.
  The lead given by this country in that matter was followed—sometimes for good reasons and sometimes because the countries concerned were shamed into following it—by every European Power.
  On the subject of Irish cattle and the mystical farmers who have one field south of the border and one in the Six Counties, we should be saying to ourselves that, instead of making these sophisticated points about the division of cattle at the point of entry on the Continent, we ought to be thinking of the kind of lead that we could give to the Republic of Ireland. If there is great suffering to cattle exported from the Republic of Ireland and Irish farmers are benefiting because of the increase in the export trade in live sheep from Ireland to the Continent, and if it is feared by the NFU and others that this pattern would be followed if we were to do the same thing in the case of cattle, surely we ought to be working to change the climate of opinion in the Irish Republic.
  Many people in the Irish Republic are as shocked by the practices of the exporting industry there as we are by what has happened in some cases in this country. Therefore, this argument does not wash. We should, and can, give a lead. The total effect over time of giving such a lead would be to diminish the aggregate of animal suffering in the entire export business.
  Thirdly, the NFU says that this will cause a slump in fatstock prices. My constituents would be pleased to hear that. They would be pleased to hear that the price of beef was falling and that at this
  1814
  sensitive time of the year, when one can have beef on the Sunday table only by getting a building society or something to back it, they would be able to have it reduced to the price that the ordinary housewife can pay.
  The arguments about the seasonal fluctuations in fatstock prices which have caused the farming industry in this country to rely upon the Continental buyer, this sensitive buyer who will not take our carcases but only live animals, cannot be justified.
  I come finally to the NFU survey, the little voyage from Boston, carried out by two gentlemen on behalf of the NFU. One of them who was called in to do this was Mr. Thompson, the vice-chairman of the NFU's animal health centre. The investigation was concluded on 26th May 1973. Mr. Thompson said that he found no evidence of cruelty, and that at no point did he see handling of cattle, on this voyage or after, which could be described as cruel or vicious.
  The House, however, ought to know exactly what it was that was found by the investigators who went on 13th March to Ostend and precisely what photographs were brought back as evidence, which have since been reproduced in the brochure sent to all hon. Members by the RSPCA. These were photographs of animals ankle-deep in blood with limbs broken when they were unloaded from the vehicles in which they had been brought from the point of entry, and animals being forced past carcases and sometimes still living animals suspended with their throats already cut. This is what Miss Lawless said.
  Mr. Jerry Wiggin: When was the hon. Gentleman last in an abattoir?
  Mr. Whitehead: If the hon. Gentleman is wanting to say by that remark that all conditions in abattoir are as horrific as these, he is wrong. He is certainly wrong in that concerning those in my constituency.
  Mr. Wiggin: The hon. Gentleman is putting words into my mouth. I merely asked, if he was such an expert on the conditions in abattoirs, when he had last been in one.
  Mr. Whitehead: I do not think that the intervention of the hon. Member for

  1815
  Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) helps the debate. I have not been in this abattoir for the very good reason that I was not a member of the investigatory team, but I believe that it is evidence that should be laid before the House and that most hon. Members will wish to hear it.
  Mr. Charles Loughlin: I can help my hon. Friend slightly because one of my responsibilities as an official of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers was to look after work-people in abattoirs. There is no British abattoir that I know, certainly in the region that I covered, which was Birmingham and Mid-Wales, that would produce evidence of the kind of cruelty to animals to which my hon. Friend is referring.
  Mr. Wiggin: I agree.
  Mr. Whitehead: Therefore, I do not see why the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare wasted the time of the House with his intervention.
  I shall simply read to the House what Miss Lawless found:
  "Some animals fell shot in the head. Others not so fortunate were shot in the ear, the cheek or the top of the neck.
  The cattle behind them fell over the dead and injured bodies into the blood which was inches deep.
  On injured beast somehow crawled away and wedged itself under some bars in the corner.
  As shot animals were falling down or trying to stagger away, they were hauled up by a chain attached to one hind leg and were left to have their throats cut in full view of the other beasts.
  One steer with a wound in its cheek was hanging up by one leg kicking and struggling and bellowing for minutes fully conscious before one of the men walked over and actually cut its throat."
  I have lived in a farming community, next door to a farm and in a farming village. There is a slaughterhouse in the nearest town. I have never seen conditions of that kind in any British abattoir. I do not believe that they exist. If they exist, it is within our competence to do something about them.
  As this evidence has been laid before us as to the conditions of this slaughterhouse on the Continent, I submit that it is material evidence when we are considering the very moderate call made by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow,
  1816
  West for a committee of inquiry. I would welcome it. I note the reservations that the Minister of State expressed. However, I hope in view of the evidence we have already heard, and in view of the specious nature of the arguments against a ban on the export of live animals, that one of the recommendations of the committee of inquiry will be a total, continuing and permanent ban on the export of live animals from this country.
  5.2 p.m.
  Sir Robin Turton: I shall make a very brief speech. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister of State—I declare the same interest as he, as a farmer and a livestock breeder—not to press the amendment. For one thing, it is meaningless. Secondly, it would be a great pity to divide the House, which is in general agreement, on an issue which I do not think is realistic.
  The requirement of the amendment is that there should be evidence that the Balfour Assurances are not being observed. What is the evidence? There is abundant evidence. People can come forward who have been on the continent and seen in certain cases that the Balfour Assurances have not been observed. We can take the Putte case of 1970 or the more recent cases raised by the RSPCA.
  Only a year ago when we were talking about sheep the Minister said, "We have no evidence. We are not going to change. We are not going to stop the exports." Then a small body of men went out to Belgium and had the most exciting experiences, rather like a James Bond story. They were arrested four times. They were chased from market to market. They returned with a film. Then, like Saul on the road to Damascus, the Minister was converted. Must we go through that every time before we get a change? This is the difficulty about the amendment.
  The British Veterinary Association, which believes that this trade has got to be stopped, passed this resolution last June:
  "That unless assurances are received that proper policing of the Balfour Agreement is possible, this Association will be opposed to the export of live food animals for slaughter."
  The Ministry, in reply to the association, could give no such assurances.

  1817
  If that is so, what is the meaning of the amendment? We can bring any amount of evidence, but my right hon. Friend may not accept that evidence. Does the amendment mean "acceptable evidence" or just what it says—evidence? That is why I fear that the amendment is a subterfuge.
  I make one appeal. I am convinced that, whatever view we may take on the larger question, the annual export of 20,000 calves for the veal trade is abominable and should be stopped at once. For one thing, the regulation says that the calves should be only 50 kilograms. They are often very much less, but that figure should be much higher.
  I ask at this time, when there is a shortage of good beef store animals, for the Minister to suspend that calf trade, whatever view he takes on the larger matter. He has gone some way. I congratulate him on agreeing to an inquiry, for which we have pressed for a long time. For a long time the Government resisted the idea of an independent inquiry.
  I congratulate the Government, too, on their conversion to the suspension of sheep exports, though I regretted my hon. Friend's saying, "Look at what happened. We stopped sheep exports. Exports from Ireland rose from 734 to 12,000." My hon. Friend did not mention that the number going from this country before the suspension in 1972 was 212,000 a year. If he had put that in the proper perspective, the point he made would not have been quite so telling as he intended it to be.
  I regret that I could not possibly support this meaningless and illogical amendment and I hope that the motion will be passed.
  5.7 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Noble: I, too, shall make a very short speech, though rather in the contrary sense to that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton).
  I have, as hon. Members know, three perhaps separate interests here. I am a member of the British Agricultural Export Council. The hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) complained that he had been bombarded with documents from the BAEC. We
  1818
  sent one. I noticed that the hon. Gentleman said that the RSPCA had kindly circulated hon. Members with its views. There must be an obvious distinction.
  The BAEC is interested solely in the export of sheep and cattle for breeding. We are obviously aware of what goes on in the fat cattle market, but this is not part of our concern. I am very worried that if we start a principle by which the export of all animals for slaughter is banned, it is impossibly difficult for anybody, even perhaps the Almighty, to be certain that the animals exported for breeding will be bred from.
  In markets in Scotland large numbers of cross-Aberdeen Angus heifers are sold in the autumn. Probably 98 per cent. of them will finally go for slaughter. But there will always be some farmers who will say "I like the look of that beast. I will keep her and breed from her." It will clearly be exceedingly difficult for anybody to differentiate between which heifers are going for breeding purposes and which are going for slaughter and to operate such a control. It would quickly turn into nonsense.
  Mr. F. A. Burden: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Noble: No. It is better if we each make our points quickly and simply.
  The welfare of animals exported for breeding purposes is clearly vital to the work of my council and its members. We are selling abroad animals which are often worth hundreds and even thousands of pounds, and we, therefore, know something about the transportation of valuable livestock over infinitely greater distances than those we are discussing here. We care very much that this transportation is properly carried out, and we have to care because if the animals were in poor condition the customers would not accept them.
  A few weeks ago we thought it would be wise to try to call together all those people who are in the fatstock export business to see whether the council and the NFU could arrive at a proper code of practice and get it accepted by the exporters. We ran up against a snag, however, because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry told us that the list of people

  1819
  dealing in the export of animals was confidential and that we could not have it. One of the ways in which we shall be able to reduce suffering in the export of animals is by a proper control of the people who deal in this trade, and I should like to see that approach carefully considered.
  Mr. Heffer: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Noble: Perhaps I could make my speech in my own way.
  Mr. Heffer: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain exactly what he means?
  Mr. Noble: I mean that there are without any doubt certain people on the fringe of this business who are not as careful about the regulations as they should be. I wish to say no more than that. I should like the Government to be in a position to say to such people that if they misbehave their licences will be revoked and they will never handle this trade again. It is a simple point but it could he effective.
  The Balfour Assurances have gone a considerable way—not the whole way by any means—towards improving conditions for the export of animals. One positive step that my right hon. Friend the Minister might consider is to say to our Friends in the Republic of Ireland that if they are determined to flout the rules and have nothing to do with the Balfour Assurances we might have to consider stopping the import of Irish sheep and cattle into Britain. There is no doubt that in stopping the trade of live sheep we have ensured that more sheep are exported from Ireland and most of the rest are exported from Bulgaria and other places in Eastern Europe, so that the total suffering has been considerably greater. My right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton said that my hon. Friend the Minister of State had not made his case fully. He did not because he probably did not have time.
  My second interest is simply as the Member of Parliament for Argyll. I listened with a certain amount of concern about the Balfour Assurances and the 100-km or the 60-mile limit. With the exception of my farm, which is on the extreme edge of the county, I do not believe that there is a farmer in Argyll who could send any sheep to a slaughter-
  1820
  house within 60 miles of his farm. In the case of the islands the sheep have to make a sea crossing which is much greater than the Channel crossing. But that represents an enormous improvement on conditions of 50 or 60 years ago when these animals had to walk and swim the journey.
  Mr. Heffer: I should hope so.
  Mr. Noble: So would I. Since the war I personally have sent at least 100,000 sheep to market, and the number that have died or suffered broken legs can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Enormous care is taken by all sheep transporters, and I put that on the record for the sake of people who believe that because sheep are put into lorries they are automatically maltreated.
  The farming community takes enormous care and effort to look after the welfare of its sheep and it wants to be able to continue the trade which is not causing suffering to animals. Therefore, the inquiry must establish the facts. If the practice is cruel, the Government can say so and it can be stopped. If it is not, this trade, which has continued for a considerable time with few abuses, should be allowed to continue.
  5.15 p.m.
  Mr. Cyril Smith: I shall not delay the House for more than two or three minutes. I rise simply to clarify the position of the Liberal Party. I welcome the Opposition motion and congratulate them on their willingness to give time for discussion of it. My hon. Friends and I will certainly be in the Lobby with them at the appropriate hour. We shall vote against the Government amendment for reasons which have been outlined by the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton).
  I was a little surprised at the Minister's statement that no evidence was forthcoming to indicate that certain requirements were not being met. I should have thought that there was abundant evidence to indicate ill-treatment of animals on their export to the Continent and that the evidence available to the Government—such evidence as is presented by the RSPCA, for example—was sufficient to warrant not merely a committee of inquiry but the suspension of the export of live animals until that inquiry has reached some conclusions.
  5.17 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Morrison: I, too, shall endeavour to be almost as brief as the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Cyril Smith), although that might be difficult.
  As the Minister of State commented in opening his speech, it is common ground between everybody who has taken part in the debate that they would wish by some means to ensure a reduction in whatever amount of cruelty might now exist. The only difference of opinion might be about the means to be adopted to achieve that end. The hon. Member for Rochdale said that there was evidence of ill-treatment, and the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) has drawn attention to the evidence we have all received from the RSPCA. Other evidence has been brought to our attention.
  The questions to be answered are whether the number of such cases of cruelty would justify a total ban on this export trade, and what effect that ban would have. It is difficult to understand how we shall reduce the totality of cruelty by banning the export trade in this country, because we know full well that many other countries do not adopt the same standards of inspection which we have here.
  The point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) about transport of farm animals, particularly sheep, is a valid one—and particularly in his part of the world. I declare my interest as a farmer in his constituency who every year has to transport cattle from one of the islands to the mainland. Those cattle are travelling in a ship, not a very long journey but one that is often made in roughish weather, a journey which cannot be avoided, because I, like other rearers of cattle in the area, am not in a position to fatten them there and they have to be carried elsewhere. It would be a very brave man who tried to claim that animals in transit anywhere within the United Kingdom were never subject to some unwitting cruelty.
  Therefore, we cannot pretend to put on a white sheet, although I am convinced that the overall standard is as high as is practically possible and that all farmers will always do their best to ensure that
  1822
  that is so, as will the carriers. Unfortunately, unwitting occurrences of cruelty sometimes happen.
  I am sure that the same is true in the slaughterhouses. The hon. Member for Derby, North referred to an article about slaughterhouses by a journalist and the vice-chairman of the NFU livestock committee, who went to Belgium to inquire into conditions there. The journalist, Mr. Peter Bell, commented:
  "The general standard of the abattoir was about level with the UK average."
  It would be wrong to draw general conclusions from particular cases, but I do not accept that the example he saw was so very different from the average in Belgium.
  The motion welcomes the suspension of the sheep exports. I have no doubt that the Government were right to ban that export trade, although we must learn from the ban the lesson in the figures of exports from Ireland and parts of Eastern Europe. The sheep experience emphasises the need to consider the effect of any ban on exports from this country.
  Then the motion calls for an inquiry into the trade, but after it has been stopped. That is a rather pointless exercise. The Government amendment makes rather more sense of a broadly acceptable motion. It is too facile a solution to impose a total ban on exports forthwith. If we do so, in all likelihood we shall merely export the potential for cruelty from this country to others.
  Mr. William Price rose—
  Mr. Morrison: I am drawing my speech to an end, and many other hon. Members wish to speak.
  In all likelihood a total ban would increase the sum total of cruelty, because of the possibility of still allowing journeys for animals from other countries and because in many cases those animals will be subject to less oversight and inspection than our own.
  If we ban exports we shall lose our power to influence other countries' standards. I disagree with the hon. Member for Derby, North about giving a lead. I do not believe that if we opt out we shall be able to give a lead to anyone.
  I admire the RSPCA for highlighting the whole issue. It has helped to ensure

  1823
  that the Ministry has been properly kept up to the mark and has been even more energetic in its endeavours to reduce the total amount of cruelty. But I am not prepared to indulge in the self-satisfaction of a total ban on exports when I know that that could mean still greater cruelty to exports from other countries. Therefore, I hope that the House will support the motion with the Government amendment as a sensible compromise between everyone's desire to cope with the problem and practical reality.
  5.24 p.m.
  Mr. F. A. Burden: I had hoped that the debate would not be on party lines. On such matters as we are dealing with the House is always at its best when party influences are not introduced.
  I was greatly surprised when my hon. Friend the Minister said in his opening speech that if cattle do not go from this country there will be more cruelty, because they will go from other countries. Has he thought that if the Balfour and other regulations are so onerous other countries will not take cattle from here but will take them from the other countries anyway? His argument was ridiculous.
  I turn to the question of cattle for breeding. The Ponies Act, the passage of which through this House I was partially instrumental in securing, raised the price of ponies so that it was uneconomical to buy them for slaughter abroad but people overseas would be willing to pay more for breeding and riding animals. I believe that the same thing could be done with regard to cattle.
  There was obviously grave concern about the conditions in which cattle from this country were exported and slaughtered abroad for many years, otherwise the Balfour Assurances would never have come into force. The Balfour Assurances, which were regarded as the minimal conditions in 1957, were not mandatory. They were adopted by the countries concerned in the form of a regulation in full for pigs and cattle and sheep by Belgium, Holland, Italy and West Germany. France agreed only in the case of cattle. Therefore, at no time should British sheep or pigs be going to France. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister
  1824
  will give an undertaking that they have never gone to France since the Balfour Assurances were introduced.
  It is all too clear that many undertakings given by the countries concerned to abide by the Balfour Assurances were worthless. In many instances there has been a total disregard of the maximum distances laid down, and many animals are slaughtered in conditions that are abhorrent even to people with only the slightest concern for animal welfare.
  The Government fully accepted that there was unacceptable cruelty to sheep when they suspended all licences for the export of those animals for slaughter. If for sheep, why not for cattle and pigs? Are we expected to believe that sheep have been specially singled out for cruelty, that that cruelty was sufficient to prompt the Government to suspend their export, but that in some peculiar way cattle and pigs are given greater consideration, and that there is, therefore, no reason to ban their export? I just do not believe that. There is evidence that that is not the case, and that cattle, too, are subjected to long journeys and are slaughered in conditions completely unacceptable to the ordinary people of this country.
  The hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins) has referred to the News of the World report. Even if some right hon. and hon. Members, the NFU and others say that there was considerable licence on the part of the News of the World investigators and that they exaggerated, they surely cannot say that the report was a complete figment of the imagination. Those investigators would have had to have had a most extraordinary imagination and would have been completely corrupt reporters. If there was the slightest validity in what they reported, I am sure that there is ample evidence for bringing this trade to an end.
  There is no doubt that there are a great many people in Britain who believe that there should be a complete ban on the export of live animals for slaughter. I am unable to compromise, and I believe that that should be so. I remind the House that no fewer than 165 hon. Members signed a motion which I tabled calling for a complete ban on this trade. In addition, 67 hon. Members signed a

  1825
  motion tabled by the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) and no fewer than 154 hon. Members signed a motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Sydney Chapman). The hon. Members who signed that motion agreed that there was grave concern about the way in which cattle were slaughtered on the Continent.
  The Government can have no doubt that the trade is unacceptable to a considerable cross-section of hon. Members which goes right across party lines. They can have no doubt that it is unacceptable to the mass of the public. It is unacceptable not to fanatical animal lovers and vegetarians but to ordinary decent people who, while accepting that farm animals are inevitably exploited to satisfy human needs, will not tolerate their unnecessary suffering, especially if they think that that suffering is motivated by human greed.
  The majority of people with any humane feelings are appalled at the evidence that animals bred and reared in Britain are sentenced to undergo the stress, strain and suffering imposed by long journeys prior to meeting what the facts show to be an end which is sometimes brought about in conditions of agonising brutality. Human suffering and death is the daily experience of the medical profession. The training and knowledge of medical men is such that they are neither sentimental nor squeamish in their approach to suffering and death. The same is just as true of the veterinary profession. Its views on animal suffering and slaughter must have equal authority.
  The last sentence of a letter sent out on 10th July by the British Veterinary Association says:
  "We do hope that the debate will force a ban on the export of all live food animals."
  That hope can be put forward only on the ground that the British Veterinary Association believes that there is unacceptable cruelty in the trade. There can be only one reason for pressing for the continuation of the trade—namely, that the export of live animals for slaughter brings economic benefit which outweighs all other considerations. I do not accept that argument in relation to human beings or to animals. If it were accepted, the slave trade would still be in evidence in
  1826
  America, children would still be in the mills and on the assembly lines of British factories and we should not now be at variance with the Governments of Rhodesia and South Africa.
  Even if there are great economic advantages if this trade is continued, its continuation will not benefit the British housewife, who, with the public at large, will not be convinced that it is sensible to export farm animals for slaughter from Britain when the total output of meat falls heavily short of our basic needs. The public see no sense in selling British meat abroad and having that meat denied to them or having to have it replaced by meat brought from abroad at the expense of foreign exchange. The economic arguments do not hold. Even if they did, I am sure that the case against the trade is so overwhelming that the majority of British people would wish it stopped.
  The evidence which has been produced has been so good and so factual because it has been obtained by people who have worked anonymously. I welcome the fact that the Government have said that they will set up an independent inquiry. Of course, those who are in the trade will be forewarned and there will be a clearing up. There will be window-dressing. I hope that the inspectors will be asked and advised to meet and have discussions with those who have already looked into the trade. I hope that the inspectors will take their evidence. Enough evidence having been found to suspend the shipment of sheep, I believe that the House and the country will demand an undertaking to suspend the export of cattle.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Before I call the hon. Member for Gloucesteshire, West (Mr. Loughlin), I should explain to the House that Mr. Speaker felt, owing to the special nature of the subject which we are discussing, that hon. Members should be heard for or against the motion irrespective of any party affiliation. The result is, as hon. Members can see for themselves, that it is necessary to call two from the Government side to one from the Opposition benches.
  5.38 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Loughlin: I shall not detain the House long because this is an issue on which there is

  1827
  so much agreement across party lines that I am hoping that the House will be able to forget party affiliations. I know that we cannot expect Ministers to do so but we can expect back benchers, on issues of this kind, to do so.
  I must express an interest because it might be argued that if there is a cessation of, the exporting of live animals members of my organisation might benefit in that the animals would be slaughtered in Britain and, therefore, they might enjoy a pecuniary advantage. I am an official of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, which represents the abattoir workers in this country.
  This is a simple issue. Sufficient evidence has been adduced to show that the export of live animals has resulted in cruelty substantially higher than a large section of the community will tolerate. The hon. Member for Merton and Morden (Miss Fookes) tabled a Question about this matter, and a supplementary question which I asked resulted in me receiving letters from all over the country. Those letters expressed agreement with my call for an immediate ban on this trade.
  The situation has been reached—it is no good the Government trying to hide the fact—when the number of people opposed to this trade is so high that it cannot possibly be ignored. I know that figures can he bandied about. It might well be argued, as had been attempted this afternoon, that if we stop exports of cattle in the same way as we stopped exports of sheep the exports would continue and we would transfer the cruelty from British animals to animals from other countries. But which countries are likely to export live animals to the exten that we are now exporting them?
  I know that the difference cannot be quantified but I question very much—as did the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton) when he controverted the Minister's use of statistics about sheep exports—whether there is a transference of cruelty. The cruelty to animals which we have seen as a result of evidence that has been submitted to us all is absolutely intolerable. I hope that every hon. Member who takes my point of view will accept that this is not a major issue which will bring down the Government.
  1828
  If the Government were defeated over such an issue there would be no political significance in it. This is an issue on which back benchers can come together and say "Enough is enough; we are not tolerating it any longer. The Minister must act and stop this trade in animals, because it is the type of cruelty that we ought not to tolerate."
  5.41 p.m.
  Mr. Rafton Pounder: May I at the outset declare that I am involved with an animal welfare organisation: namely, the Ulster Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals—no relation whatever, other than in name, to the organisation with which my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) is involved. In common with other animal welfare organisations, the USPCA deplores the export of live animals for slaughter.
  Some years ago I was fortunate enough to obtain the leave of this House on two occasions under the Ten-Minute Bill procedure to introduce a Bill aimed at preventing the export of animals for vivisectional research abroad. The argument I sought to deploy on that occasion is exactly the same as the argument which is relevant today: namely, that it is wrong for animals bred in this country to be sold to places where the travelling, lairage, feeding and the conditions of slaughter are different from standards appertaining in this country.
  Regrettably, so often discussions on animal welfare matters are overlaid, indeed debased, by sloppy sentimentality, in consequence of which good arguments are not infrequently lost in a welter of emotion. With great respect to the documentation that some hon. Members have sought to advance in this debate, I must point out that I have been badly scarred in the past through placing reliance on photographic evidence allegedly purporting to be valid only to be told subsequently that it was 20 years out of date. I am not making that charge with regard to the document mentioned by the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead). I do ask people to be careful about attaching credence to photographic material espousing animal welfare causes.
  Mr. John Golding: Will the hon. Gentleman say

  1829
  whether he doubts the written statement that these photographs were taken on the dates mentioned by the RSPCA?
  Mr. Pounder: I was careful not to make any point against the RSPCA documents which I have seen. I accept its validity, coming from such an authoritative and responsible organisation. The point I am trying to make is that sometimes photographic material is used to support a case which is not altogether reliable.
  There is obviously the humanitarian argument, and we are all aware of the grisly incidents which have occurred from time to time in the export of live animals for slaughter abroad. In that context I commend wholeheartedly the action of the Government in banning the export of sheep in consequence of some distasteful experiences suffered by consignments of sheep destined for slaughter abroad. Although the Government are, rightly, firm in insisting that the only countries to which cattle can be exported are those which observe the Balfour Assurances, there is inevitably the question of ascertaining that the importer does not re-export those animals to countries which are not signatories to the assurances. With the best will in the world, it is virtually impossible to develop an adequate policing system which will ensure that no animals get through the net. This is a matter of considerable concern for me.
  I am also an Ulsterman. The repeated references in the debate to the cross-border traffic with the Irish Republic have not made my enjoyment—if that is the right word—of this debate any greater. I utterly deplore some of the appalling instances which have occurred, particularly with the exportation of sheep from the Irish Republic to the Middle East. There is a considerable volume of cross-border traffic. The fact that it has gone on for a long time does not make it any more palatable to me. I realise that there is no point in asking the Government to take steps to curtail this cross-border traffic because everyone conversant with the border knows that it would be virtually impossible to stop it. If the Irish Government have not been able to stop terrorists moving across the border there is small hope of their being able to stop the traffic in cattle.
  1830
  I would not for a moment object to some form of pressure being applied to the Southern Irish authorities to dissuade them from their habit of exporting live cattle to countries to which this country would not for a moment be prepared to send its animals. I seem to recall that some years ago, when there was a great scandal, rightly so, about the exportation of old horses from Eire, it was the weight of public opinion, on this side of the water as well as on the Irish side, that managed to terminate that unattractive trade.
  There is another problem. Apart from the humanitarian aspect there is the economic argument, and it is fair that in such a debate as this we should pay proper attention to it. In the main, agricultural areas are areas of low employment opportunities. It is interesting to discover the economic potential of the establishment of slaughterhouses in agricultural regions.
  We in Northern Ireland have been doing this and have opened six or seven in the last year or so. Not only does this avoid the weight loss and all the other things that happen as a result of the transportation of cattle, but we also create ancillary industries based on hides and on bones used for making fertiliser and so on. There is a valid economic argument here.
  I realise that often—it is no use hiding this point—a number of slaughterhouses, indeed most in the United Kingdom, do not fulfil international requirements. This apparently is due to the fact that at stages of the slaughtering process the carcases and the offal cannot automatically and easily be identified. That, coupled with the double veterinary inspection system required for the international markets, means that many of our slaughterhouses do not fulfil the requirements of the export trade.
  Mr. Burden: But 41 do.
  Mr. Pounder: I would have thought that the amount of money needed to bring our large abattoirs up to that standard would be an investment well worth making. That would considerably assist in the economic argument of the dead meat trade. I very much look forward to the day when there will be no such thing as the export of live animals for slaughter abroad.

  1831
  The meat processing industry in this country should be able to carry out all the tasks required of it. I hope that I have made my case perfectly clear. I have strong feelings on humanitarian and economic grounds on this subject, but I believe that the Government's amendment is an honest endeavour to reach the decision we all want. For that reason I am prepared to support the Government tonight.
  5.50 p.m.
  Sir Clive Bossom: I must declare that I do not own a farm, I have no stock, and I have no connections with auctioneers, but I am President of the Anglo-Belgian Union, which seeks to promote better understanding between the two countries. However, the Belgian Government have no influence on me, nor am I financed by Belgian butchers. I make these points because I have been accused on all these counts in the last six months.
  I have an interest in the welfare of not only British animals but any animals. I have always argued in Herefordshire that in time the carcase trade was the right and proper method of exporting animals to the Continent. In the past five months I have argued that a Private Member's Bill is not the appropriate vehicle with which to impose a blanket ban on the export of live animals to Europe, for I am absolutely convinced that, instead of reducing cruelty, such a move would increase it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) made the point that if there was a ban the trade would automatically find other outlets. As has been pointed out, the trade would switch to Ireland and buyers in Europe would go to Bulgaria, Romania, Czechslovakia and other Eastern countries. This happened when licences for the export of heavy weight sheep were rightly suspended on 1st February, and it would happen again with cattle.
  It is a poor argument to say that if we banned the export of live animals it would be a shining example which other countries would automatically follow. Human nature being what it is, I do not, sadly, believe that that would be the case. We would be the losers all round and other countries would not be shamed into following our example.
  1832
  Some welfare organisations and Sunday newspapers have run a colourful campaign in the last few months. In some cases there have been exaggerated reports. It is easy to paint a picture of beastly foreigners manhandling poor British animals, and this impression has been given. I do not deny that there may have been cases of cruelty, but the cruelty angle can be, and has been, overstressed.
  What I find fascinating is that I receive dozens of letters about cruelty to animals and not a single letter about cruelty to children, which also exists. One or two of the highly emotional reports, by reporters of both sexes, have been written by people with no experience of cattle transportation or slaughter methods, in this country. As the Minister has said, it is never a pleasure to watch animals die. Any slaughtering is a grisly affair, especially in the eyes of those, like the reporters, who have not previously seen it. I think, therefore, that some of their reports are biased.
  The hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) mentioned the reports in April by Mr. David Parker, chairman of the NFU livestock committee, and Mr. Peter Bell, of the British Farmer and Stockbreeder. He gave the impression that the reports were suspect and biased, but to be fair, at least with their background knowledge and experience, the authors were able to judge between the procedure adopted by Belgian slaughterhouses and that adopted by slaughterhouses in this country. I have found that in Belgium the standards of meat inspection are as high as, or even higher than, in this country.
  It seems that animal welfare organisations have double standards. They complain about animals being bled on the Continent without first being stunned, yet they are prepared to accept lamb from New Zealand, where sheep are not pre-stunned before slaughter.
  The economic factor has also been mentioned. It is clearly the feeling of the House that this is not the most important factor involved. But this trade is worth about £20 million a year. The relatively small volume of exported cattle provides farmers in areas such as Herefordshire with additional incentives to continue to expand home production. A good proportion of the cattle we are exporting are old cows which it would be difficult to sell in the United Kingdom.

  1833
  I welcome the proposed independent and unbiased inquiry which will enable us to ascertain what changes are needed in the European code. Perhaps further secondary legislation such as new regulations is required. I am disappointed that the Government did not propose an inquiry five months ago. I pressed them to set up such an inquiry. I am sorry that they have decided to institute an inquiry only now. While we are awaiting the findings of the inquiry, the Government should immediately introduce licences for exporters. They could rigidly control any unscrupulous exporter and revoke his licence for a breach of regulations. The Government should also get together with the Belgian Government and arrange for all our welfare requirements to be written into importers' licences. If there was any breach the Belgian Government would revoke the importer's licence.
  I put forward those two positive proposals which could be further safeguards which we are awaiting the findings of the inquiry.
  5.56 p.m.
  Mr. John Golding: Some of the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Leominster (Sir Clive Bossom) were unworthy of him. For him to say that he had received letters on this matter but not on cruelty to children was a red herring.
  There is a great deal of concern among my constituents, and particularly among the young people, about this trade. It is a heathy sign that young people should be concerned about the question of cruelty. They are concerned because they believe that there is an economic motivation behind the cruelty. They think that it stems from the profit motive and not from psychological causes and that therefore something positive can be done about it. They are urging politicians to take action about this trade, which they deplore. Young people will not accept the economic argument. They will not accept cruelty done in their name even for the sake of £20 million. Nor will they accept the argument that because other people engage in cruel practices, so should we. They reject that standard.
  I do not wish to use the argument that there is a trade for beef in this country. There is no necessity to take beef to the
  1834
  Continent. However, if it is taken to the Continent, it will not lead to economic disaster in Manchester, for example, if the cattle are killed in this country. I am aware from questions asked and contributions made by my hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) and for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Charles R. Morris) that there is in Manchester a municipally-owned, modern and effective abattoir, opened in 1966, which because of under-use is losing money and must be paid for by the ratepayers. It is not reasonable that we should encourage the export of live cattle to the Continent from, say, Cheshire or North Staffordshre when they could be slaughtered under more humane conditions in Manchester.
  The argument seems partly to concern the question of proof. I have looked at the RSPCA document which reproduced the photographs taken for the News of the World. I accept the evidence of those photographs. I admit that it is possible to produce photographs which are 20 years out of date, but I do not believe that that is the case with these photographs. I accept the report of the News of the World reporter and the authenticity of the photographs. The onus of proof rests on those who wish to continue this trade. If they could demonstrate that the photographs were 20 years old and that the News of the World report was false and exaggerated, I should have second thoughts about voting against the Government's amendment.
  However, I believe the News of the World report to be true because there seems to be so much secondary evidence, particularly the evidence relating to sheep, to support it. If that evidence is true, there can be no doubt in the mind of any person who detests cruelty but that he should support the motion and oppose the amendment. That emerges clearly from representations made by the RSPCA to the effect that if it was given time any inquiry undertaken by the Government would be less effective. There can be no moral argument for the continuation of cruelty while the inquiry takes place.
  On the basis of television reports, the News of the World report and the inquiries undertaken by the RSPCA, we have adequate evidence on which to act.

  1835
  People will expect us to act. They expect us to say that in the name of the British people we will end the cruelty to animals and that we expect the Government to take action to ensure that it does not occur again.
  6.4 p.m.
  Mr. Marcus Kimball: My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton) made great play of the letter which some of us have received from the British Veterinary Association. It should be placed on record that the association represents under 70 per cent. of the practising veterinarians. The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has made no pronouncement on the matter. The association is the vets' trade union and does not represent the authoritative view of the whole profession.
  I hope that the House will proceed with great caution in this matter. The debate is taking place at a time when a large number of grass-fed cattle are coming on to the market and the market is in a delicate situation.
  The House does not appreciate that if a bullock weighing over 12 cwt. is taken to market there will be no buyer from the home market. The only people who will buy that bullock are representatives from the Kosher killing organisations or foreign buyers. Continental buyers are taking off the home market cattle which the home market is not prepared to pay for and slaughter. It does not make sense to say that if the cattle stayed here they would be available on the home market and the price of meat in this country would be reduced.
  The House has a great responsibility in this matter. The real trouble lies with the Slaughterhouses Act 1958. Hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition benches did not vote against that Bill. We missed the opportunity then to ensure that England had a complete system of municipal slaughterhouses, as has Scotland. We also missed the opportunity to ensure overall meat inspection in every slaughterhouse because at that time the House felt that many butchers wished to continue slaughtering in their own back yards.
  1836
  In England our standards of meat inspection are lower than those of five out of six of the continental countries to which we are trying to export. Continental countries insist that the offal continues with the carcase right through to the retail stage where it can be inspected a second time.
  The hard commercial fact is that a substantially higher price is obtained for selling a large, overweight bullock or an old cow on the hoof because of the problem of meat inspection in this country and the better utilisation of offal and byproducts that is practised on the Continent. I hope—as I think does the whole House—that eventually the sheer economics of shipping, transport and handling will result in this trade being entirely on the hook. To achieve that, we must have in this country an improved system of EEC-approved slaughterhouses, our meat inspection must be brought up to continental standards and our slaughterhouses must have much better lairage facilities.
  The House today has been concentrating mostly on cattle and sheep. We should not overlook the problem of the export of horses and ponies. The minimum valuation provisions do not give horses and ponies proper safeguards. Insufficient incentive is provided to ensure that full slaughtering facilities are set up in this country so that the horses and ponies do not have to go abroad.
  The position today is that the trade must be allowed to go on under the proper safeguards. One of the greatest safeguards is the value of the commodity that is being handled. Most farmers want to get their cattle to the slaughterhouse in the best possible condition with the minimum of bruising and the minimum of stress. A fat beast is almost like a ripe peach and needs careful handling. I am certain that that is the view of the farming community.
  Until slaughtering can be carried out entirely in this country, the House should accept the assurances of my hon. Friend the Minister of State that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has adequate supervision at the port of export to ensure that all animals going abroad are suitable for export and capable of travelling. The NFU report suggests that the documentation of animals going

  1837
  abroad is not adequate and that it should be in at least three languages to make certain that the people who handle the cattle know that they are cattle from England and are covered by the Balfour Assurances.
  I am satisfied that the conditions in the ships in which cattle are exported—particularly from Boston docks in Lincolnshire—are better than those in many of our most modern dairy units. The conditions on the Belgian shipping line are excellent and are far better than those in ships operating from the Scottish islands to the mainland.
  There is evidence that the methods employed by the RSPCA and other bodies in their investigations have not been conducive to improving the standard of animal welfare on the Continent. I hope the House will accept that our present safeguards are working and that the debate will reinforce everyone's intention to see that they do work—
  Mr. Burden: Before my hon. Friend resumes his seat, will he declare whether he has an interest?
  Mr. Kimball: I am sorry. I declare an interest as a producer of fat cattle and store sheep.
  6.10 p.m.
  Sir Ronald Russell: As chief sponsor of the Export of Animals (Control) Bill which is before the House I support the motion, although it goes further than the Bill in including "other animals" besides cattle, sheep and pigs. Like many of my colleagues, I have over a long period been urging a complete ban on the export of cattle, sheep and pigs. This view is supported by a great number of people from all over the country, as we all know from our mail. I have had thousands of letters, petitions and telephone calls in support of my Bill, and they are still coming. We should take note of this great expression of opinion throughout the country.
  This cruelty has gone on for far too long, and it must be stopped pending the inquiry. I am glad that the Government have consented to set up the inquiry. The only way to prevent this cruelty is by stopping the traffic in live cattle, and I am glad that this has been done in the
  1838
  case of live sheep. It is no good relying on the Balfour Assurances which cannot be enforced.
  We must remember that some continentals—I will not say all—are not animal lovers. They do not care how animals which are exported from this country are treated. Their attitude is that, as they will die anyway, it does not matter if they suffer en route, even if they have to travel 1,000 miles across France. It is no good expecting people like that to honour the Balfour Assurances.
  I once tabled a question on animal welfare in the Council of Europe. The answer I received from the chairman of the day in rather sarcastic tone was "This is an emotional issue". Of course it is an emotional issue, and rightly so. Animals feel emotion just as we do and we should, therefore, take all the trouble we can to see that they do not suffer.
  My hon. Friend the Minister of State said that there had been four complaints of violation of the Balfour Assurances and suggested that that was not many. Those cases were taken at random by the organisations concerned and each resulted in cruelty being proved. That suggests that if 10 more cases had been taken cruelty would also have been found in those 10 cases.
  I also pay tribute to the tremendous work done by the RSPCA, the ISPCA, the News of the World and other organisations in showing up the breaches of the Balfour Assurances which have occurred with sheep as well as with cattle. But for them this cruelty would not have come to light. I want to see trading in carcases instead of live animals, and I hope that the Government will always work towards that goal.
  If the members of the committee of inquiry visit the Continent, I hope that they will go incognito. It is no good announcing that they will land at Ostend on a certain day. On that day there certainly would not be any cruelty to be found or any breaches of the regulations. Farmers and officials would not violate regulations under the noses of members of such a body.
  I echo the plea made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton) not to press the amendment. The motion as it stands is acceptable to many Conservative

  1839
  Members, and I urge the Government to accept it.
  6.15 p.m.
  Mr. Robert C. Brown: It is an appalling state of affairs that in 1973 the Opposition have had to table this motion. The hon. Member for Leominster (Sir Clive Bossom) referred to the tremendous correspondence which he had received from his constituents on this issue compared with his correspondence about cruelty to children. Everyone is moved by the appalling scale of cruelty to live animals, and I see nothing wrong in the great animal lobby—in fact, I am glad that it exists.
  The one complaint I have about the Opposition motion is that it does not go far enough. The motion should have emphasised the need to bring all our slaughterhouses up to the necessary standards within the shortest possible time and should have insisted that this vile trade in the export of live animals should be brought to an end.
  Before I became a Member of this House my work involved frequent visits to the slaughterhouses in Railway Street, Newcastle. I was a member of the city health committee and because of what I say in those slaughterhouses I pressed hard for the building of a new abattoir in Newcastle. There is now a first-class abattoir in the city. I am glad to know that no animals are now suffering as they suffered in the old slaughterhouses.
  On more than one occasion when I visited slaughterhouses in Newcastle I have seen the tailboard of a wagon dropped to allow pigs and sheep to run down the ramp, and I have then seen slaughterhouse attendants carefully draw out the dead carcase of a pig and put it smartly into a scalding tank before anybody noticed it or had the opportunity to call in an RSPCA inspector. I often called the attention of an RSPCA inspector to the fact that there was a dead animal in the back of a wagon and also animals in an advanced state of suffocation. That happens in this country because of the transportation of live animals in extremely cramped conditions and because care has not been taken. But if that is what happens on short hauls in this country, one is appalled to think what happens on the extremely long
  1840
  hauls of live animals on the Continent. This was clearly brought out in the recent television documentary on this subject.
  The Government's amendment completely exposes the hypocrisy of Government thinking on this topic. If there had not been such a big profit in the rearing of animals for sale, the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball)—who has now left the Chamber—would probably have advocated the hunting of sheep, pigs and cattle. No matter what the hon. Member said about the British Veterinary Association representing under 70 per cent. of vets in this country, the fact is that the Ministry of Agriculture could give no satisfactory assurance to the BVA that the Balfour Assurances can be properly policed. This exposes the hypocrisy of the Government's Amendment.
  6.20 p.m.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I wish to say straight away that I fully support the Government's amendment to the important motion which we now have before us. I am convinced that all those who are genuinely and constructively interested in the welfare of animals are prepared to wait for the outcome of the full and independent inquiry which is to be set up into the export of live animals for slaughter rather than risk throwing away all the agreements and arrangements which have been secured by the United Kingdom over the years in the treatment of livestock. I believe that the present safeguards would be put in jeopardy by any premature ban on the export of live animals for slaughter or by a temporary blanket ban on the issue of licences.
  If the continental buyers cannot purchase animals on the hoof for slaughter from the United Kingdom, they will undoubtedly turn elsewhere for their requirements. They will turn to Eire or to Eastern Europe, and this will not be to the advantage internationally of the welfare of animals. Obviously, if they go to Eire and to Eastern Europe, this will result in much longer journeys for the animals about which we are all concerned, and which we wish to see much more humanely treated. They would then be taking animals from countries which have no agreements concerning

  1841
  the health, welfare and treatment of animals. Far from there being any advantage to the livestock, hasty and ill-considered bans would only remove the protection which animals now exported from the United Kingdom possess, and as a nation we would be powerless to influence the treatment of animals in the world at large.
  My initial reaction when representations were first made to me by my constituents—and I have had many hundreds of representations from people genuinely concerned about animals—was to urge the Government to ban the export of live animals for immediate slaughter abroad. I pressed this upon the Government not only because I was deeply concerned, and I still am deeply concerned, about the treatment of animals and livestock—if we slaughter them in our own abattoirs we can ensure maximum standards and minimum suffering—but also because I believe that the United Kingdom would benefit from the allied trades in hide, hoof and offal.
  I am sure that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will confirm the fervour and passion of the representations I made to the Ministry on this subject. I did not hesitate to append my name to the early-day motion on this subject promoted by the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton). However, every issue has two sides to it and, because I felt so strongly about this subject, I decided to contact those involved in the sale of livestock for slaughter abroad. I contacted some of my local farmers, and I have a constituency which has a very important beef industry. I contacted the local branch of the National Farmers' Union and a firm of auctioneers which runs a livestock market in Congleton in my constituency.
  The farmers made it clear that they are as concerned about the treatment of animals as any animal welfare organisation or as any Member of this House. Animals are part of farmers' lives and farmers will not readily sell their animals to a buyer with a reputation for ill-treatment and cruelty. The NFU position is abundantly clear. It is deeply concerned about the treatment of livestock in transit and humane slaughter methods. The NFU has requested—and I am delighted that the Government have
  1842
  agreed to this—the setting up of an independent inquiry into all the facts. The NFU does not believe that fair and objective decisions can be reached on the basis of emotive statements or sensational Press reports.
  I can speak first hand about the treatment of cattle in Congleton market from which weekly livestock exports to the Continent run into many thousands of pounds. The conditions in that market and the treatment of animals there are excellent. I wish to make the point that a majority of the trade that goes to Europe on the hoof is in heavy cows and bulls which are not bought by the English butchers. Therefore, this trade is not taking supplies off the United Kingdom market. The auctioneers advise me that livestock is a very valuable commodity at today's prices, and the British housewife will no doubt vouch for this.
  Any stress, strain, cruelty or ill-treatment caused to an animal will result in loss of weight and, because of the consequent loss in weight, loss in value. It is to the advantage of the buyer in Europe to ensure that his stock is not subjected to any harsh treatment.
  There are niggers in any woodpile, and niggers in the woodpile even in the United Kingdom. If the proposed inquiry shows that animal welfare standards need to be raised to the benefit of all livestock I believe that the best, most effective and constructive proposition lies in internationally-agreed arrangements and not in hasty emotive and unilateral action by this country.
  I am making arrangements with an auctioneering firm in my constituency to accompany a consignment of livestock from the cattle market in Congleton by cattle truck and boat to the abattoir in Amsterdam to see for myself the conditions which the animals will experience. I hope that as many right hon. and hon. Members as possible who have agricultural interests and farming communities in their constituencies will make similar arrangements. If this is done, a much more considered judgment can be made on this important issue.
  6.27 p.m.
  Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: There is grave concern among many hon. Members on the subject that we are debating. Equally and among the

  1843
  people of this country there is acute and widespread anxiety and even anguish. Much as I support the principle of the Opposition motion, much as I acknowledge that many hon. Members opposite feel as deeply and as sincerely as I and many of my hon. Friends, I cannot help feeling that it would be a great mistake if this debate degenerated into a political affair.
  In fact, there is not much to choose between successive Governments, Labour and Conservative, on this issue. I can claim that the present Government are ahead by a nose because, while the Labour Government did nothing in their six years, in three years we have managed to impose a temporary ban on the export of sheep. Credit is due to the Government for that action.
  I do not intend to qualify my support for the Opposition motion because I find myself unable to do other than support it. Try as I will, I am unable to accept the Government amendment because I cannot believe that the Government have the way or the means of collecting evidence of infringements of the Balfour Assurances before thousands of animals have suffered. This is a most important aspect to consider.
  It is often sneeringly said by foreigners that we in this country care more for our animals than for our children. This misconception is based on a misunderstanding by foreigners who are unable to comprehend that we have sufficient capacity to care deeply for the welfare of children as well as that of our animals. That being the case, it is almost impossible to over-emphasise the disgust, horror and repugnance felt by the people of this country at the scandalous way in which animals exported live for slaughter have been treated in transit and following their arrival at foreign ports. I do not intend to rehearse all the horrifying examples that are available to the House—these are only too well known to the country—save to say that, if only one of those reports were true in the smallest respect, we should immediately ban the export of animals for slaughter.
  Assurances have been given time and time again, and time and time again those promises have been broken. Equally familiar and almost as unacceptable are the arguments and excuses
  1844
  put forward by successive Governments in the past 10 years for doing nothing about the situation. Although the Government have placed a temporary ban on the export of live sheep which is admirable and for which my right hon. and hon. Friends deserve great credit, I have no confidence that assurances in the future will be honoured by people who have already made it abundantly clear by their past records that they look upon cattle as a mere commodity rather than as a form of life.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Woodhouse) raised this matter in an Adjournment debate on 8th March. He spoke of the conflicting views he had received from Ministers in the Ministry of Agriculture and the Department of Trade and Industry. He said:
  "one Department has the power but not the will to deal with the matter, and the other Department has the will but not the power."
  If that is the case, the sooner the two Departments get together and show a little will power, which is long overdue, the better.
  I intend now to refer to a matter which I am amazed no one so far has mentioned in this debate. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford in that Adjournment debate, most of the argument of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary was based on the interpretation of her Department of Article 34 of the Treaty of Rome, which prohibits any quantitative restrictions on exports between member countries of the Community, and Article 36, which is a qualifying article allowing these restrictions on the grounds of public policy, morality and the need to protect the health and welfare of animals. If ever there was any justification for invoking Article 36, I beg the House to agree that we have it here.
  In that same Adjournment debate my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said:
  "a complete ban on the export of live animals would be a quantitative restriction that we could not expect to justify under Article 36."
  Clearly there are two important points of interpretation: does this quantitative restriction specify a certain number or a certain quantity? If not, does it refer to the scale of exports? Those are the two points which my hon. Friend the

  1845
  Member for Oxford made. Furthermore, do Articles 34 and 36 anywhere refer to the fact that exports must be live? Are we not playing with words?
  If Article 34 refers to the scale of exports, why does it not say so? If it refers to the quantity of exports, there is no specific quantity mentioned, and in theory we could ban the export of all but two live animals. The word "live" is not contained in either of the articles. The view put forward by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, though not in these words, is that this is a matter of definition and there are clearly established precedents in this country that two different categories of exports exist—the export of live animals and the export of carcase animals—and neither in theory can be reduced.
  I hope the House will agree that there is something of an interpretative jungle to be cleared in this matter. I hope, too, that my right hon. Friend the Minister will accept that there are two issues. One refers to our position with regard to the Treaty of Rome, which must be clarified, and the other to morality, humanity and conscience. The former could be done by means of a test case before the European Court, and that could be precipitated by immediately suspending the export of live animals for slaughter.
  I turn to the latter issue of humanity, conscience and morality. The strongest case for banning the export of live animals for slaughter was put by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary in the Adjournment debate when she said in respect of animals exported for fattening:
  "It would be unrealistic to expect any Government to keep track of exported animals throughout their lives, and to apply special conditions t0 them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th March 1973; Vol. 852, c. 728–36.]
  This is the whole point. Of course it is unrealistic. Of course it is impossible to keep track of live animals once they reach a foreign port, whether they are exported for fattening or for slaughter. We have no control over the situation whether or not promises have been made under the Balfour Assurances.
  A further aspect which has been criticised is the journey itself. Examples have been given of terrified, hungry and thirsty animals herded together in intolerable
  1846
  conditions despite inspection at British ports and despite the fact that the boats probably are of modern standards. In many cases their journeys have been intolerably long. With all due respect to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, who showed great sensitivity in his opening speech, it is no parallel to speak of animals travelling from the Orkneys to Aberdeen, because they are landing at a United Kingdom port where we still have some control over the situation.
  With regard to the loophole of getting aver the border to Ireland, as my hon. Friend will be aware there are two exceptions to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1970. The exceptions are made in respect of two categories, those being pedigree animals and animals exported from Northern Ireland to Eire. Therefore, it would be easy to replace this statutory instrument with another one imposing a restriction.
  I have farmers in my constituency, although there are only 22 of them. For that reason, however, I am aware of the views of the National Farmers' Union. Much as I sympathise with the farming community in the difficulties and uncertainties that it faces, I believe that the ban on live animals would soon be replaced by a carcase trade plus a trade in offal of almost equal value both to farmers and to our exports.
  I have neglected to declare my interest in that my husband and I are both tenant farmers. However, whether it would be for or against our financial interests, I could be never other than a supporter of a motion of this kind. I am supported in my attitude by my husband and children whose financial interests are involved.
  We tell our children of the dreadful cruelties perpetrated against human beings in our earlier history and more recently in Nazi Germany. Then we boast somewhat optimistically about how all this has been changed by progress and civilisation. But how are our children's children to judge us when they read of the degree of cruelty to animals that we were prepared to tolerate and by our own inaction to condone?
  I feel deeply that this debate is not only one involving the consciences of individual hon. Members. It is one which involves the conscience of the nation.

  1847
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Normanton) said in the European Parliament,
  "In future years we shall be judged not only by our expanded wealth and technological achivements but also by the moral standards that we set in relation to all forms of life."
  I submit that by continuing this trade we debase those standards and ignore the dictates of conscience.
  6.40 p.m.
  Mr. Ted Leadhitter: I shall be exceptionally brief in following the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Sally Oppenheim) who has made an extremely useful contribution to the debate.
  The Government must address themselves to the national concern and certainly to the common sense of the Opposition motion. They have already accepted the suspension of licences regarding sheep. Therefore, the corollary is that they should accept an independent inquiry into the trade as a whole and, because of that, agree that the suspension of licences for the trade generally is a natural step.
  We in this House do not need proof of cruelty to determine the situation. We must decide what is right. Is it right, in conditions which we believe cannot be satisfactory, to continue the practice of the export of animals for slaughter? The answer must be that it is not.
  There is overwhelming evidence from people who have close contact with this trade that suggests that action is required now. The House of Commons has already learned that all Governments have fallen short in finding an answer to this problem. But the function of Parliament, which is paramount, always reaches a point where it seeks to provide the answer that the country wants. It seems that Parliament for once can urge upon the Government that that time has now been reached. I suggest that the Minister, from the example relating to sheep and the nature of the wording of the motion, should follow the natural course and indicate that the Government will take the initiative and bring this foul trade to an end.
  6.42 p.m.
  Mr. John E. B. Hill: I must declare an interest as a farmer who sells cattle, some of which may go to Europe. I must also declare that I have served on the Agricultural Com-
  1848
  mittee at the Council of Europe and am presently serving on the Agricultural Committee at the European Parliament.
  Animal welfare is being progressively discussed in Europe, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Sally Oppenheim) has just said.
  People's ideas on cruelty vary strangely. For example, most people do not think that fishing is cruel. Indeed, there are no regulations in this country dealing with the welfare in transit of cold-blooded animals. Curiously, it is the lack of regulations to protect these animals which, as I understand it, prevents Britain ratifying the European Convention on the Protection of Animals in International Transport. This interests me, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) is a keen fisherman. Therefore, as I said, views on these matters vary.
  We are making steady progress in the European Parliament in getting more attention paid to the standards of animal welfare. I think that a ban would be utterly counter-productive. It will be said that the British have not got a monopoly in humane feeling, and it will make it much harder for us to take part in the discussions and to build upon what has already been achieved. Furthermore, it will rob us of influence to suggest cooperation with the independent inquiry so that it could reveal any malpractices which may exist. We have a responsive commission, and many member Governments and parliamentarians are keen to make progress in this sphere. Therefore, I beg the House to accept the amendment and not make it more difficult to improve standards in Europe.
  6.45 p.m.
  Mr. David Clark: We are coming to the end of what has been an important, serious and, at times, very moving debate. I think most hon. Members who have sat through the debate will agree that it has shown this House at its best. It has been a mixture of both passion and reason. It started with a very fine and compelling speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Waltham-stow, West (Mr. Deakins), and most hon. Members who have taken part have followed his high standard.
  The subject of the motion has aroused intense emotion and interest throughout the country. The Minister of State

  1849
  earlier acknowledged this. Many animal welfare organisations have shown great interest in this subject, and that interest has been shared by the general public. It is my firm belief that the overwhelming majority of British people are concerned about reported incidents of cruelty which have resulted from the export of live animals for slaughter.
  The Opposition recognise that if the motion is passed we cannot expect immediate action. We could not expect the export of live animals for slaughter to cease tomorrow. However, we submit that within the expiry period of the present licensing system this could be achieved.
  I have taken great pains to look at the evidence of those bodies which oppose the motion. I have looked at the evidence of the National Farmers' Union and of the Scottish National Farmers' Union because they have been extremely concerned about this trade. I realise that they have taken a great deal of trouble to finance inquiries to try to ascertain for themselves the exact position. We know only too well that farmers in this country are deeply concerned about the welfare of their animals. I think that hon. Members on both sides will agree and acknowledge that no single group in this country is more concerned about the welfare of animals than the farmers.
  The NFU reported that it was satisfied from its investigations that the Balfour Assurances were being adhered to. However, the general public and many hon. Members still remain unconvinced by the NFU's argument and are disturbed that this trade is going on.
  I do not want to reiterate what has been said today. However, I believe that there are many instances where the Balfour Assurances have been and are being broken. The RSPCA has reported that in eight weeks in 1972 it counted 132 breaches of the assurances.
  Reference has been made to the evidence obtained by the News of the World, which in this matter has represented some of the best campaigning traditions of journalism. The information and photographs submitted by that newspaper are convincing. I think that Miss Lawless and the News of the World deserve a pat
  1850
  on the back for the way they have tried to expose this trade.
  I am not suggesting that every shipload of beasts receives the type of treatment about which we have heard. It is quite plain that there are many instances where the Balfour Assurances are observed. There are some fine slaughterhouses and honourable people connected with the trade. Nevertheless, there is a growing section of the trade which permits cruelty and hardship to animals.
  I should think that all hon. Members have not only received letters from constituents about this trade but have sent sympathetic replies. Activity in this House has been intense. We have had a Private Member's Bill presented and three early-day motions signed by many hon. Members on both sides of the House. One of those motions, headed by the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) which is in stiff and strong terms calling for the present export of live animals for slaughter to be replaced by a trade in carcase meat, has been signed by no fewer than 65 hon. Members on the Government side and 100 hon. Members on the Opposition side.
  I hope that when we go into the Lobby tonight at least 63 of those who signed that motion will join us. Two hon. Members who signed the motion have said that they do not feel able to support us. I am sorry about that because this matter is not confined to one side of the House or the other. That has been made clear during the debate, and I am sorry that not all the 65 Conservative Members who signed that motion intend to support us tonight.
  The motion has assured us of some success, I welcomed the Government's decision two or three months ago to take action with regard to sheep, and nearly every hon. Member who has spoken today has agreed with that. We welcome the Government's acceptance of the need to set up an independent inquiry. The time for that is ripe, and we are glad that the NFU and amenity and animal welfare bodies are to back us. That will be a great help, and we accept that what the Government are proposing to do is a step forward.
  The difference between the two sides is not great. I hope that the Government will not see fit to press their amendment,

  1851
  because it seems to me to be inconsistent and I do not think that it will work. It says that we would stop sending animals to any country if there was evidence that the Balfour Assurances were not being kept, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, West said, there are insurmountable difficulties in the way of finding such evidence. My hon. Friend referred to the difficulties surrounding the inquiry. The point to bear in mind is that we are inquiring not only about whether the Balfour Assurances are being kept but also about whether lairage, abattoir, stunning and transport facilities between here and the Continent, and on the Continent, are satisfactory for our cattle.
  Many of us have seen the evidence put forward by the British Veterinary Association. The right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton) quoted from it with clarity and thought. The association has stated categorically that it wants this trade to be stopped. What is important is that the association carefully considered the matter and reluctantly came to that decision.
  In 1972 the association asked the Minister of Agriculture for an assurance that the Balfour Assurances would be kept, and in all honesty the Minister replied that he could not give it. To be more specific, the Minister of State said in answer to a Question:
  "Once animals are disembarked in another country, our regulations cease to apply and a check on their welfare is then a matter for the importing country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 18th December, 1970; Vol. 808, c. 454.]
  That makes it clear that we in this country have no legal right to try to ensure that the Balfour Assurances are kept.
  To add credence to that view, there is the statement by Dr. Lattour that
  "No legal provisions, not even the Balfour Assurances would enable us to refuse transit permits."
  It is therefore clear—I think that Ministers accept this—that we have no say in how the Balfour Assurances work on the Continent.
  The Balfour Assurances cannot work and it seems to me, therefore, that the amendment cannot work either. I hope that the Government will not press the amendment to a Division but instead will see fit to withdraw it. We have already
  1852
  achieved some success from the motion, partly as a result of the pressure that has been building up through early-day motions, Questions and letters to the Minister, and partly because the motion is supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  This is one of those rare occasions when hon. Members, speaking with the overwhelming support of their constituents, can turn to the Government and tell them that they are not omniscient, that they do not know everything, that the people want an investigation and that, while that is going on, they want the trade stopped. This is not a party political issue, and I believe that hon. Members on both sides of the House will, if necessary, support us in the Lobby.
  6.56 p.m.
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Joseph Godber): I should like to start by congratulating the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins) on what I think was his first appearance at the Dispatch Box. We were all glad to listen to him. The speech of the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. David Clark), by its moderation and clarity, has helped and not hindered the debate.
  What has emerged clearly from the debate, and what is recognised by every hon. Member, is the deep concern felt by the people of this country on any issue where cruelty or suffering is involved. Traditionally, British people are animal lovers, and I do not think that there is any hon. Member who does not share the genuine feelings of concern about unnecessary cruelty to animals.
  I claim to be one of those who share that concern. I do so on my record in the House. Perhaps I may remind hon. Members that I was Parliamentary Secretary at the Ministry when the Balfour Assurances were brought in. I participated in bringing them in, and at that time I believed that they proved effective. I was also one of the main architects of the Slaughterhouses Act 1958, the prime purpose of which was to protect animals against cruelty in slaughter. I can claim to have had long experience of this matter, and I ask the House to bear that in mind.

  1853
  The debate is not about motives but about methods. We all want to stamp our cruelty wherever we can, and there are two aspects that we have to consider. One is cruelty during transport, and that is largely what the Balfour Assurances are about. The other is cruelty at the point of slaughter and the way in which the animal is handled at that time.
  It seems to me that the difference between the motion and the Government's addendum is that between action taken on the existing evidence, such as it is—it has been referred to many times today—and action that will be taken after a thorough investigation by an independent inquiry. The motion asks for an independent inquiry. The Government have accepted that, they are glad to do so, and I give the assurance that the inquiry will be set up quickly and will be asked to look fully into these matters.
  Hon. Members are usually ready to judge an issue on the facts, but in this case we are asked to prejudge the issue if we are asked to establish a ban now. The Balfour Assurances have been in operation since 1957. For the greater part of the time since then they have provided a valuable safeguard against unnecessary cruelty in transport. It is only during the last two or three years that criticism has arisen and any claim has been made that they are being evaded. So far as they exist, if they are being carried through, cruelty in transport is being kept to the absolute minimum, and, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State reminded the House earlier today, animals in this country are transported over much longer distances than the minimum laid down.
  The criticism is not against the Balfour Assurances themselves but arises because of allegations of failure to observe them. These allegations were proved to be right in the case of sheep, and the Government acted at once as soon as we were satisfied that those allegations were right. No allegation has been made about pigs and they have not been mentioned during the debate, but they are covered by the assurances, just as cattle are.
  As for cattle, there have been these allegations, none of which up to this time has been proved. It is not unreasonable to ask the House to agree that action
  1854
  such as is proposed should be withheld until there is evidence against a particular country.
  The basis of the arguments today has been the News of the World articles and the RSPCA report. At least half of the cases concerned have been traced to cattle of Irish origin, on which no action in this House could have any possible effect. As for the others, the investigation is still proceeding, but no proof has yet emerged of any breach of the Balfour Assurances involved in those allegations. I suggest that there is some anticipation, to put it no higher, of the correctness of those reports. Hon. Members should weigh that matter in their minds.
  There must be no mistake: merely to ban exports from Britain would not necessarily reduce the animal suffering in the world or in Europe, as has been said today. My hon. Friend the Minister of State gave figures of the growth in exports of live sheep from the Republic of Ireland to the Continent. It is true that my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton) took him up on his figures, but he was not, of course, giving figures for a whole year—only for four months.
  As for the sheep, there is fairly conclusive evidence of substantial imports of live sheep from Eastern Europe, over, of course, much longer distances; therefore, the possibilities for cruelty could be greater. Thus, we took specific action where there was proof, but we see what could be the results of it. The implication, if the ban is extended to cattle and pigs, is, whether we like it or not, that it could lead to the transport of both cattle and pigs for longer distances, with possibly greater cruelty.
  This leads me to the centre of my approach to the problem. I have said that I am as concerned about cruelty as any other hon. Member, but my approach is that cruelty to animals is not merely a national but an international matter. Thus, when my hon. Friends the Members for Wembley, South (Sir R. Russell) and Gillingham (Mr. Burden) first came to discuss this matter with me earlier this year, I told them that, while I was as concerned as they were about cruelty to animals, I could not support their Bill because I was seeking to deal with the problem in a different way.

  1855
  I know that many hon. Members opposite and one or two on this side are opposed to our membership of the European Community. It will therefore be difficult for them to accept the argument that I now want to put, but it is nevertheless right to put it.
  All the countries of the Community have legislation in one form or another concerned with cruelty to animals. There is also now the European Convention for the Protection of Animals during International Transport. That convention is expected to be ratified by other EEC countries in September; the United Kingdom has, of course, signed it and will be ready to ratify at that time.
  But within the nine countries of the Community, there is an opportunity to improve standards of prevention of cruelty. I should like to see a harmonisation of standards both of transport and of slaughter throughout the Community in a form which would make any act of cruelty to animals an offence punishable by law. Even before I saw my hon. Friends' Bill, I had taken preliminary steps in Brussels to promote this approach. Since then, there has been discussion between United Kingdom officials and representatives of the Commission, and I have discussed my desire to raise standards throughout the Community with several of my ministerial colleagues, from whom I am getting substantial support.
  I have announced my intention of raising the matter in the Council of Ministers in Brussels. I would want there to stimulate support to enable us to improve standards not only between Britain and the Continent but throughout the Community. This is my objective, and to the extent that we can make progress with it the opportunity to make a major impact, in avoiding cruelty to farm animals is very real.
  We all want to get rid of cruelty to animals but I want to spread our endeavours wider than just this country and wider than the debate has gone today. Hon. Members on both sides, I think, would support that objective, and I ask them, therefore, to study the matter from that point of view. If we pass the motion in its present form, the implication is clear enough—that we do not trust these other countries to abide by
  1856
  the Balfour Assurances and that we believe their standards of slaughter to be lower than ours. This is not the way, I suggest, to help me to create the climate of co-operation that I want to achieve with my colleagues on the Continent.
  Mr. Christopher Woodhouse: What difference would it make if the Government's amendment were agreed? Can my right hon. Friend name any country to which exports would continue to be allowed under the Government amendment?
  Mr. Godber: Exports would be able to continue to those countries to which they are going at present—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—until such time as proof that there was cruelty were brought and caused us to ban them, as we did with regard to sheep. What I am saying is that one should wait until there is clear and irrefutable evidence before we take that decision. This is the only fair way in which to decide any issue. In this House, above all places, I should have thought that that would be self-evident to all hon. Members.
  The way in which to make progress is through activity in the Community in the way that I have described. If at the same time we have the committee of inquiry, which would go forward at a time when conditions were the same as they are now, and which would have the best opportunity to succeed as a committee, that would reinforce the Government's activities and would help us to alleviate cruelty over a much wider range than many of the speeches today have been concerned with.
  Where there is default and this can be proved, the Government have already shown their willingness to act. We acted at once over the sheep. We continue to be willing to do this, but if we attempt any additions without the necessary evidence, we shall be making more difficult the task that I have undertaken in Brussels. I undertake to set up the committee of inquiry as speedily as possible, and I believe that it can play an important part.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) and my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. John E. B. Hill) mentioned tightening up export licensing. The cause of trouble—certainly this was the case with

  1857
  sheep—is that some licences have been issued to people who were careless at the very least and probably unscrupulous as well. I undertake that, if the amendment is accepted, I will ensure that there is a strict tightening up of the licensing so as to ensure that there can be no possible case of a licence being given to someone who will not act properly and we will immediately withdraw such a licence. That, I believe, is a very big assurance to give to the House. Taking it with my other comments, I think I am entitled to ask the House to consider the amendment. It does not seek to nullify the effect of
  what the House wants. It seeks to develop it in a way which will help us all, which will help the European Community to come into line, I hope, and will ensure that we can all achieve the same high standard. This is what the people of this country want—not a narrow, nationalistic interpretation of getting rid of cruelty, but a much wider one. I therefore ask the House to support the amendment.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 264, Noes 285.

  Division No. 199.]

  AYES

  [7.10 p.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Hunt, John

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Dykes, Hugh

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Astor, John

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  James, David

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Awdry, Daniel

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

  Jessel, Toby

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Emery, Peter

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Jopling, Michael

  Batsford, Brian

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Bell, Ronald

  Fortescue, Tim

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Foster, Sir John

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Benyon, W.

  Fowler, Norman

  Kimball, Marcus

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Fox, Marcus

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Fry, Peter

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Blaker, Peter

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Gardner, Edward

  Kirk, Peter

  Boscawen, Hn. Robert

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Kitson, Timothy

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Knox, David

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Lamont, Norman

  Bray, Ronald

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Lane, David

  Brewis, John

  Goodhart, Philip

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Gower, Raymond

  Le Merchant, Spencer

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Gray, Hamish

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Green, Alan

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

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Grieve, Percy

  Longden, Sir Gilbert

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

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Loveridge, John

  Buck, Antony

  Grylls, Michael

  Luce, R. N.

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Gurden, Harold

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  MacArthur, Ian

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

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Carlisle, Mark

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Maclean. Sir Fitzroy

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Channon, Paul

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Maddan, Martin

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Hastings, Stephen

  Madel, David

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Havers, Sir Michael

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Churchill, W. S.

  Hawkins, Paul

  Mather, Carol

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Hay, John

  Maude, Angus

  Cockeram, Eric

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Cooke, Robert

  Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Mawby, Ray

  Cooper, A. E.

  Hicks, Robert

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Cordle, John

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick

  Hiley, Joseph

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Cormack, Patrick

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

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

  Costain, A. P.

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Critchley, Julian

  Holland, Philip

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Crowder, F. P.

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Monro, Hector

  Davies, Rt.Hn. John (Knutsford)

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Montgomery, Fergus

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Horden, Peter

  More, Jasper

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

  Hornby, Richard

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Dean. Paul

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Morrison, Charles

  Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

  Tebbit, Norman

  Murton, Oscar

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Temple, John M.

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Roberts Wyn (Conway)

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Neave, Airey

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Nicholls, Sir Harmer

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Rost, Peter

  Tilney, John

  Normanton, Tom

  Royle, Anthony

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Nott, John

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Trew, Peter

  Onslow, Cranley

  Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Osborn, John

  Scott, Nicholas

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

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

  Waddington, David

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Peel, Sir John

  Shersby, Michael

  Walker, Rt. Hn Peter (Worcester)

  Percival, Ian

  Simeons, Charles

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Wall, Patrick

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Walters, Dennis

  Pounder, Rafton

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

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Soref, Harold

  Warren, Kenneth

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

  Speed, Keith

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Spence, John

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Sproat, Iain

  Wilkinson, John

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Stainton, Keith

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Raison, Timothy

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Redmond, Robert

  Stokes, John

  Worsley, Marcus

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Younger, Hn. George

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Mr. Bernard Weatherill and

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Mr. Walter Clegg.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Allen, Scholefield

  Cronin, John

  Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Crouch, David

  Gorst, John

  Ashley, Jack

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

  Gourlay, Harry

  Ashton, Joe

  Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Atkinson, Norman

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  Grant, John D. (, E.)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Davidson, Arthur

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Barnes, Michael

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Hall, Sir John (Wycombe)

  Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Baxter, William

  Davies, Terry (Bromsgrove)

  Hamling, William

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Deakins, Eric

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Hardy, Peter

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Delargy, Hugh

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Bishop, E. S.

  Dempsey, James

  Hattersley, Roy

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Doig, Peter

  Hatton, F.

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Dormand, J. D.

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Body, Richard

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Booth, Albert

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Horam, John

  Boothroyd, Miss B. (West Brom.)

  Driberg, Tom

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Bowden, Andrew

  Dunn, James A.

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Bradley, Tom

  Eadie, Alex

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Broughton, Sir Alfred

  Edelman, Maurice

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

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

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

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

  Ellis, Tom

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  English, Michael

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Buchan, Norman

  Evans, Fred

  Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur (EdgeHill)

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

  Ewing, Henry

  Janner, Greville

  Burden, F. A.

  Faulds, Andrew

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Fell, Anthony

  Jeger, Mrs. Lena

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Cant, R. B.

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

  John, Brynmor

  Carmichael, Neil

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

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

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Foot, Michael

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Cohen, Stanley

  Forrester, John

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

  Coleman, Donald

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

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Concannon, J. D.

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Conlan, Bernard

  Freeson, Reginald

  Kelley, Richard

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  1860

  1861

  Kerr, Russell

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Kinnock, Neil

  Murray, Ronald King

  Spearing, Nigel

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Oakes. Gordon

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Lambie. David

  Ogden, Eric

  Stallard, A. W.

  Lamborn, Harry

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

  Lamond, James

  O'Malley, Brian

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Latham, Arthur

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Lawson, George

  Oram, Bert

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Orbach, Maurice

  Stott, Roger (Westhoughton)

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Orme, Stanley

  Strang, Gavin

  Leonard, Dick

  Oswald, Thomas

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Padley, Walter

  Sutcliffe, John

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Paget, R. T.

  Swain, Thomas

  Lipton, Marcus

  Palmer, Arthur

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

  Loughlin, Charles

  Pardoe, John

  Tinn, James

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Tomney, Frank

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Tope, Graham

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Torney, Tom

  McBride, Neil

  Pendry, Tom

  Tuck, Raphael

  McCartney, Hugh

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

  McElhone, Frank

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Urwin, T. W.

  McGuire, Michael

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Varley, Eric G.

  Machin, George

  Prescott, John

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Price, William (Rugby)

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

  Maclennan, Robert

  Probert, Arthur

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Radice, Giles

  Wallace, George

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Watkins, David

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Weitzman, David

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

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Wellbeloved, James

  Marks, Kenneth

  Richard, Ivor

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Marquand, David

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Marsden, F.

  Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Marshall, Dr. Edmund

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Whitehead, Philip

  Marten, Neil

  Roper, John

  Whitlock, William

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Rose, Paul B.

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Rowlands, Ted

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Mendelson, John

  Sandelson, Neville

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Millan, Bruce

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Milne, Edward

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

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

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

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Moate, Roger

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Woof, Robert

  Molloy, William

  Sillars, James

  Money, Ernie

  Silverman, Julius

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mr. James Hamilton and

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Small, William

  Mr. John Golding.

  Morris. Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Moyle, Roland

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House shares the growing concern about the conditions under which animals for slaughter are exported, transported and slaughtered overseas; welcomes the recent Government decision to suspend the issuing of export licences for live sheep; and, mindful of animal welfare, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to establish an independent inquiry into this trade, and in the meantime to suspend the issuing of licences for the export of live animals for slaughter overseas.
  Mr. Norman Buchan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of the decision of the House, which I believe is also the decision of the people, may I now receive an assurance from the Government that they intend to implement this as rapidly as possible?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. That is not a point of order for me.
  Mr. Harold Wilson: Every precedent in the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker—if you want the precedents quoted, we will do so—enables a representative of the Opposition who is intimately concerned with a subject to put a question, and we are entitled to an answer from the Government Front Bench.
  Mr. Godber: I would certainly not wish to shelter behind any ruling. I recognise your position in this matter, Mr. Deputy Speaker. All I wish to say to the House, if I may have permission to do so, is that, naturally, the Government accept the decision of the House. We shall have to consider is implications, and we will make a decision in due course.

  POLICE (MANPOWER)
  7.25 p.m.
  Mrs. Shirley Williams rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. It is not possible for the hon. Lady to speak against the background of noise. Will hon. Members please leave the Chamber quietly.
  Mrs. Williams: I beg to move,
  That this House notes with concern the continuing rise in crime; affirms that the police should have adequate manpower to perform their duties; and deplores Her Majesty's Government's failure to deal with serious under-manning in certain police forces, notably the Metropolitan Police.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I remind the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the Amendment in the name of the Prime Minister and his right hon. Friends—in line 2, leave out from duties ' to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "endorses Her Majesty's Government's decision to give a higher priority over the last three years to policies for the support of law and order; and in particular welcomes the success of these policies in bringing about a substantial increase in the strength of the police service and further welcomes the present indications of their success in combating crime".
  Mrs. Williams: The House has set a very useful precedent in the last few minutes, one which, in my view, should apply to the motion we are now debating. I live in hopes that this will be so.
  This debate concerns an issue at least as important as that which we have just debated; namely, the issue of police manpower and of law and order.
  I begin by quoting a remark which was made in a somewhat wild flight of fancy by the present Lord Chancellor, then the Shadow Home Secretary and right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone when he said in Eastbourne on 23rd February 1970, in a speech which clearly had one eye on the forthcoming election campaign—
  "The permissive and lawless society is a byproduct of Socialism."
  I make no comment on the permissiveness of society, but I am bound to say that society is rather more lawless today than it was in 1970. The right hon. and learned Gentleman went on to say:
  1864
  "There must be more police and if need be we must pay more for them."
  His attitude was one, as so often in these matters, of over-simplification.
  The truth is that no party has any simple answers to the problems of law and order. They are far more complex than any political slogan could possibly suggest. I therefore trust that in this debate hon. Members on both sides will consider seriously what steps can be taken to improve law and order, not least in those areas which are suffering from serious undermanning of the police force, and that there will be no attempt to put forward simple dogmatic solutions of that kind. As we all know, the figures of crime have steadily risen year by year since the war. In 1972 there were 1,335,000 indictable offences in England and Wales. In London alone there were, in addition, 355,445.
  The most encouraging thing that anyone can say in the House tonight is that the rate of increase has slightly slowed, as indeed it has slowed slightly in several recent years. In England and Wales outside London, the increase was 1·2 per cent. In the Metropolitan district of London it was 4·1 per cent. That is encouraging, and we on this side readily accept it.
  What is less encouraging is that within that overall figure certain types of crime are still growing with dangerous rapidity. In the provinces violence against the person, the type of crime that arouses most public concern, increased by no less than 12·5 per cent. last year. Robbery and robbery with assault, another type of serious crime, increased by the frightening figure of 21·55 per cent. outside London. Within London the increase for woundings and serious assaults was 7 per cent., for muggings 32 per cent., for robbery 15 per cent. Indeed, the only encouraging figure in serious crime in London is that for murder and attempted murder, which showed a decline of about 10 per cent. in 1972 against 1971.
  Of course, we ask immediately: what steps can be taken to reduce the level of crime and, above all, of crime against the person involving violence? Anyone who has studied the matter seriously is bound to be impressed by the concentration of police strength and police quality on serious crime. It is, above all, here that the police exercise a growing

  1865
  capacity in technological matters in which the level and quality of detection are constantly rising and in which the police show remarkable standards which are not always widely understood by the general public.
  Of course, if we are to require the police to cope with this constant rise in crime, particularly violent crime, and if we expect them at the same time to deal with demonstrations, with individual acts of offence of one sort or another, and with the steadily rising flow of traffic it is our duty as a society to provide the best possible conditions, to provide adequate salaries and the sort of backing that they need to undertake this work. The overall position of the police in England and Wales is relatively encouraging as the Home Secretary will no doubt tell us. Since reorganisation small police forces have disapeared and, although at the time the reorganisation undoubtedly created a great deal of worry, there is little doubt but that the better promotion prospects for policemen have led to an encouraging improvement in recruitment to the reorganised provincial forces.
  The total net strength of the provincial forces in England and Wales increased by 2,545 which was an impressive level of recruitment, but not the highest, which occurred in 1967, when 3,004 additional policemen were recruited. The better use of civilians to support the police has continued. There was almost a doubling between 1964 and 1970 of civilian assistants to the police, and there has been a further increase from the 15,135 of 1970 to the 17,057 of 1972. However, it would be wrong to pass over the position in the provincial forces without recognising that there are still areas which give cause for considerable concern. There is an overal deficiency of about 9 per cent., and in 17 out of the 47 provincial forces there is a deficiency of over 10 per cent.
  Some of the more serious cases are as follows. The West Midlands has vacancies totalling 520 with a police force of 1,875—a deficiency of over a quarter. In Birmingham the deficiency is well over 15 per cent., and in West Yorkshire it is about 16 per cent., with 760 vacancies and a strength of 4,459. In some ways the worrying feature of the provincial
  1866
  scene is that it is in the areas of heaviest industrial development, in the conurbations such as Birmingham and the West Midlands, that the position is the most serious.
  It is fair to say that this position is unlikely by itself to improve, because the provincial forces, like the Metropolitan force, are moving into a period in which normal retirements will reach a peak. The increase expected in normal retirements over the next five years for men with 30 years' service will combine with the attempt to try to man up the undermanned police forces and also to establish a basic 40-hour week—something which is enjoyed in most industries of a less taxing nature. The Chief Inspector of Constabulary says in his current report that this will require
  "a substantial all-round recruiting effort."
  But it is in the area which is peculiarly the responsibility of the Home Secretary that there is a situation of deepening crisis. London has many special policing requirements. More than a quarter of recorded crime occurs within the boundaries of the Metropolitan Police District. In addition, much of the serious crime—the highly organised crime involving such things as bank robberies—takes place in the capital. The police also have to cope to a much greater extent than police forces elsewhere with demonstrations. There were no fewer than 470 last year, the handling of which by the police has occasioned a considerable degree of praise in the international press, and in which the police are asked to exercise patience which I shall show is almost too much to ask of them in the conditions in which they now have to work.
  London is also the centre for embassies, and in the last two years the protection duties that fall upon the Metropolitan Police have increased dramatically because of the attacks on embassies, because of the threats to them and because international terrorist movements see embassies as possible targets. The police in the Metropolitan area also have ceremonial functions and a particularly large flow of visitors. The Lord Chancellor in the speech to which I referred accused my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition of "fiddling while Rome burns". He was talking about the crime levels in London and about what he regarded as the irresponsibility of the then

  1867
  Government in dealing with them. If London is Rome, it is certainly burning.
  A glance into history shows that under all Governments the Metropolitan Police has been relatively neglected. In 1939 there were 47,000 policemen and policewomen in the provincial forces. In 1972 that had risen to 72,000—an increase of 51 per cent. In 1939 there were 19,000 constables and other officers in the Metropolitan Police. In 1972 there were 21,000—an increase of just over 10 per cent. This neglect of the Metropolitan Police has continued, and the current figures represent a most serious situation. That is why we have brought it to the attention of the House. Out of the authorised strength of 26,049 officers the Metropolitan Police has vacancies for 5,031, a deficiency of over 23 per cent. Between 1st April 1972 and 1st April 1973 the Metropolitan Police lost 263 men and gained 23 women, a net decline of 240.
  Wastage rates have speeded up disturbingly in the last three years. Between April and July 1973, in addition to the net loss I have explained, no fewer than 165 officers left the Metropolitan Police. If this rate of loss were to continue it would be the equivalent of losing a complete division of Metropolitan Police officers by the end of this year.
  Another indication of the size of the crisis is the transfers in and out of the Metropolitan and other police forces. En 1972 there were 52 transfers in from the provinces but there were 172 transfers out. The figure has rocketed disturbingly. In the six months to June the number of transfers out was no fewer than 152. For the period April 1972 to April 1973 there were 533 voluntary resignations by police officers in London—not for retirement but from their own choice. Out of that total no fewer than 365 had between two and ten years' service. The were experienced officers with a long period of service ahead of them, men the force could ill afford to lose. We have to ask why this situation has occurred. It is no comfort to an old lady who is being mugged in the streets of London to be told that she would be safe upon the streets of Bournemouth, Bediington or Bishop Auckland.
  Why has the situation been allowed not only to reach that position but to deteriorate so disastrously in the past 12
  1868
  months? The first reason is very simple. The London allowance is only £50. It has not been increased since 1966. That means that at a time when the cost of living has doubled in the seven years from 1966 to 1973 there has been no increase in the London allowance. There has been an under-manning allowance for the Metropolitan Police of £65, making £115 in all. Only the London allowance is pensionable, not the under-manning allowance.
  The Government might argue that this was an impossible field in which to move because for a considerable period, understandably in the light of the difficulties of achieving national police rates, there was a sharp division of opinion among the organisations representative of the police between provincial forces and the London force about a London allowance. That is no longer so. At its most recent conference the Police Federation came out strongly for a massive increase in the London allowance. If a little later in the debate my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris), who follows these matters closely, catches the eye of the Chair, he will be able to say a great deal more about that and about the attitude of the Police Federation.
  Incidentally, even if the police themselves had not changed their minds completely on the issue, the Home Secretary is not bound by the consultative status of the Police Council. I trust that in the light of the changed attitude of the police he will move rapidly to deal with this aspect of the crisis.
  Mr. John Page: There is a differential in the housing allowance, which is up to £500 a year more in London compared with other places.
  Mrs. Williams: The hon. Gentleman has pre-empted the next thing I was going to say. I was just about to turn to the housing allowance in London, which lies closely within the province of the Home Secretary. The housing allowance in London for a police constable is a maximum of £10 per week. It was last increased on 1st January 1971 by 35 per cent. for police constables, falling to as little as 16 per cent. for chief superintendents. Therefore, 35 per cent. is the maximum figure. But since 1st January 1971 the price of houses

  1869
  in London—I have just checked this—has increased by 109·5 per cent. There have been two years in which the cost of housing has doubled in London, and there has been not a penny increase in the housing allowance to the London constable.
  Even worse than that, the maximum that the Metropolitan Police Friendly Society can allow in mortgage for a house, on the basis of a police constable's starting salary, is £6,400. The average price of a two-bed-roomed London house is now £12,743, twice the amount of mortgage that will be allowed to a police constable. So desperately apart are those figures that only a chief superintendent with over 10 years' service would be allowed, on the basis of his present income, a mortgage equivalent to the average cost of a house in London. That is an appalling position for us to find ourselves in.
  A good measure of the situation is the fact that mortgage demands on the society have dropped from 815 in 1971 to only 171 in the current year. Although admittedly I am taking a half year's figures, that shows that there is a steady decline in mortgage demands, because policemen can no longer afford to buy a house.
  What does a situation in which recruitment is falling, in a force which is already nearly a quarter under strength, really mean? For the average policeman it means an incredible degree of work. I am not sure whether the House realises the strain being put upon policemen in the Metropolitan force. They work a 46-hour week. That is the basic expectation. That means that in every period of rest days three rest days are automatically cancelled every month. The police frequently lose some of the remaining rest days each month as well. Those rest days are then re-rostered, but many policemen feel that they are chasing an endlessly disappearing pot of gold over the horizon, because re-rostered rest days are very hard to come by.
  The police in London are required to do unlimited overtime. They work on shifts. Some of them are working 59 and 60 hours a week—those are official figures—but there are individuals who work very much longer hours. When we say that, we say it of men who, over and
  1870
  above the hours they normally work, may have a rest day cancelled, not like us, at perhaps a week's notice, but in some cases at 24 hours' or 12 hours' notice. That puts a strain on their family lives which has not surprisingly driven many men out of the force.
  Even that degree of strain, of overtime, of demand upon men who may, for example, even after working 59 or 60 hours a week find that they have made an arrest and will be called into court the following morning, which may be their first rest day for four or five weeks, has not undermined the success of the police in dealing in London with major crime. There have been some encouraging developments recently, such as the decline in the number of bank robberies.
  However, what the situation necessarily means is that the police must neglect a whole range of less significant crime, but crime which is still significant to the individual affected, in the interests of manning up detective services and the rest to deal with highly-organised crime. That emerges from the difference in clear-up rates, the bulk of it I fully accept in the less serious crime, of 49·9 per cent. for the provincial force and 30·3 per cent. for the Metropolitan force.
  The Metropolitan force is now so overstrained that it cannot undertake the preventive work, the steady patrol of the beat, that is a necessary part of the effective and good policing of what the Home Secretary so much likes to call freedom under the law.
  I believe that the solution now lies in the Home Secretary's hands. London is the area for which he is directly responsible. The solution lies in accepting what the Police Federation has said about the need for a massively increased London allowance. It lies in accepting a London housing allowance which begins to match the inflation of housing prices in London. It lies in recruiting to a level at which police officers in London will not be expected to work hours which no human being, let alone one in a job requiring patience, judgment and good temper, should be asked to do.
  I do not accuse the Holm, Secretary, because he is not given to making wild statements, but I return to where I started. The Lord Chancellor said that the first responsibility to the country was to

  1871
  increase the police forces and to pay for that increase if necessary. I acquit the Home Secretary of any charge of having failed to do that in most of the provincial areas, though the West Midlands needs looking at.
  I conclude by giving the House some figures. I trust that the Government, which are so often described as the party of law and order, will take them very much to heart. In the 13 years of Conservative Government from 1951 to 1964 the increase in manpower of the Metropolitan Police was 2,409. In the six years of Labour Government from 1964 to 1970 the increase was 2,876. In other words, in those six years the increase was greater than in the previous 13 years. In the three years that the Conservative Government have been in office there has been an increase of only 151 in the net strength of the Metropolitan force. What an amazing record to put forward!
  7.51 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Robert Carr): I beg to move to leave out from "duties" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "; endorses Her Majesty's Government's decision to give a higher priority over the last three years to policies for the support of law and order; and in particular welcomes the success of these policies in bringing about a substantial increase in the strength of the police service and further welcomes the present indications of their success in combating crime"
  In the course of my speech I shall give a number of facts to the House, some of which will be new, which will give encouragement and also the lie to the rather over-gloomy figures and prognostications of the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) about the present crime situation. I shall be glad to report that there are at last signs of a distinct turn-round in the depressing trend of post-war years.
  I welcome the debate. It is right and important that the House should unite in expressing its concern at the current volume of crime. It is right that we should do that and find time for it because in doing so we are expressing a concern which is felt by many people in London and throughout the country.
  It is also right and important that both sides of the House should unite in recog-
  1872
  nising the need for the police to have adequate manpower. I hope that we can underline as much as possible our unity on these matters. It is because of that hope that I particularly regret the second half of the Opposition's motion. It introduces party division and rancour on a subject and at a time when Parliament both could and should speak with a united and non-partisan voice.
  Mr. Clinton Davis: Just like the Lord Chancellor.
  Mr. Carr: A motion censuring the present Government on police recruitment comes singularly ill from a party which, when in Government a few years ago, deliberately and as a matter of policy restricted police recruitment at a most critical time. I shall remind the House of the last Government's policy by reading one or two passages from a circular sent out in January 1968 by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), who was then Secretary of State for the Home Department in the Labour Government.
  I draw the attention of the House to the part of the circular which said:
  "the total strength of the service"—
  that is the police service"—
  "has now reached a point where it is not necessary for unrestrained recruitment to continue indefinitely. Moreover, the Government's policy of restraint in public expenditure makes it necessary to ask police authorities to reconsider the present recruitment levels of both police officers and civilians."
  The circular said in paragraph 4:
  "The aim is that the aggregate strength of police officers throughout England and Wales in the period 1st January 1968 to 31st March 1969 should increase by not more than 1,200."
  Later in paragraph 4 the circular said:
  "All forces should continue to attest cadets when they reach the qualifying age, but they must be accommodated within the foregoing arrangements."
  Paragraph 6, which referred to civilians supporting the police, said:
  "In general, during 1968–69 there should be no increase of civilian employees over the number now in post."
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: But what happened?
  Mr. Carr: That deliberate restriction of police recruitment was made at the end of a year when crime had been rising at almost double the rate at which it

  1873
  was rising last year. It was made at a time when police manpower was some 10.000 less than it is today. And the hon. Member for Hitchin had the effrontery to talk about deficiencies.
  Mrs. Shirley Williams rose—
  Mr. Carr: Just let the hon. Lady wait a moment. It was her right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East who, when he was Secretary of State for the Home Department, denied a shortage of manpower. If the hon. Lady has forgotten, let her turn to HANSARD of 15th February 1968, when her right hon. Friend said:
  "I do not accept that the police force is 17,839 short of the numbers it requires."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th February, 1968; Vol. 758, c. 1556.]
  That was the deficiency on the same basis of establishment to which the hon. Lady has referred. That deficiency, thank heavens, is much smaller today than it was then. It was the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East who made that denial.
  Mrs. Williams: In that case, why was it that the year to which the right hon. Gentleman is referring—1968—was one of the best years for recruitment by the Metropolitan Police? The right hon. Gentleman did not mention that my right hon. Friend excluded all undermanned police forces from his ban and that 2,400 additional civilians were recruited between 1968 and 1969.
  Mr. Carr: If those civilians were recruited, they were recruited in direct contravention of the circular and the policy issued by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East. If they were recruited, that recruitment took place with no help and assistance from the Labour Government. Such recruitment would have been directly in contradiction to their instructions to local authorities.
  As far as I know, I do not believe—my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State will confirm what I say, or if there are one or two exceptions he will tell the House—that there are any police forces today in England and Wales which are not stronger in numbers than they were when the Government took office three years ago. That includes, contrary
  1874
  to what the hon. Member for Hitchin said, the Metropolitan Police.
  The Labour Government deliberately restricted police recruitment—
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House the figures?
  Mr. Carr: I have just given the chapter and verse. I will give the figures in a moment. The Conservative Government, from the moment they came to office, deliberately encouraged and expanded police recruitment. In 1968 and 1969, the last two complete years of Labour government after the deliberate restriction was imposed, police numbers in England and Wales increased by only 1,100. In 1971 and 1972, the first two complete years of the Conservative Government, police numbers in England and Wales increased not by 1,100 but by 5,900—more than five times as much. How can the Labour Party, which so deliberately and successfully cut down police recruitment, censure this Government which have so deliberately and successfully expanded police recruitment in the past three years?
  I must remind the hon. Lady that she was Minister of State at the Home Office during part of that disastrous period. From the moment the Conservative Party came to power, we began to implement our decision to give much higher priority than the Labour Government had done to policies for the support of law and order and, above all, the support of the police. The hon. Lady quoted my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor in a speech he made when still a Member of this House. He said that we must have more police and, if necessary, we must pay for them. That is exactly what the Government have done.
  In 1970 the police had an increase in pay of 16 per cent., well above what other people were getting at that time. It was an increase specially designed in size and mode of application by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), who was then Home Secretary, to encourage recruitment and reduce wastage. In 1971 there was an interim increase of 6½ per cent. Last October there was an increase, dating back to September 1972, of another 15 per cent. While I am not for a moment claiming that the increase in pay over these three years of Conservative Government have

  1875
  been as much as the Police Federation and other representative organisations sincerely believed they were entitled to, it is true to say that over the past three years the pay of the police has been significantly improved relative to most other groups in the community.
  That is an undeniable fact and it is one of the main reasons why the increase in the strength of the police in the first two years of the Conservative Government was over five times as great as the increase in the last two years of the Labour Government.
  Mr. Neville Sandelson: Will the right hon. Gentleman at least concede that in the year ended 1972, far from there being an increase in the strength of the Metropolitan Police, there was a net decrease of about 60 men? That being so, and bearing in mind the special problems we face in the Metropolis, will he not also concede that special measures and increases in remuneration are required if we are to get anywhere near tackling the problem?
  Mr. Carr: I will come to that point. The motion tabled by the Opposition is cast in general terms and refers at the end to the Metropolitan Police. I will come to that later. Important though London is, and I am a London Member, it has to be remembered that the whole country is also important. What we did with police pay was one tangible indication of the higher priority, as our amendment says, which the present Government have given to policies supporting law and order and the police in particular.
  I want to mention two or three indications. First of all there is the question of probation officers. I am sure the House would agree that these are very important. When the Government came to power the maximum permitted number of probation officers in England and Wales was 3,500 and there were about 3,300 in post. As a result of what the Government have done, there are now 4,100 probation officers in post and the establishment ceiling has been raised to 5,000 for 1975 and to 5,350 for 1976. That is another sign of the higher priority which this Government give to law and order.
  I come now to the prison building programme. In 1969–70, the last year of the
  1876
  Labour Government, the prison building programme permitted the start of 80 new prison places. Last year and this year, the prison building programme of the Government has permitted the start of more than 2,000 new prison places—not 80, but more than 2,000. That is another indication of the higher priority given to the whole subject of law and order.
  Consider the law itself. The Criminal Justice Act 1972, while not perfect, is generally admitted to represent a major forward movement in the criminal law in the interests of law and order. It increased the penalties for serious firearm offences up to and including life imprisonment for the most serious offences. It also introduced new concepts. It gave new powers to the courts to order "big time" criminals to pay compensation. It introduced new forms of non-custodial treatment for the courts to use, such as community work and day training. Earlier today at Question Time the hon. Lady was generous enough to pay tribute—this is an all-party matter, I am glad to say—to the initial signs of the success of those new forms of treatment.
  In the law, too, we have given priority to the pursuit of policies of law and order. There is no doubt that the Government have implemented in a massive manner the commitment to give higher priorities to policies for the support of law and order. That is what we ask the House to endorse in the first part of our amendment.
  Probably no other Government, Conservative or Labour, in the lifetime of most of us has given such high priority to tackling crime, supporting the police and developing policies for the protection of law and order. This policy is now producing results. We see this first in the increased strength of the police. The numbers of police in England and Wales rose by almost 6,000 in the first two complete years of this Government, five times more than in the last two years of the Labour Government.
  In February the number of regular police officers in England and Wales topped the 100,000 mark for the first time in our history. It is not only the number of police officers which has risen. It is also the number of wardens and other civilian staff who support the police and

  1877
  free them to do the real police work which only police officers can do. Since the last General Election the number of civilian support staff in England and Wales has risen by 7,700, another substantial strengthening of police capacity.
  Look at the issue in financial terms. Expressed in that way, the higher priority which the Government have given to the police is shown by the fact that at constant prices expenditure on the police in 1973–74 is £76 million higher than it was in 1969–70. The total is now £484 million and represents an increase in real terms of about 20 per cent. since the last year of the Labour Government. The overall story of police strengths in the past two years has been one of expansion and increased effectiveness.
  As the hon. Lady has pointed out, and as I have made clear in the House, the manpower position of the Metropolitan Police is something about which we should be and are concerned. We should still remember that the size of the force is a little bigger than it was three years ago and that the uniformed strength now has civilian support staff which is 3,200 more than it was three years ago. Therefore, if we take the small increase in the uniformed strength and the very big increase in the civilian support staff, I am glad to say that in manpower terms the Metropolitan Police, although far short of what I would like it to be, is significantly stronger today than it was when the Government took office.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: Did the right hon. Gentleman say that there had been a 3,000 increase in civilian support staff? In answer to a Question from me on 14th June he gave the figure of 9,000 for 1970 and 10,000 for 1972.
  Mr. Carr: I will ask my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State to give the exact figures when he replies. I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that in preparing my notes I consulted detailed figures.
  Mr. Lewis: I do not doubt what the right hon. Gentleman says, but if it is true it is an amazing increase in one year, and is something to which I am paying tribute.
  Mr. Carr: The answer to which the hon. Gentleman has referred will be looked into before this debate is wound up and my hon. and learned Friend will deal with the point. This is something we should note.
  I do not say this in order to be complacent. Had it not been for the unfortunate nature of the second half of the Opposition motion, I should not have made the comparisons as forcefully as I have done. What I am concerned about, and what the House should be concerned about, is the continuing need, because although the force is stronger than it was three years ago it is not strong enough, and what we must worry about at present is the trend in the uniformed strength. The problem is one of wastage rather than of recruitment.
  In 1972 the Metropolitan Police recruited 1,183 men, which was good, but the force lost 1,232, which was bad. Therefore, there was a net loss last year of 49, but about 150 of those who left were not lost to the police service as a whole but were transferred to police forces elsewhere.
  Unfortunately, this wastage has continued seriously into the current year. With the return of full employment, recruitment, although substantial this year, is not as good as last year, and thus the net numbers in the Metropolitan Police have declined by about 300 in the first half of this year. I assure the House that I am not only well aware of the situation but I am also taking it very seriously.
  Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that someone will be given the task of asking those men who are leaving the force for their reasons for doing so? I intend to deal later with some of their reasons, but there are reasons, concerning particularly criminal investigation and detectives, which involve not money but other causes.
  Mr. Carr: I was about to explain what we propose to do about this. First, the Commissioner is conducting a close inquiry into the causes of wastage in all branches and in all ranks and is stepping up efforts to improve the quality of man management throughout the force. Those of us who have to grapple with problems

  1879
  of wastage of manpower realise that the whole subject of man management is an important factor in the matter of wastage.
  Secondly, a new and major recruitment campaign has just begun, the scale of which is shown by the fact that supporting advertising will cost £100,000, in addition to the central national recruitment campaign, for which advertising costs are £600,000. Thirdly, there has been a great effort over the last year or two to influence young people, and those who advise them in the choice of career, to think about the police service more than they have done in the past. This is of longer-term effect and is important for the future. We are having success in building up the size of the cadet entry. In September 1972 the cadet intake was 100 higher, in round figures, than it was in September 1971. The cadet corps is now nearly 700 strong. The percentage increase last year was pretty substantial, and that augurs well for the future.
  However, I realise that central to the problem is the question of pay. Since the Government came to power, the police have had above average increases. I must make it clear that this year there can be no exception in stage 2 to the Government's counter-inflation policy. I understand that negotiations in the Police Council are advancing on that basis.
  Looking to the future, I much welcome the new policy of the Police Federation to accept in principle a differential rate for the Metropolitan Police. I cannot help saying in passing how much I wish it had adopted this policy a year or two earlier, but I make no complaint about that; I simply welcome the fact that it has done it this year. It will he a matter for the Police Council, but, speaking for myself, when it is possible within the terms of the Government's counter-inflation policy, I hope that a differential rate for the Metropolitan police can be negotiated.
  The hon. Lady the Member for Hitchin mentioned the important matter of rent allowances. The House has been informed that they are under review, and I cannot say more at present. However, I must repeat that in all these matters everything must conform to the Government's counter-inflation policy.
  Mr. Thomas Cox: The right hon. Gentleman has said
  1880
  that the rent allowances are under review. Will he give an assurance that the way in which the rent allowances are assessed by district valuers will also be reviewed? If he speaks to officers in London he will find that a source of great complaint is that comparable properties are assessed at a much lower rate in one borough than they are in an adjoining borough.
  Mr. Carr: I know that it is a matter of concern, but as it is under review I hope that the House will excuse me for not being drawn into discussing it. I know that the question of pay is important, but the other factors of employment policy and working conditions are of great importance in recruitment and wastage. I am sure that the whole House will wish to praise the Commissioner for the new energy, initiatives and ideas which he is bringing to the Metropolitan Police—and that is no discredit to those who have gone before him. The House will wish me to pay tribute to what he and his force at all levels have done and the success that they have achieved in the fight against crime in the London area, despite the natural difficulties and the manpower shortage.
  I am glad to say—this is the first news I can give and it perhaps shows that the hon. Lady the Member for Hitchin was unduly gloomy, but I do not blame her for that because she was speaking on the basis of the latest information available to her—that mugging in the London metropolitan area has decreased from 802 cases in the last six months of 1972 to 629 cases in the first six months of this year. Therefore, we are not simply saying to the old lady in London, "It will be safer if you go to Bournemouth". She was marginally safer in the first six months of this year than she was in the last six months of last year.
  The picture is more encouraging in respect of the more serious crimes. For example, the number of bank robberies has fallen from seven a month in the first six months of last year to only two a month in the first six months of this year. The number of burglaries has declined. Therefore, the Metropolitan Police has a record of success for which the whole House will wish to congratulate and thank them.

  1881
  That leads me to the present indications of success in combating crime over the country as a whole and to thank and congratulate the police in all force areas for what they are achieving on our behalf. After years of depressing figures, there are at last significant signs of improvement. Today I was able to announce that the number of murders was down by 14 per cent. in 1972 compared with 1971–149 against 173. I shall be publishing in the very near future the official crime figures for the first quarter of 1973. They are not yet finalised, but the provisional official figures make me believe that there will be not a small increase but a decline compared with the same period for 1972.
  In 1972 the overall crime figures for the first quarter were up by 5·3 per cent. compared with the first quarter of 1971. I believe that when the figures are finalised in the near future the first quarter of 1973 will show a decrease in the overall volume of crime of between 4 and 5 per cent. compared with the same quarter in 1972. That is a real sign of hope, although no one can be sure that it will continue.
  Mr. Edward Taylor: Can my right hon. Friend say a little more about the corrected figure of 149 murders? In particular, can he say why the figure has come down to 149 from the figure of murder offences known to the police at 31st December 1972, which, at 257, was the highest figure in recorded history in England and Wales? Also, can my right hon. Friend give a corrected figure for manslaughter, including the Section 2 manslaughter charges which have been reduced from murder charges?
  Mr. Carr: My hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State may be able to go into that matter in more detail. The answer to the second part of my hon. Friend's question is, I think, "Not yet", certainly "Not now." I do not have those figures with me.
  The reason for the decline in the figures is that when many cases recorded as murder or suspected murder reach the courts the charge is reduced for reasons which I cannot yet analyse. Although there is a substantial reduction every year between the recorded number and the final
  1882
  number, it seems to be much larger this year than usual. However, I assure my hon. Friend that the number of murders in 1972, at 149, is comparable with 173 the year before.
  Mr. Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the reduction this year is 108 compared with 70 last year and 50 the year before?
  Mr. Carr: I think it is of that order. If my hon. Friend is wrong, I am sure that the Minister of State will correct him. The figure which I have given is the latest corrected figure and is comparable with 173 for the year before.
  We must not be complacent, but at last, for the first time for many years, there is some sign that the crime tide may be ebbing rather than flowing. I am glad to tell the House that the official figures reflect the reports which have been coming in to the Home Office from chief constables since the latter part of last year. In 1972 22 police forces reported a decrease in crime compared with 1971. In the first three months of 1973 32 police forces reported a decrease in crime compared with the first quarter of last year. In the first four months of this year 36 police forces reported a decrease in crime compared with the first four months of last year.
  Here is hope, but we must not—and I promise the House that we shall not—be complacent. Violence continues to be a serious and, I am sorry to say, still increasing problem. I hope and believe that if we can once turn the tide of crime as a whole from a flow into an ebb, as it appears perhaps we may have done, we shall in due course get violent crime, too, under better control. I assure the House that the Government will continue to give the highest priority to the combating of crime and the development of policies in support of law and order, and particularly in the support and strengthening of the police, as we have done over the last three years. It will not be easy, but we shall do everything we possibly can to continue the trend about which I have spoken.
  8.26 p.m.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: I shall try to be brief. This is an important debate in which

  1883
  many hon. Members on both sides of the House wish to take part. My hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) moved the motion both persuasively and in terms of moderation. As the House knows, I have the honour to act as parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation. Thus I have a special interest in this debate.
  The motion refers to the serious under-manning in certain police forces, notably the Metropolitan Police. None can gainsay the seriousness of the current situation in the metropolis. I am grateful to the Minister of State and his right hon. Friend for the information they gave me yesterday in reply to parliamentary Questions. I was told that on 30th June 1973 there were 5,031 vacancies in the Metropolitan Police. I was also told that during the year ending 30th June 1973, 1,089 police officers were recruited into the Metropolitan Police Force and that the wastage figure was 1,324. The trend for wastage to exceed recruitment is extremely serious and the number of voluntary resignations is deeply disturbing.
  In this debate we should be concerned not merely with figures. There is also a human story. I am sure many hon. Members appreciate that police officers, especially in the Metropolitan area, work under considerable strain. They work very long hours and are subjected to frequent weekend work. The Minister of State in a further parliamentary reply gave me the number of hours worked by various ranks in the Metropolitan Police. A detective constable on average works 59·3 hours a week. A first-class sergeant in the CID works on average 59·5 hours a week. A detective inspector works on average 58·5 hours a week and a detective chief inspector works on average 59 hours a week. Those figures are for the month of June 1972, when there was a Police Council survey.
  A sample survey in the Metropolitan Police Force last September showed that the average number of hours worked each week were 50·6. These figures may come as a surprise to some hon. Members. They emphasise the considerable strain under which police officers have to dischange their onerous duties.
  I have been told of police officer in the Metropolitan Police who submitted his
  1884
  resignation today. He is a man of some exprience in the force, but he is leaving to become a building worker. For a standard working week he will be paid £40. He will also enjoy, by contract of employment, a bonus of £12 a week. If he works overtime special benefits will be added to his basic pay of £52 a week.
  Mr. Thomas Cox: Labour-only subcontracting?
  Mr. Morris: I cannot say whether he will be working as a building trade unionist or with the "lump". It is, however, most disquieting that trained policemen should leave the Metropolitan force to take jobs that many would say are of less social importance for more pay. It costs a great deal of money to train a police officer. If we are to to avoid wasting public money, we must avoid the increasing wastage of trained police officers. The Home Secretary rightly said that there is no ground for complacency. I am sure that sentiment will be echoed again and again as the debate proceeds.
  Let us look in more detail at the number of vacancies in the Metropolitan and other police forces.
  If one were to denude the city of Manchester and the city of Liverpool entirely of police officers and transfer them to the metropolitan area, there would still be vacancies for police officers in the metropolis. Indeed, if we were to take every police officer from the whole of Wales and transfer them to the metropolitan area, we would barely meet the present requirements for manpower in the metropolis. At the latest date for which I have full figures, it would appear that Manchester and Salford, Liverpool and Bootle, Leeds, Birmingham, Liverpool, Sheffield, Rotherham and Bradford would be entirely without police officers if the national shortage were concentrated in those areas. I hope this fact will be taken as seriously as it should be by everybody who takes part in this debate.
  The Home Secretary referred to stage 2 of the Government's prices and incomes policy. At the recent Police Federation conference, held at Blackpool, it was emphasised that the necessary radical improvement in the payment of police officers in the metropolis must be in

  1885
  straight addition to the impending increases in pay for police officers throughout the country. The right hon. Gentleman said that he could not depart from stage 2, but I hope that the Minister of State will make it clear in his reply that the differential pay increase for the Metropolitan Police Force will in no way reduce the money available for pay increases to police officers generally.
  At the Police Federation conference it was not just Metropolitan Police men and women who argued for a differential increase. There were delegates from Wales and from many other parts of the country who said that the situation in the metropolis was so serious that there must be an immediate and substantial increase in pay for Metropolitan Police officers to stop the haemorrhage. What is required is not just an increase in pay, but that action should be taken to improve the status of police officers. I was pleased to hear the right hon. Gentleman say he regards this as important. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree on that point.
  Mr. Thomas Cox: I am interested in my hon. Friend's point. Does he not agree that this is not solely a matter of pay—although that is one of the principal issues confronting the police—but is bound up with the attitude in terms of discipline of treating the police as silly schoolboys rather than as grown-up men. From my discussions with police officers I have noted the bitter resentment among many of them at the way in which disciplinary procedures are imposed against them. They are not against discipline, but they are against the way in which they are treated.
  Mr. Morris: I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Wandsworth, Central (Mr. Thomas Cox) has been in touch with police officers in his constituency, and I agree with him that status, like pay, is very important. We cannot expect a properly established police force unless we are prepared to pay the officers adequately. But we must also consider the way in which the police are treated in society. I have said on other occasions that police officers have their civil rights just like other people and that they are entitled to respect and status in society. I agree with what has been said by the
  1886
  right hon. Gentleman, and by my hon. Friend, about the need to improve pay and also conditions of employment and the general status of the police officer in society.
  I said that I would be brief, and I shall now conclude my remarks. I am happy, as is the Police Federation, that this debate is taking place. I hope that its outcome will be a strengthening of the undermanned police forces to bring them to their proper establishment throughout the country—not only in London but in the West Midlands, Manchester and wherever police forces are now working below establishment. Most of all, I hope that at an early date we shall be able to end the serious haemorrhage in the metropolitan area.
  8.38 p.m.
  Mr. Norman Fowler: I, too, intend to be brief and to follow the example set by the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris), to whom the House always listens with such interest on police matters.
  I welcome the opportunity given to the House by the Opposition to debate this important subject—although I am a little surprised at the ground on which they have chosen to fight. Nobody would question their concern at rising crime rates, nor would anybody deny that the police force should be adequately staffed. But when the Opposition seek to deplore the Government's failure to act on police recruiting, I am bound to ask by what standards they condemn and deplore the Government, and by what right they make such an assertion.
  The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) who did not mention this subject in her speech, cannot brush aside the fact that it was the last Labour Government who were the first Government in peacetime to put restrictions upon police recruiting. For the Opposition now to lament the position of the Metropolitan Police—I personally believe that it is serious—is ludicrous, because in 1968 it was the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police who was lamenting that the then Government's policy of restrictions, not only upon police personnel but upon civilian staff as well,

  1887
  meant that civilian staff in the Metropolitan Police was restricted to a total rise of 250 in the 15 months starting in 1968, which the Commissioner then said was vastly below establishment.
  When the hon. Lady comes to this House and deplores this Government's attitude and policy on police recruiting I am bound to say that this Government have reversed that policy of restriction. It is not purely historical curiosity, but, however the figures are juggled and added up, it cannot be denied that in those two years the police lost men who would otherwise have come into the service. Indeed, had police recruiting continued at the level at which it was going in the two years before the restrictions were imposed, the forces today would be several thousand stronger.
  What cannot be denied also is that men who were lost at that time were men who, in all probability, were lost for good. The nub of the Opposition's charge is nonsense. They know that it is nonsense, and we should all relax and have a serious debate about the police service, as the hon. Member for Wythenshawe has done. Unquestionably the police face serious problems. I suggest that what is causing these problems is the increasing complexity and the increasing demands of police work which are using up an increasing amount of police time and an increasing amount of police manpower. In the area of complaints we expect the police service properly to investigate complaints against the police. But remember what the cost of that is.
  In the Metropolitan Police there is a department which is staffed by 100 experienced officers doing nothing but investigating complaints. There are one commander, five chief superintendents, 22 superintendents, 14 chief inspectors and 40 sergeants. This is not a side issue of police in society as a whole—it is an issue that we expect of the police and we readily do so. But it obviously takes them away from their traditional rôle of preventing and detecting crime.
  The pressure of police work is again seen at its sharpest in the Metropolitan Police area. Detectives are faced with almost impossible case loads. Last year no fewer than 76,000 burglaries were investigated in London. On average that means that a detective has three hours to
  1888
  solve and clear up one burglary before moving on to the next. Faced with pressures of this kind, with these new tasks being put on the police, it is not surprising that men resign. There are easier, more profitable and less demanding ways of making a living in this country, although I would assert there are probably few ways which are, in the ultimate, more rewarding.
  Employers—particularly employers in the industrial centres we are talking about in London, the West Midlands and West Yorkshire—obviously value the kind of people who come into the police service because they are so outstandingly good, and it is in these areas that employers are able to recruit so well. It is there, too, that our biggest shortages are taking place. Many points have already been made on police recruiting policy generally but we should not just confine ourselves to police recruiting policy, important as that is.
  First, I believe that we should examine the police critically to see whether all the rôles which they are now carrying out are rôles that the police services has to carry out. One example concerns traffic. Is it necessary for the police to police our motorways in the way that they do now? The theory is that the two rôles of the police can never be divided. However, it used to be the theory that only trained policemen could direct traffic. Whether or not that view persists, we must look very seriously at the immense amount of police manpower and time spent in our courts on traffic offences. In Germany there is a ticket system with built-in safeguards. Without commitment, that is a system that we could examine to see whether it would work in this country.
  Secondly, I believe that we must improve the effectiveness of our methods of detecting crime. Increasingly we are threatened by the professional and the semi-professional criminal, especially in London, by which I mean those specialising in robbery and fraud. Only a squad which is prepared to specialise in a specific type of crime will have any success. In London, the Serious Crime Squad dealing with robbery has had a marked effect and great success. I believe that the regional crime squad concept should also be expanded and that such

  1889
  squads should take on crimes involving fraud and drugs.
  Having said that, I believe that we should also examine the context in which the police operate, and that means the criminal law. We must see whether the traditional checks which we once considered necessary are not now aids to the professional and the semi-professional criminal. The Criminal Law Revision Committee which reported a year ago believed that they were. It believed that changes should be made. Its report was published in June 1972, and it represented several years' work by the committee. It has never been debated in this House. Obviously it is controversial, but the fact that it has not been debated is quite deplorable. It is likely to lead to the impression that this House does not take seriously—
  Mr. John Mendelson: Not at all.
  Mr. Fowler: I think that the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelsohn) will concede that at least it should be debated.
  Mr. Mendelson: It is quite wrong to assert that this House does not take the report seriously. Many hon. Members have urged the Government to consider it further because of their strong objections to some of the proposals in it. It is wrong to make this charge.
  Mr. Fowler: Very well. I withdraw what I said. Instead I shall make my charge against the Government for not bringing the report before the House quickly. Perhaps that will satisfy the hon. Gentleman more. My point is that this is an important report which should be debated on the Floor of the House.
  My third and most important point is that we must concentrate upon raising the general status of the police service and of policemen generally. We must concentrate especially upon the man in uniform, who in many ways is doing just as complicated a job as a trained detective. We must move towards the concept of community police with policemen living in the communities that they police. This is easy enough in some areas. In others it is not so easy, especially in city centres. But it follows that if we are to move towards a concept where the police-
  1890
  man is carrying out a kind of general practitioner rôle the rewards must be adequate.
  What worries me most about the pay structure of the police service—it has been attacked on a number of grounds—is that rewards are not given for experience. Most officers remain constables throughout their police service. Outside London the pay of a police constable goes up to £1,800 a year after six years' service. It takes him a further 11 years to get over the £2,000 mark for the first time. This structure does not seem to be geared to reward the experienced police officer. It is no way to treat a professional policeman. We must recognise that police service is becoming a demanding profession. We in this country are extremely fortunate in the standards of our police. Therefore, we must ensure that our financial treatment of this service shows clearly the importance that the nation places upon it.
  8.50 p.m.
  Mr. Ernest G. Perry: I have listened intently to the speech by the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Fowler). I do not wish to take up his remarks as many hon. Members wish to take part in the debate.
  There has been an improvement in the police service. Traffic wardens help the police with their duties. The Metropolitan Police is only too glad to have these additional forces. They represent a great asset to the police.
  As a London Member I should like to pay tribute to the Metropolitan Police. In doing so, I wish to concentrate on the phrase used by the hon. Gentleman, "the permanent policeman." I pay tribute to the chap who remains a permanent police constable in London and serves his 25 years or 30 years on the beat building up a community spirit. In this connection I pay special tribute to one particular police constable who has served for over 25 years in Battersea—Police Constable Payne. He has built up a community service by putting notices in shop windows so that everybody knows the state of the crime rate and what is going on in Battersea. That police constable, with the assistance of his sergeants, superintendents and everybody else, has carried out a first-class job. Therefore, I publicly thank and pay tribute to him.

  1891
  Police constables who serve for up to 25 years in the force provide a good public service and we should be thankful to them. Those who do not leave after five or 10 years but stay on and live in the community know everybody there and take part in the ordinary affairs of the community. I pay tribute to that kind of policeman.
  What worries people in London more than anything else is the large immigrant population, which many other cities do not have, which creates some difficulties with our police. I want to be quite frank. The police try to be tolerant. Ordinary police officers do not speak half a dozen languages. They do not understand every language that is now spoken in this country. When they interview immigrants they cannot always understand what they say and their job is made so much more difficult. I pay tribute to them for the tolerance they display when interviewing such people.
  I cross swords with the Home Department—not with the police, because they are not responsible—over the closure of a police station in Cavendish Road on the boundary between Clapham and Battersea. The hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. William Shelton) is also concerned about this matter. The station had been in operation since the turn of the century, and we take exception to its closure within the last few months. Local people feel that they have been betrayed because there are not the policemen there now that there were six months ago. There have been some nasty incidents in South London. When a foreign food shop was attacked with fire bombs, the police were called in and they did all that they could to discover the people responsible, but without success. The Home Secretary should consider the situation very carefully before he closes any more police stations in South London.
  The circumstances of a police constable today are very different from what they were three years ago. I was a member of the insurance profession, and I know from personal experience that three years ago constables and sergeants were able to contemplate buying their own houses because their salaries and rent allowances enabled them to do so.
  1892
  Unfortunately, the situation has changed since then and today their allowances are insufficient to enable them to contemplate buying a house in London. If they want to own their own houses, they have to move a long way out of inner London. A few years ago it was the ambition of many constables to buy their own houses so that when they retired they would have a place of their own in which to live. They cannot do that today, and I therefore ask the Home Secretary and the Home Department to go into this question very carefully.
  Police pensions should be reviewed regularly and increased to meet rises in the cost of living. I do not think that a policeman who has served for 25 years and then retired should have to act as a traffic warden—or what is called a "lollipop man"—in order to earn a living wage.
  Mr. Roger White: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that police widows' pensions should be subject to the same kind of review?
  Mr. Perry: I could not agree more. A woman who has lost her husband in the service of the force should have her pension reviewed regularly to ensure that she does not suffer financial hardship because the cost of living rises.
  I am glad we have had this debate today. I conclude by paying tribute to the Metropolitan Police and in particular to those police officers in South London who have an onerous job to do and do it extremely well.
  8.58 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Shersby: I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Ernest G. Perry). I realise that in considering questions of police manpower the House is inevitably concerned with conditions of pay and employment. These are important aspects of the matter, but in my view they are only part of a much wider problem, namely, the rôle of the policeman in modern society. We as a House have to raise our sights and look to new horizons if we are to begin to understand and to take action to deal with the problems of recruiting a sufficient number of men and women to be the policemen and policewomen of the 1970s and 1980s.

  1893
  It is, I believe, desirable that the Government should commission a completely fresh and independent study of the rôle of the police and the administration of criminal justice. Apart from direct threats to the stability of the State based upon insurgency, insurrection and subversion, and the increased use of violence and terrorism throughout the world, new methods for the expression of dissent pose new challenges to the maintenance of law and order.
  A greater consciousness of individual rights and a reassessment of political and social priorities regularly bring the law, the police and the whole of the law enforcement process openly into question. Police effectiveness may be assessed in a number of ways, but the problem for a democratic society remains the same: the maintenance of the balance between police efficiency and individual liberty.
  Police activity is, of course, only one part of the machinery of law enforcement. For example, the police and the criminal courts need to be seen as part of an integrated system and the relationship between the two examined. Another area which vitally affects the extent of police manpower is the rôle of social policy which both controls the design of the system and sets the parameters for its operation. It is only necessary, for example, to refer to gaming and pornography to illustrate the need for a study of the effects of penal legislation on the law enforcement system and in particular on police manpower.
  There are other important subjects which also call for new and fresh study, like the maintenance of law and order in industrial disputes, the impact of social change on police training and deployment and the impact of police work on policemen's families. This last, I believe, is an absolutely crucial problem. It is policemen's wives whom we have to think about, as well as policemen and policewomen on the beat. There is also the question of general manpower wastage.
  These are but a few of the matters which could be the subject of a careful study and assessment by an independent body. Such a study could be conducted by a university, which can marshal the necessary personnel and facilities to do the job, independent of the Government. I therefore hope that my right hon. Friend
  1894
  the Secretary of State will give this proposal careful consideration when he is reviewing the longer-term aspects of police manpower.
  I believe that today organised crime presents the gravest threat to civilised society. It is this aspect of police work which above all demands the undivided attention of the regular police force, while the less pressing matters could be dealt with by ancillary forces. A good example of such work is traffic control. We all know how satisfactorily the traffic wardens are operating throughout the country.
  But if the regular force is to concern itself with organised crime, who, it may be asked, is to carry out the tasks that are traditionally the rôle of the constable on the beat? There is an answer to this problem in the expansion and reorganisation of the Specials, on the basis that they could provide a valuable assistance and back up for the regular force.
  In recent years the rôle of the Specials has been rather muted, although we all know that they do much valuable work. The very name of this section perhaps conjures up less happy associations today than it used to. I therefore suggest that the Specials should be renamed the Voluntary Constabulary, or the VCs for short, although I realise that that could have unfortunate connotations as well. A voluntary force of this kind could be expanded to draw into police work men and women who would willingly give up time for voluntary public service.
  Let me make it clear that I see a voluntary constabulary as being an adjunct to the regular force and in no sense a rival force. Nor should voluntary constables be vigilantes in any sense. They should continue, like the Specials of today, to be uniformed members of the force who would take the lead from the trained regular members. In other words, the police should tap that rich vein of voluntary service which exists in our society and use it to make a dramatic reduction in the problem of police manpower. This is particularly true as regards the Metropolitan Police.
  I am confident that there are sufficient police training facilities available to train a larger voluntary force and that the police colleges could meet an increased demand. I think it is true to say that

  1895
  the police training available at colleges like Bramshill and Hendon is one of the most saleable properties we have for foreign Powers. They all come here to have their police trained at our colleges. I therefore ask my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State to consider the possibility of using these facilities to expand the rôle of the Specials on the lines I have suggested.
  It is said that we get the police we deserve. This is the title of a new book which is to be published next week and the authors of which are policemen. One is Assistant Commissioner John Alderson, who is Commandant of the Police College, Bramshill, and the other is Mr. Philip Stead, who is Dean of Academic Studies at Bramshill. I commend this book to those interested in the future of the police and I give this quotation from the final paragraph of the authors' introduction:
  "Police progress in this country has been marked by the national predilection for consensus. The discussions of innumerable committees at many levels, the compromises which so discourage the idealist and the radical, have no doubt slowed down the pace of change within the service. Whatever its administrative disadvantages, this has had the effect of keeping police reform within the bounds of what the public and the police themselves feel to be acceptable. This book is meant to encourage and extend the debate which in England is the great agent of improvement."
  I hope that we have this evening commenced that great debate on the improvement and reform of the police and that it will be carried on in the months ahead with profitable results for both the police and the public who are served by this wonderful police force we have in our country.
  9.7 p.m.
  Mr. Neville Sandelson: I shall be fairly brief because the case we have against the Government has been most succinctly put by my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams).
  I listened to the Home Secretary with the respect which he always commands in this House, though I must say that his speech will provide but cold comfort for the public, some of the more gullible of whom feel badly let down by the performance of his Government since the General Election compared with the law and order propaganda which the right hon.
  1896
  Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends were emitting only three years ago. I am glad, however, that the Home Secretary paid tribute to the police, as, indeed, hon. Members on both sides of the House have done. I hope that the general public will take note of these tributes from both sides of the House, and I hope that the police themselves will take note of the tributes we have paid them and realise that those tributes are not paid in any merely formal sense but genuinely reflect the admiration which all of us in this House have for the police and for their services to the community.
  I listened with interest to the very human touch introduced into the debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea. South (Mr. Ernest G. Perry) when he referred to one constable in particular in that area. I am quite sure that one could multiply that instance many times over through the length and breadth of the country.
  I am not entitled to speak on behalf of the Bar or any part of it but I know that the vast majority of those practising in our criminal courts will endorse my view that the Metropolitan Police receive too many kicks—many of the unfortunately, are quite literally kicks—and not nearly enough medals. In my professional duties I see some of the less worthy police officers as well as the great majority of first-class policemen. They are the most wrongly abused and maligned body of public servants in this country.
  One recognises that the serious under-manning to which the Commissioner refers, which is properly acknowledge by the Home Secretary, existed under the previous Government, and under Governments previous to them. Nevertheless, far from there having been an improvement in the recruitment and manning position, there has been a relatively decline. Largely, all that we have been subjected to this evening is a plethora of statistics coming not entirely from the Home Secretary but from both sides of the House in an effort by both sides to establish that times were somewhat better when they were in power than they are now or were when the other side was in power.
  Earlier I used the term "cold comfort". None of this will bring very much comfort to the general public, who are concerned only with the position as

  1897
  they see it today. The present Government were returned to power after all the grandiloquent assurances in June 1970 as to how they would deal with the problem of law and order, amounting almost to an insidious suggestion that somehow their predecessors were responsible for the increase in crime that the country was experiencing and that by way of a magic wand they would be able to change the position radically. The Government have been unable to do that. They are now being hoist with their own petard and are facing the same problems in this matter as previous Governments. They are succeeding rather less than their predecessors in handling these same problems.
  If we had had fewer grandiloquent assurances about what the Government would do and a few more of the firm and enlightened measures that were introduced by the Labour Government during the years before 1970, the country would to some extent have felt that the position had improved since the General Election. Unfortunately, that has not been so.
  The difficulties of recruitment and of the continuing erosion of strength by early retirements from the Metropolitan Police force are aggravated all the time, as we know, by the evils of inflation, which make remuneration levels, let alone conditions of work, ever more repellent to young men of the kind we want to attract to the force. They are a natural inducement to mature serving officers to leave for other fields where the going is obviously a great deal better.
  I have always believed that one of the most urgent priorities for our society was the need to reappraise occupational rewards in terms of value and service to the community. Certain types of work—coal mining is an obvious example—are so arduous and unpleasant that society must be prepared, as it has been to some extent, to pay beyond the norm for work which the overwhelming majority would not themselves be willing to do. For that same reason, certain categories of unskilled workers, such as the people who empty our dustbins, sewage workers, and so on, will have to be paid, and should be paid, at a high rate. Different criteria
  1898
  will apply to other Forms of Public Service.
  I cannot understand our meanness to the police. Both sides of the House recognise their indispensability. It is a truism that without the maintenance of law and order all else would go by the board, yet no serious appraisal has yet been made of the pay structure of the police relative to other occupations and relative to the vital rôle they play in the daily life of the whole community.
  I wish the Government would now make a decisive break with the past. Despite the claims of other groups, worthy though their claims may be—we shall no doubt hear a great deal about them as the autumn approaches—I wish the Government would set about the urgent task of establishing police remuneration levels on an altogether different plane from those which have existed up to now. There is no other way of resolving the perennial problems of under-manning and early retirement.
  Although it is interesting in an academic way to listen to Front Bench speakers comparing the relative performance of their Governments, that does not go near to finding a satisfactory solution. The nation is looking for a solution. I hope that once the Government have revised police remuneration in a necessarily dramatic way—the Government would not expect me to suggest figures for such a restructuring, but it would have to be a dramatic revision—police pay levels will be tied to threshold agreements.
  Beneficial consequences would flow from some of these things, not the least of which would be the attraction into the force of men of high calibre and educational attainments. I was particularly struck by the passage in the Commissioner's report dealing with investigations into fraud. This type of crime is very much on the increase. One of the major difficulties about bringing people to book is the enormous delay because of what prove to be complicated and protracted inquiries. I hope that new recruitment will bring in men of the calibre required to assist the present Fraud Squad in dealing with more of these cases, and dealing with them more expeditiously.
  On the question of housing or other accommodation for police officers, we

  1899
  must realise sooner rather than later that, in the same way as if we want adequate local bus services we must provide accommodation locally for the bus crews, this is equally true of the police. They cannot any longer afford to buy houses in the areas in which they work. Therefore, we shall have to ensure that a small but adequate amount of accommodation is permanently available through the councils for police officers serving in their areas. That would go a long way to assisting the concept of community living to which hon. Members have referred as a vital part of the rôle that the police can play in the community at large.
  The question of the rent allowance and of rent aid for police officers living in their own privately-owned accommodation needs urgent reconsideration in terms of local valuation assessments. I hope that the Home Secretary will consider these matters in a more generous spirit than has been the case in the past.
  9.20 p.m.
  Mr. Edward Gardner: I agree with the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Sandelson) when he says that the public are looking for solutions rather than exciting debates on this subject.
  The points I wish to raise relate to the status of the police force and to violent crime. I believe, as no doubt do all hon. Members, that pay is highly important, but just as important is the status of the profession of being a police officer. It has been said many times, and it may sound trite, that people who come to this country recognise, and rightly so, in our police force the best police force in the world. This is their opinion whether they come from the East or the West.
  Like other hon. Members I have been to many parts of the world, where I have inspected police forces, but I am unable to point to any police force, including this country, that attracts higher regard from the public than does the force in my part of the country in Lancashire.
  I am most disturbed by what I believe to be a large volume of good will, which the police should retain, being dissipated daily through the police coming inevitably in the course of their duty into conflict with the motorist. Unhappily, and I say this with reluctance and regret, there are members of the police force who seem
  1900
  to treat the motorist who has erred but who has not been either dishonest or violent in the same way as they would treat someone whom they believe to have committed a dishonest or violent crime.
  I do not know the answer to this problem except that we might begin to reconsider, as we considered in the past, the possibility of a separate part of the force, or even having a separate force, to deal with traffic offences. This would do much to enable the public to distinguish between real crime, which is the basic concern of the police, and the offences which concern only the motorist.
  It came to my notice a short while ago, when I heard what I should not have heard, that of the members of a jury which had been called to try a serious crime two were said to have declared to their fellow members of the jury before any evidence was heard that they would not be prepared to convict on police evidence. When they were asked why they had made this extraordinary statement, they both said independently that they had been charged with and convicted of motoring offences of which they believed they should not have been convicted.
  Mr. Thomas Cox: Everyone in prison says that.
  Mr. Gardner: I hope that that is an extreme and isolated example of the way in which good will can be and is on occasion dissipated. Of course, people who are properly convicted and resent their conviction deserve no sympathy—[Interruption.] I am seeking to put forward a serious point. No doubt everyone who is convicted resents it, but I suggest that when a motorist feels that he has been treated, for example, with discourtesy, and certainly when he feels, as some do, rightly or wrongly, that he has been convicted on evidence which does not entirely align with what he sees as the truth, resentment is caused.
  The Government, greatly to their credit, have widely extended the range and choice of punishments which are now available to the courts. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary mentioned in passing last year's Criminal Justice Act, which did just that. The public do not always realise that, no matter what the Government may do by making available a wide range of penalty, it is ultimately

  1901
  the sole decision of the courts to select the penalty.
  I hope that both sides of the House can agree that the courts should not neglect the feeling of hon. Members and the country at large that, where possible, they should avoid passing a sentence of imprisonment and instead impose a punishment that will meet the crime without loss of liberty. But most hon. Members, and certainly the majority of people in the country, will want to be comforted and to be certain that the courts will ensure that those who commit crimes of violence are not allowed out until it is safe for them to come out of prison, not because it is necessary so much to punish violence but because it is necessary to protect the public against the violent criminal. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will do what he can with propriety to persuade the courts to accept this philosophy and to see that violent crime is met with appropriate penalty.
  9.28 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Parry: It is unfortunate that we have been allowed only three hours to debate this important subject. In the few minutes available to me I should like to make a couple of points that I hope the Home Secretary will consider.
  First, more encouragement should be given to chief constables of the provincial police authorities further to increase foot patrols. Secondly, more encouragement and assistance should be given to retain the bobby on the beat.
  I speak with some experience of the decline of law and order in the large provincial city. Within the past four days a man has been shot in my constituency and a young man brutally stabbed a number of times.
  In her opening speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) dealt mainly with the problems of the Metropolitan Police and the increasing crime in London. I should like to deal briefly with the problems of a provincial city, particularly the increased problems faced by the police in the inner areas of our provincial cities. We face increasing crime not only in London but in all our major provincial cities.
  1902
  A constituency like mine, which covers central Liverpool, has within its boundaries all the problems affecting modern society—drugs, vandalism, violence, drunkenness and mugging, and with the two cases to which I have referred, danger to life and limb.
  At a recent meeting held in my constituency, which was attended by over 300 people, including senior police officers, clergy, teachers and welfare workers, a resolution was passed unanimously requesting the chief constable of Liverpool and Bootle Police Force to increase the foot patrols in Liverpool. I am well aware of the problems facing the police in Liverpool and Bootle. I know a number of the senior officers and police constables. We do not want in Liverpool or anywhere else in the country the sort of society which we see existing in New York and Chicago where people are frightened to open their front doors or walk the streets at night.
  I go along with the suggestion of differential rates of pay for London police officers, but I should not confine the differential to London. Police officers in all large cities have a tremendous problem, and if the answer is to give them more money, they deserve it.
  9.31 p.m.
  Mr. John Fraser: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mr. Parry) and the hon. and learned Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) that the public must be protected against the violent criminal. But the public must also be protected against the violent motorist. The hon. and learned Gentleman made an unwarrantable attack upon the police. If, as happens in many families, a child is injured, maimed or killed, there is exactly the same feeling of revulsion as there is when a criminal has stabbed his victim. The police are doing their job in protecting the public in both instances.
  The hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Fowler) and the Secretary of State for the Home Department suggested that the last Labour Government had deliberately cut down recruitment, including civilian recruitment, of the Metropolitan Police in 1968. Let us get the figures clear. The net increase in the Metropolitan Police since 1st July, 1970 has been 151. In 1968 the increase in police recruitment from the

  1903
  1967 figure was 462. In one year, therefore, the total increase was three times the total increase in recruitment since the present Government came to power. The total increase in the recruitment of civilians in 1969 over recruitment in 1968 was 1,389. The total increase in recruitment since the end of 1970 under the present Government has been 1,052.
  Mr. Fowler rose—
  Mr. Fraser: This debate is concerned with two issues. The first, is the rising tide of crime, particularly crimes of violence, which is an interference with personal liberty and rights. The second issue is our assertion that the Government have in some respects failed to meet their obligation to society. Our accusation is that in some areas of the country, particularly in the metropolis, police forces have been allowed to become undermanned. They have been reduced in size and intolerably overstrained. The Government may be incapable of controlling the disease of rising crime but they are directly capable of providing a prescription to deal with that disease.
  I accept that any politician, of any party, needs a good deal of modesty and humility in any claim which he makes to deal with rising crime. Whichever Government have been in power, crime has regrettably and tragically increased. The present Government might have spared themselves some of the self-congratulation in their amendment. If they want any chastisement, they might like to go back to the fount of Conservative knowledge before the last General Election—namely, Mr. Quinton Hogg as he then was. He could hardly open his mouth without talking about law and order.
  I give one quotation from a speech made at the beginning of 1970. He said:
  " … the Prime Minister is presiding complacently over the biggest crime wave of the century and does not seem aware of it … Of course, says the Left Wing. But much of this increase took place under the Tories. Or, even more smugly, they say the rate of increase is going down, as if what mattered was the rate of increase and not the continuance each year of an all-time high on top of an all-time high on top of an all-time high. It is the continued increase not the rate which should command public attention and concern."
  That was in February 1970. At that time indictable offences known to the
  1904
  police totalled 1,488,638 and there was no complacency about those figures.
  By 1971 the present Prime Minister was presiding over the biggest crime total ever, an increase of 10 per cent. over the fire and brimstone period mentioned by the present Lord Chancellor. In 1972—the totals are not directly comparable because of a change in classification—the figures had gone up by 3½ per cent. for the country as a whole and 4·1 per cent. for London. We have had three years of Conservative rule and 1972 has given us
  "an all-time high on top of an all-time high on top of an all-time high".
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Mark Carlisle): The 3·5 per cent. figure is directly comparable. The one given by the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) is not comparable.
  Mr. Fraser: It is directly comparable with the preceding year, not the year before that. I hope that we never again get those bombastic splutterings which we had from the present Lord Chancellor.
  I do not say that the Government are directly responsible. There are, of course, a number of factors over which they have control and which are conducive to crime and anti-social behaviour. I have in mind such things as unemployment and the degrading conditions under which some children leave school, where goals are held out to them but they do not have the opportunity of achieving them. Such things are relevant to the crime rate.
  The preventive services which can be provided by the Government are relevant too. In the metropolis, children's officer after children's officer and police officer after police officer will continue to assert that they are responding to a crisis and that the resources for dealing with juvenile delinquency are totally inadequate.
  There are pitiful housing conditions which make it impossible for people to live in dignity and with the kind of values which lead people to become law-abiding citizens. Other such factors involve the supply of probation officers and so on. These are areas in which the Government can indirectly influence the crime figures.
  One sector in which they have a direct responsibility, particularly in London, is

  1905
  the strength of police forces. Let us get the facts into perspective. We are delighted to hear that there has been an increase in many police forces in the United Kingdom, but there still remain areas which are undermanned. The West Yorkshire force is 16 per cent. undermanned, the West Midland force 25 per cent., Birmingham 15 per cent., Liverpool 10 per cent. and Manchester 9 per cent., while London, the only force for which the Home Secretary is directly responsible, is 20 per cent. under establishment. It is under establishment by a number equal to the total establishment of the forces of Manchester-Salford and Liverpool Bootle—and at a time when crime is increasing.
  Let us put the metropolitan figure into perspective. In 1972 crime in London rose by 4·1 per cent. but the strength of the Metropolitan Police fell by 65 men. From 1st January 1972 to 1st April 1973 the strength fell by 120 men. From 1st April 1972 to 1st April 1973 it fell by 263 men, a serious trend.
  Frome 1st June 1972 to 1st June 1973 the strength of the Metropolitan Police fell by 453. That is in a climate of rising crime, against the background of the massive recruiting campaign and against the background of a police force expecting many retirements in the coming years. For instance, there are now almost 1,500 men of the age of 52 who will be retiring in the next three years, 902 of the age of 53 and 499 of the age of 54. It is a far cry from the statement in "A Better Tomorrow" about strengthening the police force in London, and this is a matter for which the Home Secretary is directly responsible.
  It is no use talking about the strength of the police forces throughout the rest of the United Kingdom. It is no comfort to be told by the Home Secretary, when a bank is robbed in Brixton, when someone is stabbed in Streatham or when a man is mugged in Marylebone, that the police in Devon, Norfolk and Suffolk are the best deterrent to crime. They are not a deterrent to crime in the Metropolitan Police area.
  The Home Secretary has said in answer to questions that there were two difficulties in London. One difficulty,
  1906
  concerning the Police Federation, has been removed. The other arises from the prices and incomes policy which was of the Home Secretary's own making. Now that the Police Federation has withdrawn its objection to separate increases for London, the Home Secretary can have no further alibi.
  We must have an urgent review of pay and conditions in the Metropolitan Police. These are pay and conditions which drive experienced officers away from the force and which this year have resulted in an all-time high of 714 experienced officers leaving the force without pension, let alone those who choose to go after their 25 years' service is completed.
  The review which I urge should include a number of matters. First, it should look at pay. Secondly, it should look at the damage which rocketing property values cause to the police service in London. This is damaging the police service in the same way as it is damaging the education service, the transport service and other social services. The increase in house prices has been 109 per cent. since the Government came to power and in my constituency the increase has been much higher.
  Thirdly, there should be a review of the rent allowance, which is already based on an under-valuation of property and is nonsensical when the maximum London rent allowance is £10 a week for a constable and it is greater in Surrey and Hertfordshire and likely soon to be greater in the Thames Valley. The review should consider the hours of work of the police and the domestic disruption caused by these hours. Uniformed men work up to 50 hours a week or more if there is a demonstration in their area or if they apprehend a criminal the night before they are due to go on leave, which involves them appearing in court with him the next day. The hours worked by CID officers should also be reviewed. In my area such officers work between 60 and 80 hours a week.
  Fourthly, the review should also take into account the kind of things which we expect from the police over and above the traditional law and order services which they provide to the community. We expect them to engage in community relations and in preventive

  1907
  work among juveniles. They are expected not only to exercise all the traditional duties but to be patient, understanding and experienced in dealing with social situations as well as criminal situations. Far too often the police have to take the brunt and frustrations of the discontent of society. Because they are the visible embodiment of authority, they take knocks for matters over which they have no control.
  Fifthly, the review should look at the shortage of manpower in the metropolitan force which prevents the police from keeping in touch with the ordinary public. I do not blame them for this, as their numbers are stretched, but it is important that the police should be out on the beat so that they get to know members of the public and the communal difficulties of each area, thus securing the confidence and co-operation of the ordinary public as well as meeting those who have committed infractions of the law.
  I hope that the review will also consider the possibility of recruiting more coloured policemen in the London force, because it is important that every force should reflect the social composition of the population which it controls. I hope it will not continue, but there is a regrettable and rising trend in crime.
  I close with two quotations. The first comes from the irrepressible Quintin Hogg. He said that we need more police and that, if need be, we must pay for them. That is a thought with which I agree, particularly in relation to the metropolitan force. The second quotation punctures some of the complacency about the London situation. In his report for 1972 the Commisioner of the Metropolitan Police, Sir Robert Mark, stated:
  "The check in manpower growth suffered in 1972 and the serious outlook for the future have, I feel sure, developed from the special and mounting problems we are facing in the metropolis. The situation underlines the urgent need for greater public awareness and more material recognition of the vital service the men and women in the Force give to the community, often in unpleasant, difficult and dangerous circumstances."
  We in the Opposition give that recognition. We express our support for the police and for their splendid achievements.
  We condemn the Government for their failure in the metropolis to face up to the
  1908
  obvious and serious crisis in the maintenance of law and order. I can remember night after night facing the right hon. Gentleman when he assured us, when we were in office, that he would never introduce a prices and incomes policy. Although we want to see more policemen in London, and although we need to pay them more, the Secretary of State and the Government have tied their own hands in dealing with the problem of rising crime and law and order in the metropolis.
  9.46 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Mark Carlisle): I, too, am grateful for the opportunity we have had of debating the subject of the police. I think that all who have spoken have taken the opportunity to put on record their respect and regard for the police. We should be anxious to express our support for the police.
  I welcome particularly the speech of the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Ernest G. Perry), which I thought was typical of the way in which many people feel about the police force in their area. He mentioned particularly what the police are attempting to do about community relations. I accept what the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) said and reaffirm the need for more coloured policemen.
  There is no doubt that the police have an important and often difficult task in maintaining law and order at a time when violence is growing in many parts of the world. It is a task which is essential in the interests of all of us in this country. It is a task which is essential to the continuance of a free democracy, and it is aimed at ensuring that people can go about their everyday lives without fear of attack on themselves and their property. The police are in the forefront of the fight against crime, and they deserve the support of the House.
  What I regret is the critical nature of the motion—and I point out to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Sandelson) that it was not our choice—and the fact that the Opposition intend to vote on it. The motion deplores the Government's record in police manpower. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State showed, that is a charge without substance. It is a complete distortion

  1909
  of the Government's record. The motion deserves to be roundly defeated.
  The Government's amendment points out that we affirm the need for adequate police manpower. But it makes clear that in all aspects of policies for the support of law and order and of the control of crime the Government's priority is far higher than that of our predecessors—a higher priority for police manpower and the police service, a higher priority for the probation service, and a higher priority of prison accommodation.
  I deal with the question of our record concerning the manpower position of the police which is attacked in the motion. Let me repeat a figure which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave the House. It is that today for the first time ever, we have more than 100,000 policemen. Today we have 100,396 policemen. At the end of May 1970, just before the Government took office, there were 92,707. The record which the House is being asked to deplore is the record of an increase of 7,689 in the number of policemen during those three years. When one compares that record with the Labour Party's record and the size of the police force during the three preceding years the motion becomes even more ludicrous.
  As the motion is, presumably, wide enough to include Scotland as well as England and Wales, I am entitled to point out that there has been an even greater increase in the size of forces in Scotland. In each of the last two years, 1971 and 1972, there was a higher increase than there was during the whole of the previous five years between 1966 and 1970.
  Mr. Albert Roberts: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman dealing with the police force or with traffic wardens?
  Mr. Carlisle: I am dealing with the increase in the police force. We have 47 police forces each one of which has increased in size since the Government took office. In all but six of those police forces the rate of increase has been higher in the last three years. In 41 out of 47 there has been a greater increase than there was in the previous three years. Whereas during the last three years every police force has
  1910
  increased, there were in Scotland five forces and in England and Wales seven forces in which there had been a drop in the previous three years.
  Added to that must be the additional use of civilians. The figure given by my right hon. Friend in relation to the Metropolitan area was correct. The difference between that figure and the figure mentioned is accounted for by traffic wardens. In that time 797 more civilians have been helping the police. We therefore have more policemen able to concentrate on police work.
  It may be said by some that, although recruitment has improved greatly over the last three years, we are not going fast enough and still more should be done, but the Opposition could not possibly hold that position. That argument has been shot from under their feet by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan)—who, not surprisingly, is not a signatory to the motion—when, at the end of 1967, as a result of his tenure of office at the Treasury he had, when he became Home Secretary, to impose a ceiling on police recruitment and on the extent to which police forces could expand.
  The hon. Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) said that it was deplorable that 17 out of 47 police forces were still 10 per cent. under strength. I believe that she was at the Home Office at the time when the decision was taken by the then Home Secretary that any force which was not more than 10 per cent. under establishment was not permitted any increase in its size. All that was permitted was an increase of 1 per cent. in the size of a police force provided that it was more than 10 per cent. under establishment. The reason given for that limit on recruitment by the Home Office was that the total strength of the forces had reached a point at which it was not necessary for unrestrained recruitment to continue. That was said by the then Government at a time when there were under 90,000 policemen. Yet they now have the nerve as an Opposition to censure us when we have in this country over 100,000 policemen.
  When the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East was tackled about the reason for the brake on recruitment when police forces were still 17,000 under

  1911
  strength, his answer was that it was not the size of the police force that was wrong but the size of the establishment. We were then told that the police were up to requirements even though they were below establishment.
  One of the effects of the right hon. Gentleman's policies was deliberately to stop the expenditure on central advertising for recruitment to the police forces, which I am glad to say is now running at over £600,000 a year.
  Mr. John Fraser: What about the situation in London?
  Mr. Carlisle: I am coming on to London.
  Mr. Fraser: The Minister is dodging the question.
  Mr. Carlisle: I am not dodging anything. All forces, including those in London, are greater now than when we took office.
  We have heard much about police pay. I remind the Labour Party that, compared to the time when we took office, the basic pay of a police officer has increased by 47 per cent. That surely is a recognition of an improvement in the situation of the police force.
  In regard to the Metropolitan area, although I accept, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary accepted, that there are serious problems, and although we are concerned with the present situation in the Metropolitan Police force, I only need to remind the House of the steps which my right hon. Friend has already said are being taken.
  Having dealt with the paucity of the Opposition's argument—[HON. MEMBERS: "What about London?"] I shall come back to London in a moment. In the last few moments of my speech I turn to the second half of our amendment, which welcomes the success of our policies not only in bringing about a substantial increase in the size of the police force but in combating crime.
  The hon. Member for Norwood went on and on about the substantial and steady increase in crime. I do not know
  whether he heard that part of my right hon. Friend's speech which emphasised that for the first time there are encouraging signs that the tide has turned. Not only has the rate in the growth of crime been going down over the last two years—and particularly during the last six months of last year—but now, for the first time in many years, the figures which my right hon. Friend hopes shortly to announce in relation to crimes in the first three months of this year will show a reduction in overall volume. My right hon. Friend said that last year 22 police forces had shown an actual reduction in crime against the situation in 1971, whereas in the first three months of this year 32 police forces out of 47 showed an actual reduction in crime. Reports which we have had from chief constables show that 36 out of 47 police forces have achieved an actual reduction in crime.
  However serious the manpower position in the Metropolitan area, it must be said that among the areas which have reported to the Home Office reductions in crime is the Metropolitan area, whose figures are 4 per cent. down on the equivalent period last year. The same goes for Manchester and Salford, Liverpool, West Yorkshire, Birmingham, Lancashire, West Midlands and all the other forces which have been mentioned in this debate.
  The Opposition have chosen to table what can only be described as a censorious motion. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about London?"] It is a hypocritical motion. It is tabled by a party whose record when in Government was hardly one of which they can be proud. It is a party which deliberately limited police expansion because it said there was no need to increase it further. Today we have 11,000 additional policemen and every police force is larger than it was when Labour were in power. That is the sort of record which the Opposition are asking the House to deplore, and I ask the House overwhelmingly to reject the motion.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 290, Noes 265.

  Division No. 200.]

  AYES

  [10.0 p.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Awdry, Daniel

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Astor, John

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Goodhart, Philip

  Moate, Roger

  Batsford, Brian

  Gorst, John

  Money, Ernie

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Gower, Raymond

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Bell, Ronald

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Monro, Hector

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Gray, Hamish

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Green, Alan

  More, Jasper

  Benyon, W.

  Grieve, Percy

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Biffen, John

  Grylls, Michael

  Morrison, Charles

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Gurden, Harold

  Murton, Oscar

  Blaker, Peter

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Neave, Airey

  Body, Richard

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Boscawen, Hn. Robert

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Normanton, Tom

  Bowden, Andrew

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Nott, John

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Bray, Ronald

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Brewis, John

  Hastings, Stephen

  Osborn, John

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Havers, Michael

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Hawkins, Paul

  Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Hay, John

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Hicks, Robert

  Peel, John

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

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Percival, Ian

  Buck, Antony

  Hiley, Joseph

  Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

  Bullus, Sir Eric

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

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Burden, F. A.

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Holland, Philip

  Pounder, Rafton

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

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Carlisle, Mark

  Hordern, Peter

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Hornby, Richard

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

  Channon, Paul

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Chapman, Sydney

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Raison, Timothy

  Churchill, W. S.

  Hunt, John

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Redmond, Robert

  Clegg, Walter

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Cockeram, Eric

  James, David

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Cooke, Robert

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Coombs, Derek

  Jessel, Toby

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Cooper, A. E.

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Cordle, John

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick

  Jopling, Michael

  Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

  Cormack, Patrick

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Costain, A. P.

  Kaberrv, Sir Donald

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Critchley, Julian

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Crouch, David

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Crowder, F. P.

  Kimball, Marcus

  Rost, Peter

  Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

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

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

  Dean, Paul

  Kirk, Peter

  Scott, Nicholas

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Kitson, Timothy

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

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

  Dixon, Piers

  Knox, David

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Lamont, Norman

  Shersby, Michael

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Lane, David

  Simeons, Charles

  Dykes, Hugh

  Langford-Holt Sir John

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

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

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Lloyd,Rt. Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nC'field)

  Soref, Harold

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

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

  Speed, Keith

  Emery, Peter

  Longden, Sir Gilbert

  Spence, John

  Fell, Anthony

  Luce, . N.

  Sproat, Iain

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Stainton, Keith

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  MacArthur, Ian

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Stokes, John

  Foster, Sir John

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Fowler, Norman

  Maddan, Martin

  Sutcliffe, John

  Fox, Marcus

  Madel, David

  Tapsell, Peter

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Fry, Peter

  Marten, Neil

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

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.

  Mather, Carol

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Gardner, Edward

  Maude, Angus

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Temple, John M.

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Mawby, Ray

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Miscampbell, Norman

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

  1914

  1915

  Tilney, John

  Wall, Patrick

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Walters, Dennis

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Trew, Peter

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Worsley, Marcus

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Warren, Kenneth

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Younger, Hn. George

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Wiggin, Jerry

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Waddington, David

  Wilkinson, John

  Mr. Tim Fortescue and

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Mr. Bernard Weatherill.

  Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Ellis, Tom

  Lipton, Marcus

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  English, Michael

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Allen, Scholefield

  Evans, Fred

  Loughlin, Charles

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Ewing, Harry

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Faulds, Andrew

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Ashley, Jack

  Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Ashton, Joe

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

  McBride, Neil

  Atkinson, Norman

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  McElhone, Frank

  Barnes, Michael

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  McGuire, Michael

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Foot, Michael

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)

  Forrester, John

  Mackie, John

  Baxter, William

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

  Maclennan, Robert

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Freeson, Reginald

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)

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

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Marks, Kenneth

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Gourley, Harry

  Marquand, David

  Booth, Albert

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Marsden, F.

  Boothroyd, Miss B. (West Brom.)

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Marshall, Dr. Edmund

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Bradley, Tom

  Hatton, F.

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Broughton, Sir Alfred

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Mendelson, John

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

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Millan, Bruce

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

  Hamling, William

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Milne, Edward

  Buchan, Norman

  Hardy, Peter

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

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

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Molloy, William

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Morgan, Elysian (Cardiganshire)

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Hattersley, Roy

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Cant, R. B.

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Hefter, Eric S.

  Moyle, Roland

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Horam, John

  Murray, Ronald King

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Houghton. Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Oakes, Gordon

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Ogden, Eric

  Cohen, Stanley

  Huckfield, Leslie

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Concannon, J. D.

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Conlan, Bernard

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Oram, Bert

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Orme, Stanley

  Crawshaw, Richard

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

  Oswald, Thomas

  Cronin, John

  Janner, Greville

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Jay Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Padley, Walter

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

  Jeger, Mrs. Lena

  Paget, R. T.

  Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Davidson, Arthur

  John, Brynmor

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

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

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Pendry, Tom

  Deakins, Eric

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

  Perry, Ernest G.

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Delargy, Hugh

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Prescott, John

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Kelley, Richard

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Dempsey, James

  Kerr, Russell

  Probert, Arthur

  Doig, Peter

  Kinnock, Nell

  Radice, Giles

  Dormand, J. D.

  Lambie, David

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Lamborn, Harry

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Lamond, James

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Driberg, Tom

  Latham, Arthur

  Richard, Ivor

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Lawson, George

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Dunn, James A.

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Eadie, Alex

  Leonard, Dick

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Edelman, Maurice

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Roper, John

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Rose Paul B.

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Rowlands, Ted

  1916

  1917

  Sandelson, Neville

  Stott, Roger (Westhoughton)

  Weitzman, David

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Strang, Gavin

  Wellbeloved, James

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

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

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)

  Swain, Thomas

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Taverne, Dick

  Whitlock, William

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Sitters, James

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Silverman, Julius

  Tinn, James

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Tomney, Frank

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Small, William

  Tope, Graham

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire N.)

  Torney, Tom

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Tuck, Raphael

  Wilson, William (Coventry. S.)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Urwin, T. W.

  Woof, Robert

  Stallard, A. W.

  Varley, Eric G.

  Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

  Wainwright, Edwin

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Mr. Donald Coleman and

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Wallace, George

  Mr. John Golding.

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Watkins, David

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Main Question, as amended, put: —
  The House divided: Ayes 289, Noes 263.

  Division No. 201.]

  AYES

  [10.12 p.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Crouch, David

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Crowder, F. P.

  Hicks, Robert

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Hiley, Joseph

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

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

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

  Astor, John

  Dean, Paul

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

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Holland, Philip

  Awdry, Daniel

  Dixon, Piers

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas

  Hordern, Peter

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Hornby, Richard

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Dykes, Hugh

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

  Batsford, Brian

  Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Bell, Ronald

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

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

  Hunt, John

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Emery, Peter

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Benyon, W.

  Fell, Anthony

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hempstead)

  James, David

  Blaker, Peter

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Jessel, Toby

  Body, Richard

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Boscawen, Hn. Robert

  Fortescue, Tim

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Foster, Sir John

  Jopling, Michael

  Bowden, Andrew

  Fowler, Norman

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Fox, Marcus

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Bray, Ronald

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

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

  Brewis, John

  Fry, Peter

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.

  Kimball, Marcus

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Gardner, Edward

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Gibson-Watt, David

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Kirk, Peter

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

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  Kitson, Timothy

  Buck, Antony

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Goodhart, Philip

  Knox, David

  Burden, F. A.

  Gorst, John

  Lamont, Norman

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Gower, Raymond

  Lane, David

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

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Carlisle, Mark

  Gray, Hamish

  Le Merchant, Spencer

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Green, Alan

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Channon, Paul

  Grieve, Percy

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'field)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th Langstone)

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Grylls, Michael

  Longden, Sir Gilbert

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Gurden, Harold

  Luce, R. N.

  Churchill, W. S.

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Clark, William (Surrey. E.)

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  MacArthur, Ian

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Cockeram, Eric

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Cooke, Robert

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Coombs, Derek

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

  Cooper, A. E.

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Maddan, Martin

  Cordle, John

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Madel, David

  Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick

  Hastings, Stephen

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Cormack, Patrick

  Havers, Sir Michael

  Marten, Neil

  Costain. A. P.

  Hawkins, Paul

  Mather, Carol

  Critchley, Julian

  Hay, John

  Maude, Angus

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Mawby, Ray

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Sutcliffe, John

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Raison, Timothy

  Tapsell, Peter

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

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

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

  Redmond, Robert

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)

  Moate, Roger

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Temple, John M.

  Money, Ernie

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Monro, Hector

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Tilney, John

  More, Jasper

  Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Trew, Peter

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Morrison, Charles

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

  Murton, Oscar

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Rost, Peter

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Neave, Airey

  Royle, Anthony

  Waddington, David

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Noble, Rt. Hn Michael

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

  Normanton, Tom

  Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Nott, John

  Scott, Nicholas

  Wall, Patrick

  Onslow, Cranley

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Walters, Dennis

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

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

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Osborn, John

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Shersby, Michael

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

  Simeons, Charles

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Wilkinson, John

  Peel, Sir John

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

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Percival, Ian

  Soref, Harold

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

  Speed, Keith

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Spence, John

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Sproat, Iain

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Pounder, Rafton

  Stainton, Keith

  Worsley, Marcus

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

  Younger, Hn. George

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

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Stokes, John

  Mr. Bernard Weatherill and

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Mr. Walter Clegg.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Freeson, Reginald

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Allen, Scholefield

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Cronin, John

  Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Ashley, Jack

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

  Gourlay, Harry

  Ashton, Joe

  Davidson, Arthur

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Atkinson, Norman

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Barnes, Michael

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)

  Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Baxter, William

  Deakins, Eric

  Hamling, William

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Delargy, Hugh

  Hardy, Peter

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Dell, Rt. He. Edmund

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Dempsey, James

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Doig, Peter

  Hattersley, Roy

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Dormand, J. D.

  Hatton, F.

  Booth, Albert

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Boothroyd, Miss B. (West Brom.)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Hefter, Eric S.

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Driberg, Tom

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Horam, John

  Bradley, Tom

  Dunn, James A.

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Broughton, Sir Alfred

  Dunnett, Jack

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

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

  Eadie, Alex

  Huckfield, Leslie

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

  Edelman, Maurice

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Edwards, William (Merloneth)

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Buchan, Norman

  Ellis, Tom

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

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

  English, Michael

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Evans, Fred

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

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Ewing, Harry

  Janner, Greville

  Cant, R. B.

  Faulds, Andrew

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Carmichael, Neil

  Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

  Jeger, Mrs. Lena

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

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

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  John, Brynmor

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

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

  Cohen, Stanley

  Foot, Michael

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Concannon, J. D.

  Forrester, John

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

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

  1920

  1921

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Silverman, Julius

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Kelley, Richard

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Small, William

  Kerr, Russell

  Moyle, Roland

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire. N.)

  Kinnock, Neil

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Spearing, Nigel

  Lambie, David

  Murray, Ronald King

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Lamborn, Harry

  Oakes, Gordon

  Stallard, A. W.

  Lamond, James

  Ogden, Eric

  Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

  Latham, Arthur

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Lawson, George

  O'Malley, Brian

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Oram, Bert

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Orbach, Maurice

  Stott, Roger (Westhoughton)

  Leonard, Dick

  Orme, Stanley

  Strang, Gavin

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Oswald, Thomas

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Padley, Walter

  Swain, Thomas

  Lipton, Marcus

  Paget, R. T.

  Taverns, Dick

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Palmer, Arthur

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Tomney, Frank

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Tope, Graham

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Torney, Tom

  McBride, Neil

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Tuck, Raphael

  McCartney, Hugh

  Pendry, Tom

  Urwin, T. W.

  McElhone, Frank

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Varley, Eric G.

  McGuire, Michael

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Machin, George

  Prescott, John

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Wallace, George

  Mackie, John

  Probert, Arthur

  Watkins, David

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Radice, Giles

  Weitzman, David

  Maclennan, Robert

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Wellbeloved, James

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Richard, Ivor

  Whitehead, Phillip

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

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Whitlock, William

  Marks, Kenneth

  Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Marquand, David

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Marsden, F.

  Roper, John

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Marshall, Dr Edmund

  Rose Paul B.

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Rowlands, Ted

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Sandelson, Neville

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Mendelson, John

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Woof, Robert

  Millan, Bruce

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

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Milne, Edward

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Mr. John Golding and

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

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Mr. Donald Coleman.

  Molloy, William

  Sillars, James

  Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House notes with concern the continuing rise in crime; affirms that the police should have adequate manpower to perform their duties; endorses Her Majesty's
  1922
  Government's decision to give a higher priority over the last three years to policies for the support of law and order; and in particular welcomes the success of these policies in bringing about a substantial increase in the strength of the police service and further welcomes the present indications of their success in combating crime.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That the Government Trading Funds Bill and the Bangladesh Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed until any hour.—[Mr. Carlisle.]

  ELECTIONS (WELSH FORMS)
  10.24 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Mark Carlisle): I beg to move,
  That the Elections (Welsh Forms) Regulations 1973, dated 9th June 1973, a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th June, be approved.
  The regulations simply prescribe a revised version, partly in English and partly in Welsh—I understand that there are to be one or two comments about some of the spellings of Welsh words—of the canvass form, Form A, used in compiling the register of electors. The revised version was prescribed in the Representation of the People Regulations 1973, which the House approved on 26th February last. The revised form takes account of the changed basis of jury service introduced as a result of the Criminal Justice Act 1972, which extended liability to jury service to all electors between 18 and 65. A form based on the regulations will shortly be printed for use in Wales this year.
  In view of the indication I have had from the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan), I am certainly prepared to look carefully into any points made about the Welsh translation and shall, of course, consult the Welsh Office if any changes need to be made. We shall try to make them in the forms printed for use in Wales this year.
  10.25 p.m.
  Mr. Elystan Morgan: The Opposition welcome these regulations which give official status to what is a very important Welsh translation of an official document. I think I am right in saying that this is the one hundred and ninety-second official translation which has been prescribed under the Act of 1967. I accept that there have been many scores of official translations beyond the pre-
  1924
  scribed forms under Section 3 of the Act. Both Governments have reacted generously to the exhortation implicit in the 1967 Act that these translations should be maintained in a steady flow. That has been the case over the last six years.
  There are two general questions I should like to touch on very briefly. First, although the volume of these translations has been considerable over the years, one is always conscious of the fact that there are some 20,000 official forms and documents in current use. What concerns many Members on both sides of the House is whether there is some strategic plan in choosing forms which would be likely to make the greatest impact on Welsh life if they were to be translated. There should be some strategic appreciation of the value of a document before a decision is made to translate it. For example, the impact that can be made by a single document may be much greater than the impact made by a totality of 300 other documents used only very seldom.
  Secondly, we would like to know what more the Government propose to do to see to it that the fullest use is made of these forms. I understand that in some cases only a fraction of 1 per cent. of the forms is used in the Welsh language. It may be that in some circumstances the Welsh version is not given the same prominence as is the English version—it is not readily available and has to be asked for. We say that that is reprehensible and that such practices should be very closely looked into. By and large one appreciates that the Welsh forms are not on the whole popular, and I think that there is a duty not only on the Government but on Welsh people themselves to make the fullest use of these forms. There is something bizarre in a situation where scores of young people defy the courts and go to prison, very often egged on by respectable middle-aged men who would rather remain academic militants, and where at the same time perhaps only a few hundred people avail themselves of the Welsh forms when they are ultimately published.
  We welcome this translation. We welcome it particularly because it is bilingual in that both languages are set out in the

  1925
  same document. Despite the reservations which the Hughes Parry Committee had on this matter, we think this is the best way of conveying the Welsh language to those who do not speak it at present. Sometimes a form would be very bulky if it were to have both languages in it, and that might sometimes be inappropriate; but in most cases we think it appropriate to have the two.
  We appreciate that this is an important official document since it brings home to the ordinary voter his legal obligation to be registered on the electoral roll. It is a chastening thought that, apart from those who choose not to vote at a parliamentary or local government election, there are, especially with an old register, millions of people who are disfranchised because their names do not appear on the roll.
  I am sorry to have to conclude on a note of criticism. I readily acknowledge that, concerning nearly all the other forms that have been translated under the Act and the official translations, the Welsh that appears therein is of a very high standard. But this form is clearly an exception. It is bespattered with dozens of obvious grammatical mistakes and dozens of obvious and patent clerical errors. It is not that one is affecting a stance of scholastic pomposity. I have shown the form to a number of my colleagues who, like myself, have the Welsh language as a first language. It is obvious that this is a grotesque effort at translation.
  I know that the Minister has good will towards the Welsh language and that he is anxious to do what is proper in this situation. We shall not divide the House on this matter. I ask the Minister, however, either to give an undertaking that, if the regulations are passed, the form will soon be replaced by another official form that will be a worthy and proper translation or, alternatively, to withhold them tonight and to bring forward a proper and accurate version very soon.
  In a sense, bureaucratic language is the enemy of a living language in every country. But the language used in this form is arthritic and grotesque and completely distorts the Welsh out of all recognition.
  10.31 p.m.
  Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I strongly support what my hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan) has said, both on the subject of producing bilingual forms in Wales and on the shortcomings of this particular document.
  I do not think that all hon. Members of the House realise how widely used Welsh is as a medium of speech and writing in very many parts of Wales. I do not think most hon. Members realise that 23 out of 36 Members of Parliament for Welsh constituencies speak Welsh. That is a very high proportion having regard to the fact that Wales has been a country of two languages for some centuries. Like every Member representing one of the western parts of Wales, I habitually use the language in the politics and representation of my constituency. It is a rarity for me, for instance—as I am sure it is for my hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan and my hon. Friend the Member for Merioneth (Mr. William Edwards)—even in the heat of an election, to lapse into the tongue of our Anglo-Saxon friends.
  Welsh is a modern language, fully capable of coping with all the demands of modern life; indeed, we have experience of that. Therefore, I commend the present Government, like the previous Government, for making progress in producing Welsh versions of official forms and directives. But I protest against the fact that this particular form, which is one of the most important, bearing as it does on the essential process of democracy, contains quite incredible mistakes of both grammar and idiom. The very first sentence is an imprecise and misleading variant of the English. For instance, the electoral registration officer, in English, "has to compile"; in Welsh he "is requested to compile." There is a difference of statutory undertaking implied in the first sentence of this fairly long form. One could go on and point to faulty grammar and spelling, but above all to an imprecision of statement. This is both a danger in the relationship between government and governed and something of a disservice to a modern language.
  I ask the Minister of State, who I know is sympathetic to what is being

  1927
  done for the Welsh language nowadays, to look very carefully not only at the form and presentation of this document but also into the arrangements for translation wherever that is done. It is unclear to my hon. Friends and myself what the arrangements are. Is there a reasonably strong unit of translation in the Welsh Office in Cardiff to which this very important work can be entrusted? Is it all that essential that whoever is asked or instructed to undertake this work should be a permanent civil servant?
  I mean no disrespect to the excellent men and women who serve us in Wales. I have some experience of them as one who has held the post that the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt) now holds. This is something special and I suggest that consideration should be given to putting this work out to people in Wales who are not civil servants. There are plenty of people who could give the Minister an idiomatic, precise and readable form without his having to overtax the already energetic and busy members of the Civil Service in Cardiff. Indeed, I could almost volunteer to give the Minister—not tonight, but in the course of the next day or so—an improved version in Welsh of this very important document.
  10.36 p.m.
  Mr. Carlisle: I reply by leave the the House. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan) and to the right hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Goronwy Roberts) for what they have said. This is an important form because it goes into every household and must be filled in to enable qualified persons to vote. It is a bilingual form in that it will go out in English and Welsh to every household.
  On behalf of my Department, I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for the state of the translation into Welsh. I would not for one moment attempt to dispute with him if he said that the form was full of errors.
  The right hon. Gentleman asked about the unit in Cardiff which does these translations on behalf of the Welsh Office. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Welsh Office is present and will have heard what the right hon. Gentleman said. I am sure he is anxious to
  1928
  ensure that the Welsh Office has a strong translation unit in Cardiff.
  I assure the hon. Member for Cardigan that there is no need to withhold this document. The Act allows the form to be used with such variations as may be necessary or appropriate. It will have to be printed for the purpose of being sent to Wales. As I said at the beginning, in conjunction with the Welsh Office we will be willing to look at the translation again and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Welsh Office would not take it in any way amiss if the right hon. Gentleman cared to give us the advantage of his knowledge on a more suitable wording for the form.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Elections (Welsh Forms) Regulations 1973, dated 9th June 1973, a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th June, be approved.

  REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS (MERCHANT SEAMEN)
  10.38 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith): I beg to move,
  That the Redundancy Payments (Merchant Seamen Exclusion) Order 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 11th June, be approved.
  I do not think that the order need detain the House for long. Its purpose is to prevent a possible anomaly effecting the entitlement of merchant seamen to payments under the Redundancy Payments Act 1965. It is non-controversial. I know that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) wishes to raise a number of points which I will endeavour to deal with later.
  In 1968 an order was made after full consultation with the shipping industry to exclude merchant seamen from the statutory scheme where their service is covered by a voluntary redundancy payment scheme agreed by the industry. In one respect the criterion of exclusion in the 1968 order has been found to be too wide. Service was excluded if it was under articles requiring the observance of the National Maritime Board's terms and conditions of employment.

  1929
  The articles have been used by some employers who are under no obligation to participate in the industry's redundancy payment scheme. The obligation to participate arises only where the employer is a member of an organisation affiliated to the National Maritime Board. Consequently some merchant seamen might be excluded from the statutory scheme even though their service was not covered by the industry's scheme. The board has asked for the order to be amended to close any possible gap and it seems to me a sensible step to take.
  The order seeks to remedy this anomaly by excluding service under articles or, from 1st January last, under crew agreements applying the National Maritime Board's terms and conditions, but only where the service is in a ship covered by the employer's membership of an organisation affiliated to the National Maritime Board. This is a comparatively narrow point, but I agree that it is important because it affects a fair number of men who serve in the merchant service and it is right and proper that this should have been called to the attention of the Government of the day so that an adjustment may be made. I hope, therefore, that the House will feel able to approve the order.
  10.42 p.m.
  Mr. John Prescott: The Opposition do not intend to oppose the order but I take this opportunity to highlight some of the problems and seek a number of assurances and, perhaps, changes that the Minister might be prepared to consider. We do not want to delay the House but this matter is an important and a contentious one in the merchant service. We are here discussing yet another regulation concerning exclusion of the Merchant Shipping Acts only five or six years after the original order was made containing the defects outlined by the Minister.
  The 1968 order was inadequate to achieve the objective set for it. As a result some British seamen on British-registered vessels were not paid anything when made redundant by the company employing them. The company, however, was able to recover from the State the contributions it had made towards the redundancy scheme. The company drew
  1930
  the benefits yet the seamen were denied payment because of the exclusion order which was supposed to guarantee some form of payment.
  This matter of redundancy benefits is highly controversial as is shown by the considerable struggle which has ensued between the trade unions and the owners about whether a special redundancy scheme should be provided to take account of the special circumstances of the industry. Clearly the original redundancy legislation to which the order was directed denied benefits to seamen primarily because of the circumstances of their occupation, which are that because they sign the articles of agreement, or, latterly, the crew agreement, they are employed for a period of less than two years, the minimum qualifying period for redundancy pay.
  Some seamen—after as much as 20 or 30 years service—were unable to claim redundancy pay because they were returned to the merchant navy pool—what is known ashore as the Labour Exchange—and therefore while employment with that company had terminated they were considered to have been offered alternative employment by the pool labour system and their claim for redundancy pay was rejected.
  These industrial issues created consternation, and led to both the unions and the companies asking for exemption from the Redundancy Payments Act. The Minister was very concerned with the Industrial Relations Act. I constantly argued that we were always considered in legislation to be exceptional to the legislation for ordinary workers and given special legislation, but when we pressed the Minister to exempt us from that Industrial Relations Act we were told that we were in the same position as every other worker. Tonight we are once again discussing one of the exemptions for the seamen as different from other industrial workers.
  The 1968 order required that certain minimum criteria be observed before any Government could consider exclusion from the 1965 Act. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Spark-brook (Mr. Hattersley) laid down those criteria on 18th June 1968. They are the same criteria about which we have to satisfy ourselves when we consider

  1931
  the order tonight. My right hon. Friend said:
  "There are obvious minimum criteria by which exclusion should be judged. The first requirement is that the employers have set up at considerable cost to themselves redundancy arrangements. The second is that the individual arrangements should eliminate claims on the general redundancy fund. Third, the benefits should be at least comparable to those paid by the scheme."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th June, 1968; Vol. 766, c. 1805.]
  With the opportunity to have a second order, which is most unusual, we can judge, against those criteria, just how effective the original order was. Perhaps that could reflect why we have certain worries about the order. It was clearly shown on payments calculated to be paid to a man made redundant on 11 weeks a year employment that the arrangements was improved, and that that criterion was satisfied. But although there has been a decline of 30,000 in the number of seamen in the past decade only about 150 have been made redundant, and their redundancy has cost the industry about £100,000. The criterion about claims on the State fund has been satisfied to the hilt. There were no claims on the State fund.
  On the third point, about the scheme being of considerable cost to the employers, the figures are unfortunately secret and very difficult to obtain. I hope that the Minister will consider changing that. But what evidence we have, some of it taken from the yearly report to the House of the redundancy fund, it appears that, taking into account the money refunded to the industry under the order the industry benefited. Refunds not only in respect of seamen are recorded but also of dockers, share fishermen and others. There are other hon. Members from the port that I represent who concern themselves with fishing matters, especially conditions of employment, which I leave to them, perhaps wisely. I note that the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) is not here tonight to further their interests.
  It has been estimated that the companies have been saving over £250,000 a year in returned contributions up to 1971 as a result of having their own scheme. That is almost 90 per cent. of the contributions they have been paying to the State. Consequently, 10 per cent. had been used for paying redundancy benefits up to 1971.
  1932
  The matter has caused considerable concern to the trade unions involved. If it is said that all industry must pay towards a social benefit, a redundancy fund, that fund is used for good social purpose. If it cannot because of the circumstances of the industry be granted to seamen for the reasons which I have given, clearly that money should be used for some other means to meet the differences which exist in the system so that money raised for social purposes is used for social ends.
  Perhaps consideration of sick pay systems which the industry has now adopted is an example. The shipping industry has one of the highest death rates due to occupational deaths and one of the highest accident records in the country. The higher-than-shore average of people who die from diseases, accidents or who suffer from mental illness illustrates the stresses which the lads face who go away to sea. Therefore, we need considerably more data about the cash position in order to press for further financial provision to supplement the industry's new medical severance scheme.
  It is important to know how much the industry saves so that we can legitimately argue that the money should be used in other directions. In passing, I mention that we have health and insurance contributions for owners who employ foreign seamen, but the owners are able to recoup those contributions. That makes foreign labour cheaper and it is more difficult for British labour to get jobs when foreign labour is made that much cheaper by payment of less social contributions.
  It is the responsibility of the Department, which is concerned with the criteria on which this legislation is based, to ensure that the industry uses social contributions to social ends and that the money is not just put back into the kitty
  It is relevant to quote the evidence given by the Department to the Statutory Instruments Committee when it was considering the Redundancy Payments (Exclusion of Merchant Seamen) Order, 1973. In evidence it was said:
  "Indeed, that formulation in the 1968 Order was taken from the text of the industry's own redundancy scheme, and at that time had the approval of the industry; and those instructing me were assured by the industry at that

  1933
  time that that was a satisfactory and reasonably watertight formulation of the position."
  All too easily the industrial view is accepted. I should like to see the Department be a little more vigilant about some of the views and estimates given to it. This measure considerably tightens up one of the problems which arises when seamen on British ships are not covered by the scheme and if the owners are not a member of the National Maritime Board. That situation is covered by the new Redundancy Payments Order. The order makes it clear that if owners are not members of the National Maritime Board they shall belong to the State scheme. Those companies must pay their contributions to the State scheme. No one will be able to find a loophole as a result of the position being considerably tightened.
  There are some further points which are causing some concern. There are seamen who will now come in the State scheme. If they are not under the industry's National Maritime Board's scheme they will be available to go into the State scheme. Is the Minister able to give us an idea how many seamen will be exempt from the board's scheme, or, to put the other side of the equation, how many seamen will be able to go into the State scheme? We must bear in mind that even if a company contributes to the board's scheme, if the company's vessel is below 200 tons it need pay no contribution.
  Secondly, there is a problem about articles for those lads in the State scheme. Crew agreements last three or six months and it will now not be possible to meet the original requirement of the two-year accumulated period before they can become a claimant on the redundancy fund. It is possible that a company, facing the possibility of paying its 50 per cent. into the redundancy fund, could end the articles just before the redundancy period and opt out of its responsibility to paying in money.
  If the man is to pursue his claim for unfair dismissal, as the Minister knows better than most because he drafted most of the laws on this matter, he must for two years have served in that employment. So he will be denied the right under the Industrial Relations Act to
  1934
  secure redress. The company indeed has a financial incentive to get rid of the man.
  Thirdly, I understand that the appeals tribunal requires a seaman, before he makes a redundancy claim, to be employed for two years in his employment. This raises an issue of contract law. If the contract or article or crew agreement is freely entered into between employer and employee and at the end of a set period—say, six months—the articles automatically finish, is the employer forced to take back the man on the ship?
  Finally, I wish to raise an important point involving the present industry scheme. It is relevant to the order which, unfortunately, does not correct it. One of the rights of the Act dealing with the question of redundancy concerns not only the benefits conferred but the guarantee of legal rights. If a man's claim for redundancy is turned down, he can go through various stages of appeal.
  A case has been brought to my attention about which I know the industry is concerned. I am sure that something will be done about it. It is the responsibility of the Department to ensure that the legal right in question is passed into the industry scheme. The case concerns a constituent, not of mine, but of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. Harold Wilson). I shall not go into the details, but I will send all the papers to the Minister so that he can make a proper assessment. However, everything I propose to say about the case is correct and I do not want to bore the House with the details.
  The man in question, Mr. Noel McCormack, was employed on a vessel as a baker. In the merchant shipping service a baker is what we call an Appendix A man. He is not a registered seaman. People such as doctors, nurses, pursers and bakers are generally called Appendix A people; they are employees of the company. Mr. McCormack was employed by a passenger company which closed down its ships, and he was made redundant.
  It is important to realise that if a seamen lives not in a port such as Liverpool but outside it he has to report to his employment exchange and not to the pool, which does the job on behalf of the exchange of allocating seamen to ships and dealing with unemployment

  1935
  benefit. Mr. McCormack reported to the employment exchange. He was made redundant in April 1970, and he remained unemployed until February 1971. He made a claim in November 1971 for redundancy pay. He failed to qualify under the industry scheme because he did not satisfy the criterion, namely, he did not for 12 weeks report himself available for work.
  The labour exchange did not, as it has admitted, inform the pool. That was the mistake of the Department of Employment official and not of Mr. McCormack. That is a legal point which will have to be considered. He did not claim within 12 months, so he failed to qualify under the industry scheme. He appealed to the tribunal under the 1965 Act and his case was considered in London in February 1973. His appeal failed because the tribunal said that as he was a merchant seaman he was excluded from the provisions of the Act dealing with redundancy. Therefore, the industry scheme of appeal is less fair and the guarantees for the justification of the exclusion order have not been satisfied.
  The industry disallowed this man. He appealed again to the higher authority and he was further disallowed. The industry scheme requires that if the employer and the trade union disagree about a redundancy claim the case goes to the National Maritime Board. If there is still disagreement the parties can come to the Department and be heard by a tribunal. However, if the trade union and the owners agree, the man is denied all effective right to go to a tribunal. If there is a point of law at issue, as in this case—namely, is the responsibility on the Department of Employment if it fails to notify the pool that the man was available for work in compliance with the Act?—it should be considered by a lawyer.
  I hope that the Minister will press the industry to include this alternative appeal system, and ensure that seamen are guaranteed those minimum requirements laid down in the 1965 Redundancy Act in regard to appeal conditions.
  The order will not create any opposition, but I have raised several doubts. I ask the Minister to consider the matters I have mentioned and approach the industry to make sure that those doubts on
  1936
  the appeals system are satisfied. Secondly, will he consider the redundancy claims of the non-State seamen—those who are no longer under the exclusion order and are excluded by the two-year requirements on unfair dismissal and redundancy. Thirdly, will he consider breaking down the redundancy fund into separate categories for dockers, share fishermen and seamen, so that an assessment can be made of the amount of money given back to the industry out of the appeals?
  11.2 p.m.
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: I wish to draw to the Under-Secretary of State's attention some provisions of the order which exclude fishermen. Fishermen in Hull are prevented from receiving benefit either under the Redundancy Payments Act or under the Contracts of Employment Act. The order specifically exempts fishermen. I contend that orders of this nature exempting fishermen from the benefits of the Redundancy Payments Act should not be brought before the House.
  I have taken up this matter in correspondence with the Minister of State. He summarised the position as follows:
  "The difficulty about the casual nature of employment in the industry is that statutory payments are calculated on, among other things, the length of reckonable service with the employer … this usually means service with the last employer before redundancy dismissal; service with more than one employer can, however, be aggregated where there has been a transfer of the business or successive employing companies are ' associated' within the meaning of the Act."
  The Minister went on to explain how it was possible for parts of an industry or a whole industry which by reason of its nature are not covered by the Act to bring forward a scheme. We are discussing the provisions of such a scheme as it applies to merchant seamen.
  A fisherman signs articles—a crew agreement—and at the end of his voyage he signs off. He might have a continuous crew agreement in the sense that he will make a number of trips. At the end he will sign off, have his rest and then try to get another vessel. It might well be that he goes on to the same trawler as he had been on before, or to a different trawler with a different owner. The overall effect is the same—that he does

  1937
  not have contiuous or reckonable service within the meaning of the Act.
  This is particularly difficult for fishermen, for a number of reasons. While I do not dispute with my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) the arduous nature of the ordinary merchant seaman's job, I point out that the fisherman's job, working on open decks in gale force weather, perhaps harassed, although fortunately not at present, by Icelandic gunboats, having to bring gear aboard and to fish out, is difficult, dangerous, and arduous. There is a great number of accidents. We all remember with sadness the type of tragedy which occurred a number of years ago. Fortunately, through the work of both parties and both sides of the industry, they have averted those. Nevertheless, this is a dangerous job, where men work long hours and have a considerable number of accidents.
  The overall result is that one may reach 40 or 45, and because of the casual nature of the industry not find employment again on trawlers. Because of the arduousness of the job, skippers looking for crews seek to get men from the register who are young or youngish, or middle-aged with a lot of experience. Once they are past 40 or 45, it is difficult for ordinary deck hands to get continuous employment on trawlers. One has only to look at unemployment in the fishing industry to realise that.
  A man comes to a position in middle age where he has no regularity of employment and should, in all fairness, be declared redundant, but because there is no redundancy scheme in the fishing industry, he is excluded from proper provision for compensation for loss of employment and loss of wages—admittedy good wages at the moment but wages which have to be worked for very hard.
  The Under-Secretary is probably aware that in a recent application for a wages increase by the Transport and General Workers' Union, my own union, to the Hull Fishing Vessel Owners Association, the union has asked for decasualisation of the industry and a proper system of redundancy payments, with appropriate protection, similar to that given to people in shore-based industry under the Contracts of Employment Act.
  1938
  It may be, because of the nature of the negotiations, that it will be impossible to come to a proper agreement in the industry, and I therefore ask the Minister to give an undertaking, should the industry fail to come to an agreement on this terrible anomaly and the grave injustice done to fishermen on Humberside and everywhere else where there are distant and middle water vessels, that the Department will consider trying to bring the two sides together to work out a proper scheme to give social justice to the fishermen of our country.
  11.10 p.m.
  Mr. Dudley Smith: We have had two interesting contributions, including the usual erudite speech on Merchant Navy matters from the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). I do not always agree with him, but he knows the subject very well and speaks fluently. He posed a number of questions, some of which I shall try to answer. If I do not cover them all, I hope he will excuse me. On other points I shall check up and be in touch with him. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is not opposing the order and that he agrees that it is a great improvement. I agree that the 1968 order had its anomalies. I make no political point on this, but merely say that it was passed by a Labour Administration. All Governments and officials make mistakes from time to time. There was a loophole there which was not foreseen. This exemption will undoubtedly be helpful to those who work in the industry.
  I have gone carefully into this matter in the last few days and I am of the opinion that the scheme is a very good and worth while one for the industry. Although it can be said that we always want something better, I think that by and large what has been done is appreciated.
  One of the most important points made by the hon. Gentleman is related to the difficulty over the appeals procedure. Let me try to set the scene. My right hon. Friend's power under Section 16 of the Redundancy Payments Act to prescribe employments by order from the statutory scheme is a general power. Section 16 does not lay down any conditions on which he may exercise it, except the approval of the exclusion order

  1939
  by both Houses of Parliament. It is not necessary that there should be a voluntary scheme or that, if there is a scheme, it should include any particular provisions.
  The requirement mentioned by the hon. Gentleman as to rights of appeal applies to schemes exempted under Section 11 of the Act. There is nothing in Section 16 to prevent exclusion on account of a voluntary scheme agreed by an industry and suited to its needs, as in the case of the merchant seamen. The scheme agreed by the industry provides for appeal to a sub-committee of the National Maritime Board in cases of dispute about entitlement to redundancy payments under that scheme. If the subcommittee is not able to reach agreement, the services of the industrial tribunals are available by agreement with the National Maritime Board to assist in a non-statutory capacity. It is true that if the sub-committee reaches agreement, the seamen at present have no automatic right of appeal to an independent tribunal or arbitrator outside the industry. I understand that the National Maritime Board is considering how this right might be given. My Department will be pleased to advise the National Maritime Board on this if it so wishes, and to discuss the various points raised by the hon. Gentleman on appeals procedure. I give an undertaking that I shall follow this up to see that this is done. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the point is well taken.
  The hon. Gentleman's second point, on which he placed a great deal of emphasis, related to employment with different non-affiliated employers. We are not attempting in the order, which is fairly restricted, to deal with all the problems that arise from conditions of employment in the merchant shipping industry. There are many problems and the hon. Gentleman has spotlighted some of them. The aim of the order is to remedy an anomaly which was not seen before when the 1968 exclusion order was made as between existing statutory and voluntary redundancy payments schemes. There are no powers in the Act by which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can on his own initiative treat employment with separate employers as aggregated for the purpose of redundancy payments. On this point merchant
  1940
  seamen are only in the same position as workers in any employment ashore.
  I accept that there is a tendency in merchant shipping for people to have a shorter-term engagement compared with work on shore. Employment with separate employers can be aggregated only if a scheme of redundancy payments is agreed in an industry and provides for aggregation, as does the National Maritime Board's scheme. The employment covered by the scheme can then be excluded from the statutory scheme under Section 16 of the Act or exempted under Section 11. We shall always be pleased to consider any proposals that may be made for schemes in the different sections of the industry that are outside the scope of the National Maritime Board's scheme. We shall treat with the utmost seriousness any proposals that may be made to us about it.
  That leads me to the important point on unfair dismissal. The hon. Gentleman invested me with powers rather above myself by saying that I drafted most of the Industrial Relations Act. I began to understand some parts of it during our discussions on the Bill, but I am not a lawyer. Although it is an admirable Act, I believe that certainly piloting it through the House did require a great deal of legal knowledge. I do not intend to get controversial, because the debate has been on a reasonably high level so far.
  I think the House will agree that one of the big successes of the Industrial Relations Act was the part dealing with unfair dismissal. It is true that where the articles of contract last less than two years there is no entitlement to appeal against unfair dismissal. But the Government—this is nothing new; I have mentioned it in speeches—are open to suggestions for amending the Act, and they have specifically under review the two-year period of qualification for appeal to an industrial tribunal against unfair dismissal.
  The hon. Gentleman probably knows, as he was an active participant in our debates, that one of the main reasons for this two-year qualification was a feeling that there might be a sudden rush of cases. The two-year period was to allow those responsible time to get properly

  1941
  assembled and to deal with those cases. Therefore, it was felt that there should be some time inhibition to begin with. Again, that can be looked at, and I am sure that it will be considered.
  The Government are aware of the feelings, which are not confined purely to this industry, about reduction of the qualifying period. I cannot anticipate events, but I should think that it is a likely bet that in due course this period will be reduced.
  I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any exact figures about the numbers of merchant seamen who are covered or not covered by the order. However, I will check on this matter and get in touch with him if I can obtain the information. I understand that the National Maritime Board has no figures for the numbers of vessels outside the scope of the industry's scheme. However, we can look into this matter further. I will also look into the possibility of publishing the figures.
  The hon. Gentleman chided the Government about being more vigilant in their approach to representations and blandishments from the industry and not merely accepting what is given. I think that we are pretty testy sometimes. We like to examine these matters fairly closely. We are not easily misled. The hon. Gentleman may feel that we sometimes accept these matters too easily when they come from his industry. He has now put us on our guard and we shall pay more heed, if we do not already, to the representations that we sometimes get from sections of the industry.
  I listened with interest to the speech by the hon. Memeber for Kingston upon Hull, North, who always speaks with great knowledge of the fishing industry. Although fishermen are outside the scope of the order, as he knows, it was perfectly fair for him to raise the matter that he did because it is a concomitant problem. However, in this instance we are specifically dealing with merchant seamen and no other particular body. I have taken note of what the hon. Gentleman has said. Share fishermen are exempt from the Redundancy Payments Act. This is a big and important industry, as we know only too well from recent events that have been taking place particularly from the hon. Gentleman's home port. There are
  1942
  difficulties in delineation in the fishing industry, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State said in that fairly long letter that he sent to the hon. Gentleman earlier this year. Difficulties are made to be overcome, and I agree that there may be anomalies which should be looked at with care. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I cannot give a commitment on this, but I undertake to look closely at it and perhaps I can write to the hon. Gentleman or have a further word with him about it in due course.
  Dame Irene Ward: Reference has been made to the fishermen of Hull, but this is important to the fishermen on the Tyne, so I, too, should like a letter.
  Mr. Smith: I am always glad to oblige my hon. Friend. No one is more assiduous than she is in looking after the interests of those who work off and on the coast. Although I was addressing my remarks to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North I was including all fishermen because this is a large and important industry.
  This is a small but somewhat technical order. It may present problems for those who have not studied the matter, but it points in the right direction. I appreciate the approach that the Opposition have adopted. The order has already passed through another place, and there is no further inhibition upon it. In those circumstances, I hope that it will help those who work in this industry.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Redundancy Payments (Merchant Seamen Exclusion) Order 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 11th June, be approved.

  BANGLADESH BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.
  Schedule

    MODIFICATIONS OF ENACTMENTS
    11.21 p.m.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Anthony Boyle): I beg to move

    1943
    Amendment No. 1, in page 4, line 10, leave out from 'before' to 'it' in line 11 and insert '1st September 1974'.
    Under the provisions of the Companies Acts mentioned in paragraph 10(1) of the schedule certain British companies may keep in another Commonwealth country a register of shareholders resident in that country. The sub-paragraph as it now stands provides that, during a period ending six months after the Bill is passed, a register kept in Bangladesh shall not be treated as improperly kept by reason only that it includes shareholders resident in Pakistan.
    The Pakistan Bill as introduced in the House contained a corresponding provision giving a period of grace regarding the inclusion on a register kept in Pakistan of shareholders resident in Bangladesh, and the period would likewise have ended six months after the passing of the Pakistan Bill. But, as the House knows, the Government gave further consideration to that provision in the light of representations made when the Bill was before the Standing Committee and an amendment was put down which the House accepted on Report last night. The result of that amendment is that the period of grace under the corresponding provision of the Pakistan Bill ends on 1st September 1974.
    The simple purpose of the amendment now put forward is to increase similarly the period of grace allowed by this provision of the Bangladesh Bill by providing that it will end on the same date, namely, 1st September 1974. I accordingly ask the House to approve this small amendment.
    With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House I should like to say a few words before the Bangladesh Bill leaves this House. Last night the House dealt with what was basically a sad occasion, the Third Reading of the Pakistan Bill, made necessary by Pakistan's decision to leave the Commonwealth. Our task tonight is a happier one: to send on its way a Bill which takes account of Bangladesh having joined the Commonwealth as an independent sovereign State.
    Bangladesh was born in blood and fire. The events of 1971 brought tragedy to the sub-continent and deep distress to the many people in this country who
    1944
    take an interest in the area and wish to see it prosper. But this is all in the past; nothing can be more sterile than recrimination and the attempt to apportion blame. I am sure the whole House will wish to join me in expressing the hope that a peaceful settlement may soon be achieved in the sub-continent and that all the three countries there, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, may be able to live together in peace, friendship and harmony. We for our part wish to have friendly relations with all three countries.
    But this Bill deals not only with Britain's relations with Bangladesh but also with the status of Bangladesh citizens in this country. Over the years a large number of people from Bangladesh have come to live in this country and have made a valuable contribution to our economic and cultural life. Hitherto they have enjoyed Commonwealth citizenship in this country only by virtue of the fact that they have remained citizens of Pakistan. With the passage of this Bill they will acquire the status of Commonwealth citizenship on the basis of their citizenship of Bangladesh.
    I should, therefore, like to conclude by expressing to the State of Bangladesh, and to the citizens of Bangladesh in this country, our very best wishes for a peaceful and prosperous future.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

    ADJOURNMENT
    Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Murton.]

    MR. STANLEY LYNCH
    11.25 p.m.
    Mr. Alan Haselhurst: During my three years as a Member of this House no case has caused me more impatience and anger than that of Mr. Stanley Lynch of Middleton. All hon. Members feel a concern for maintaining the employment of all citizens but a special concern to ensure that

    1945
    people who are in some way disabled should not face extra penalties in obtaining employment.
    Mr. Lynch is aged 46 and lives with his wife and five children in a Manchester Corporation-owned house on the Langley overspill estate at Middleton. He is a registered disabled person who suffers from agoraphobia, and cannot, therefore, work away from home. The evidence for this comes, first, from a social worker, who said in a recent report:
    "Mr. Lynch suffers from a chronic agoraphobic state, which prevents him going out. He is able to walk in the vicinity of his home only when accompanied and has on several occasions ' collapsed ' in the street."
    His general practitioner, Dr. Claiman, has issued a certificate. The most recent that I have is dated 6th July 1973. It states:
    "This is to certify that Mr. S. Lynch of … Middleton is suffering from chronic phobia of being transported by mechanical means. He is therefore obliged to seek such employment which he can carry out at home, thus obviating the need to travel."
    So there is no doubt that Mr. Lynch is a genuinely disabled person and is registered as such.
    Mr. Lynch was formerly a landscape gardener until, when the time came that his disability was finally confirmed, he had to find an alternative job. He took a postal draughtsman's course and exhausted his capital on his studies and the equipment necessary to pursue his occupation. So far as I know, he is a competent draughtsman. Certainly, three years ago, a firm in Middleton was prepared to give him work that he could do at home and he was kept quite busy.
    He carried on in this way for two years. Then, in conversation with the disablement resettlement officer—this is where the Department of Employment became involved in Mr. Lynch's story—the full facts of his employment came to light. The officer suggested that, to put matters on a correct footing, Mr. Lynch should apply to Manchester Corporation housing department for permission to continue his work at home. He applied, and permission was refused. He then had to cease work and has since had to rely on social security benefits.
    In order to understand why I am making this appeal to the Department, we
    1946
    must first consider the full nature of Mr. Lynch's problem. We should first consider the attitude of Manchester Corporation, since I believe that it is at the heart of the problem. The corporation stubbornly refused to allow Mr. Lynch to work at home. It has maintained this refusal over about two years. Nor will it sanction a building in his garden in which he could keep and use his drawing equipment.
    Again, had the corporation allowed him in 1971 to proceed with the purchase of his house there would today be no problem. Unfortunately, with the change of political control in Manchester Corporation, Mr. Lynch's hopes of being able to purchase his home were dashed.
    To add refinement to Manchester Corporation's insensitive treatment of my constituent, the corporation suggested at one time last year a transfer to a larger house so that he would have improved conditions for his work. Mr. Lynch did not wish to move because he quite liked his present house, adjacent to Middeton Corporation allotments on which he was able to potter around.
    When I pressed Manchester Corporation about whether it would give official permission to Mr. Lynch to work if he acceded to the suggestion that he should remove to another house, the corporation said it would not give permission anyway. I am forced to the conclusion that there is total insensitivity on Manchester Corporation's part. Moreover I have a rather nasty feeling that it would understand the disablement of a man with no legs but suspect whether agoraphobia was a true disablement. I suggest that it should be a matter of real concern for the Department of Employment that such ignorance and callousness towards a disabled person should exist in a public authority.
    Manchester Corporation says that it is reviewing the whole question of businesesses being conducted from council houses and it implies that there are complications arising out of the Housing Finance Act 1972. This is running away from what is really at issue. Here is a man who wants to work, who is capable of doing a particular type of work, and who is prevented from doing so by some bureaucratic ruling. Mr. Lynch does not want to advertise; nor is he in search of business profits. He wants to be able

    1947
    to earn a living wage which will lessen if not remove his dependence on social security benefits.
    I must say that I fail to see how Manchester Corporation reconciles its decision in Mr. Lynch's case when so many other tenants on the same estate are running businesses which include advertising and their being called upon by people. The business people include driving instructors, plumbers, industrial machinists and window cleaners, all of whom keep their tools of their trades at home but cause no difficulty or inconvenience, as there would be no difficulty or inconvenience in Mr. Lynch's case were he allowed to work at home.
    By constrast with the attitude of Manchester Corporation, Middleton Corporation has been very much more reasonable. Mr. Lynch, when he was working at home for two years before the disablement resettlement officer talked to him, had a shed in the garden. Middleton Corporation, as planning authority, had to condemn this as a fire risk but was prepared to give planning permission for an extension to be made so that Mr. Lynch could have somewhere to work. It is interesting to note the language in which this permission was given:
    "The proposed development would be unacceptable in a residential area. However, the applicant, due to personal circumstances, is unable to undertake any form of employment other than from home and this application is permitted for this reason."
    That sort of flexibility should characterise the approach of any responsible authority in dealing with a case like that of Mr. Lynch. The local social services department has been endeavouring to help Mr. Lynch and is, indeed, sympathetic to him.
    There are two other disadvantages suffered by Mr. Lynch. I am concerned about his pension entitlement. He has already claimed unsuccessfully for certain credits to be made on his contribution record and has been unsuccessful according to the rules which apply. I should like to know from my hon. Friend the Minister whether he can say whether Mr. Lynch's ultimate pension has already been put at a disadvantage by what has happened and whether it can be worsened still further if Mr. Lynch is not permitted to work in the near future.
    The second problem for Mr. Lynch is what the neighbours may say of him. There is liable to be gossip in certain
    1948
    quarters—for example, "Mr. Lynch seems to be an able-bodied person. Therefore, he cannot really be unable to work." Since attention was drawn in the Press to the fact that this debate was to take place this evening, I have received an anonymous letter, from which I should like to quote. It states:
    "Off Mr. Stanley Lynch I wish you had your facts right, because I the writer of this letter happens to know what I am saying this man is a con man he can tell a good story he has never worked in his life he doesn't know what work is …
    Dr. Claiman may be can put you in the picture, he knows his type. He been getting away without paying stamp or tax for years. It is about time somebody caught up with him"
    If this sort of filth is peddled totally in contravention of the known facts and the statement of Mr. Lynch's general practitioner, one can understand the hurt and the discomfort that can can come to Mr. Lynch and his family by his inability to be able to do what he wishes to do
    All I have said adds up in my view to an absolutely intolerable state of affairs, and I seek the help of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary in trying to bring it to an end. This must surely be a matter of concern to him. There must be an obligation on his Department to assist Mr. Lynch, a registered disabled person, so that he may maintain his independence and provide for his family to the best of his ability.
    I ask my hon. Friend whether his Department can initiate discussions at the highest level with all interested bodies to help to resolve this personal problem. It is a monstrous situation which cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely. Humanity demands that Mr. Lynch be given back his dignity.
    11.37 p.m.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith): My hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Mr. Haselhurst) has been most diligent in his endeavours on behalf of his constituent in the best possible traditions of this House, and he has spoken of the case tonight with understanding and compassion and a good deal of vigour.
    I fully sympathise with the dilemma in which Mr. Lynch finds himself. I knew this case before in a slight way. As a result of my hon. Friend's notification

    1949
    that he was applying for this Adjournment debate I have inquired fully into it, and I shall address myself to some of its details. I shall put forward some proposals which, I hope, will help my hon. Friend.
    In dealing, however, with our efforts on behalf of my hon. Friend's constituent, I have to touch on matters which are not directly the concern of my Department, such as questions of planning policy and, more especially, policies in connection with the use of private houses for business purposes, to which my hon. Friend referred. The debate has hinged round these issues, which of course are primarily for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
    It may be helpful if I begin by reviewing briefly my Department's involvement and concern in this matter. Our local officers have been in touch over a number of years with Mr. Lynch, but some two years ago we were asked to assist him in setting up business on his own account. This entailed drawing office work at home. As is known, the nature of his disability makes it unlikely that he would be able to work away from home at any time, and clearly it was a case where we needed to examine my Department's scheme for helping the severely disabled to take up business on their own account.
    A visit by one of our officers showed that there were safety hazards in the building which must be used by Mr. Lynch. At the same time we advised him that if he was going to work from home, he ought to be satisfied that his landlord—in this case, as my hon. Friend said, the Manchester Corporation—would permit him to do so from what is, of course, rented council property. I submit that this was hardly negative advice, although I know that the gentleman is inclined to blame us for it and I thought that I detected a note of criticism from my hon. Friend. I may add that our officers were totally sympathetic. Indeed, they were impressed by the quality of Mr. Lynch's work and undertook to try to find additional work for him so that he could carry it on at home.
    We were not in a position to go ahead with helping him to set up business on
    1950
    his own account while there were doubts about whether it could be carried on in the premises in question and whether subsequently adaptations could be sanctioned for the property.
    I understand that Mr. Lynch was unwilling to apply for a larger council house, which I gather was on offer and which might have given him extra room. At a later stage he decided that a building on his allotment would meet his purposes and insisted that it was the duty of our officers to approach the allotment owners—in this case Middleton Corporation—and obtain the necessary planning permission for him. Our officers made the corporation aware of these proposals, but understandably the corporation asked for a personal approach from Mr. Lynch.
    I move on to March last year, at which point my hon. Friend wrote to us, making it clear that he had had correspondence with the Manchester Corporation and asking for my Department's help. We decided, therefore, that what was needed was for someone from the Middleton Corporation to visit Mr. Lynch at home with one of our officers to advise what action he should take over his proposal for providing a workshop at his home. Our officers thought that it was possible that a personal approach might move the situation forward, and indeed took with them planning application forms to his home.
    The application for a building on the allotment for business premises was not granted on the grounds, I understand, that the land was to be used only for horticultural purposes.
    This brings me to the central point—the use of rented houses for business purposes. My hon. Friend has pointed out that the Manchester Corporation, in its capacity as landlord, is unwilling to permit council property to be used as business premises. My understanding is that this is not because it is unsympathetic in this case—far from it, for it recognises that a severely disabled man is involved. But there is a question of policy which the corporation has to resolve. My information is that Mr. Lynch is now well aware of the dilemma of the corporation.
    Let me emphasise that these are not questions for my Department. They fall

    1951
    more to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment—although on matters of housing management and control he has no direct powers to intervene. On the question of the use of council property for business purposes he has published no advice, but I understand that if any local authority were to consult my right hon. Friend, his Department would be ready to pass on what it knows of practice throughout the country on this question.
    I therefore turn to the functions of the Department of Employment, which derive from the Disablement Employment Acts of 1944 and 1958. Our rôle is to resettle disabled people by helping them to find suitable employment in open industry or in sheltered employment. In appropriate cases our function is to advise the severely disabled about facilities for setting up business on their own account. As my hon. Friend knows, these are the particular functions of our disablement resettlement officers, who play an important part not only in placing disabled people in employment but also in giving them general advice.
    In this case the only possible resettlement which our officers could envisage was through our scheme for helping people to set up business on their own account. We have the power under the 1944 Act to provide some financial assistance to severely disabled people to set up business on their own account, where this represents the only prospect of satisfactory and lasting resettlement. But we could not help Mr. Lynch in this way until the matters which were appropriate to the local authorities in this case were resolved. I am sure that my hon. Friend will accept that it was the duty of our disablement resettlement officers to advise Mr. Lynch about this.
    My hon. Friend also makes the point that no Department, or, for that matter, the corporation, seems able or willing to bring his constituent's case to a conclusion. My inquiries show that over a long period our officers had many contacts with Mr. Lynch and made a number of approaches to officers of local authorities on his behalf.
    Since I wrote to my hon. Friend in May last year we have had no direct contact with Mr. Lynch, nor has my hon. Friend raised the matter since he wrote
    1952
    to our local office last December. I acknowledge that he has been pursuing his constituent's case with other Departments.
    My hon. Friend specifically asked me about the question of credits of national insurance contributions. I shall ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services to look into this matter. However, I understand that my right hon. Friend's Department gave a ruling to Mr. Lynch in June of last year to the effect that he was not entitled to contribution credits. He was told that he had the right of appeal to the Secretary of State for the question to be determined judicially. My information is that this was not taken up by my hon. Friend's constituent.
    I wish to be as helpful as I can. I appreciate that this is a very human case and it is one which obviously causes us concern. Now that my hon. Friend has raised the case in this way, I have immediately instituted further inquiries. I intend personally to make strong representations to Manchester Corporation, because I know that the corporation has yet to come to a final conclusion about its policy as it affects the use of council property for business purposes. My hon. Friend says that the corporation has taken a long time about it. I hope that the corporation will come to a decision quickly so that cases like that of Mr. Lynch will not recur.
    Mr. Haselhurst: Does not my hon. Friend agree that, apart from the general question of policy, one should particularise in the case of such a definable category of persons as the registered disabled?
    Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend appreciates that we do not make the rules about housing and its use. As I said, I intend to make strong representations to Manchester Corporation. We are not able to decree to local authorities what they should or should not do. If the corporation wishes to contact my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment for advice, he is willing to give it. Perhaps my hon. Friend can engineer that.
    I have also given instructions for our local officers to take up once more the

    1953
    case which has been so vigorously put forward tonight. But I must emphasise that they have no jurisdiction in planning and housing management matters. If our local officers can bring about some kind of round table conference with the good will of people on all sides, I am sure that some progress can be made.
    I sincerely hope that the local authorities involved will take a sympathetic view of the very difficult circumstances in which this unfortunate man and his family find themselves. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is sheer ignorance for people to make allegations to the effect that agoraphobia is not a disease and that people must be without arms or legs before they are regarded as disabled. My Department comes into contact constantly with many manifestations of disablement. I am sure, with the diagnosis that there has been, that this is a perfectly genuine case.
    1954
    We shall still then have the opportunity to see how far we can help Mr. Lynch set up in his business by himself and to aid him in the courageous attitude he is adopting in trying to earn his living. I hope that this will reassure my hon. Friend that I have taken his point about the need for further initiatives.
    I understand my hon. Friend's frustration that, with several different agencies involved, it does not seem to have been possible to get functioning exactly on the same wavelength, but I imagine that as a result of the debate a number of people on the ground in the locality will begin to look serious at what has transpired. They will read what my hon. Friend and I have said. Anything we can do further to bring this matter to a successful conclusion we will do.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes to Twelve o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT
  Acquitted Persons' Costs
  Acquitted Persons' Costs
  Murder and Manslaughter
  Murder and Manslaughter
  Illegal Immigrants
  Illegal Immigrants
  Flammable Liquids (Road Transit)
  Flammable Liquids (Road Transit)
  Immigrants (Computer Training Courses)
  Immigrants (Computer Training Courses)
  Mounted Police (Women)
  Mounted Police (Women)
  Released Murderers
  Released Murderers
  Domestic Violence
  Domestic Violence
  Firearms Control
  Firearms Control
  Police (Firearms)
  Police (Firearms)
  Plastic Foam (Fire Risk)
  Plastic Foam (Fire Risk)
  Manchester
  Manchester
  Traffic Wardens (Driving Licences)
  Traffic Wardens (Driving Licences)
  Police Investigations
  Police Investigations
  Mr. Jeremy Cartland
  Mr. Jeremy Cartland
  Mr. Howard Hughes
  Mr. Howard Hughes
  Metropolitan Police (Recruitment Incentives)
  Metropolitan Police (Recruitment Incentives)
  Discrimination
  Discrimination
  Personal Information (Departmental Exchange)
  Personal Information (Departmental Exchange)
  Risley Remand Centre
  Risley Remand Centre
  Seal Culling
  Seal Culling
  Police Records (Inspection)
  Police Records (Inspection)
  Bristol Constabulary
  Bristol Constabulary
  Metropolitan Police (MPs' Letters)
  Metropolitan Police (MPs' Letters)
  Kray Twins
  Kray Twins
  Firearms (Crime)
  Firearms (Crime)
  Mr. Herbert Chitepo
  Mr. Herbert Chitepo
  London Borough Elections
  London Borough Elections
  Spring Public Holiday
  Spring Public Holiday
  Police (Recruitment and Wastage)
  Police (Recruitment and Wastage)
  Metropolitan Police (Hours of Duty)
  Metropolitan Police (Hours of Duty)
  Voluntary Civil Aid Service
  Voluntary Civil Aid Service
  Film "England whose England"
  Film "England whose England"
  Probationers (Offences)
  Probationers (Offences)
  Member's Correspondence
  Member's Correspondence
AGRICULTURE FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Land (Institutional Buying)
  Land (Institutional Buying)
  Prices
  Prices
  Rabbits
  Rabbits
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Common Agricultural Policy
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Balance of Payments
  Balance of Payments
  Counter-Inflation Legislation
  Counter-Inflation Legislation
  EEC Financial Regulations
  EEC Financial Regulations
  Tax Credit Scheme
  Tax Credit Scheme
  EEC Sterling Account
  EEC Sterling Account
  Mortgages (Interest Rate)
  Mortgages (Interest Rate)
  Invisible Earnings
  Invisible Earnings
  Personal Incomes
  Personal Incomes
  Gold Reserves
  Gold Reserves
  EEC Countries (Investment)
  EEC Countries (Investment)
ENVIRONMENT
  Crash Helmets (Sikhs)
  Crash Helmets (Sikhs)
  Local Government Reorganisation
  Local Government Reorganisation
  Footpaths (Bedfordshire)
  Footpaths (Bedfordshire)
  Railways (Electrification)
  Railways (Electrification)
  Invalid Vehicles
  Invalid Vehicles
  Nature Reserves (Yorkshire)
  Nature Reserves (Yorkshire)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Government Policies and the EEC
  Government Policies and the EEC
  French Nuclear Tests
  French Nuclear Tests
  European Communities
  European Communities
EX-DETECTIVE INSPECTOR LARBY
  EX-DETECTIVE INSPECTOR LARBY
  EX-DETECTIVE INSPECTOR LARBY
DIVORCE (RECONCILIATION PROCEDURES)
  DIVORCE (RECONCILIATION PROCEDURES)
  DIVORCE (RECONCILIATION PROCEDURES)
SOCIAL POLICIES (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  SOCIAL POLICIES (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  SOCIAL POLICIES (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)
NUCLEAR TESTS
  NUCLEAR TESTS
  NUCLEAR TESTS
MANCHESTER
  MANCHESTER
  MANCHESTER
DEPARTMENTAL CO-ORDINATION
  DEPARTMENTAL CO-ORDINATION
  DEPARTMENTAL CO-ORDINATION
GLENROTHES NEW TOWN
  GLENROTHES NEW TOWN
  GLENROTHES NEW TOWN
PRESIDENT AMIN
  PRESIDENT AMIN
  PRESIDENT AMIN
COUNTER-INFLATION POLICY
  COUNTER-INFLATION POLICY
  COUNTER-INFLATION POLICY
ANTI-COMMON MARKET SLOGANS
  ANTI-COMMON MARKET SLOGANS
  ANTI-COMMON MARKET SLOGANS
MINISTERIAL DUTIES
  MINISTERIAL DUTIES
  MINISTERIAL DUTIES
DEFENCE
  Wrecked Warships (Surveys)
  Wrecked Warships (Surveys)
  Courts Martial
  Courts Martial
  Army Catering
  Army Catering
  Widows' Pensions
  Widows' Pensions
  Invalidity Pensions
  Invalidity Pensions
  TAVR Officers
  TAVR Officers
  Land (Bedfordshire)
  Land (Bedfordshire)
  Obsolete Naval Ships (Civil Use)
  Obsolete Naval Ships (Civil Use)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Gisburne Reception Centre, Watford
  Gisburne Reception Centre, Watford
  Adult Education (Cost)
  Adult Education (Cost)
  School Leavers (Age)
  School Leavers (Age)
  Secondary Reorganisation (Notification)
  Secondary Reorganisation (Notification)
EMPLOYMENT
  Northumberland
  Northumberland
  Vacancies (Cheadle)
  Vacancies (Cheadle)
  American Roulette and Blackjack
  American Roulette and Blackjack
  Government Training Centres
  Government Training Centres
  Wages (Regional Averages)
  Wages (Regional Averages)
  Scotland
  Scotland
POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
  Television Reception (Jersey)
  Television Reception (Jersey)
SCOTLAND
  Government Offices (Dispersal)
  Government Offices (Dispersal)
  Unemployed School Leavers
  Unemployed School Leavers
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Hospital Patients (Data Analysis)
  Hospital Patients (Data Analysis)
  Means-Tested Benefits
  Means-Tested Benefits
  Family Planning Prescriptions
  Family Planning Prescriptions
  Mentally Handicapped Persons
  Mentally Handicapped Persons
  Industrial Lump-sum Gratuities
  Industrial Lump-sum Gratuities
  Industrial Sickness and Disability
  Industrial Sickness and Disability
  Sickness and Disability (Earnings-related Benefit)
  Sickness and Disability (Earnings-related Benefit)
  Butter Subsidy
  Butter Subsidy
  Children's Nightwear (Flammability)
  Children's Nightwear (Flammability)
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons
  Retirement Pensions
  Retirement Pensions
  Family Planning
  Family Planning
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Polyvinyl Chloride
  Polyvinyl Chloride
  Manufacturing Companies (Employment)
  Manufacturing Companies (Employment)
  European Trade Mark Office
  European Trade Mark Office
  Parallel Pricing
  Parallel Pricing
WALES
  Royal Ordnance Factory Site, Pembrey
  Royal Ordnance Factory Site, Pembrey

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Saint Edmundsbury and Ipswich.

POSTAGE STAMP ADHESIVE
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: 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 inconvenience and possible danger to health of licking stamps, they will encourage the Post Office to introduce some form of self-sticking stamps.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, this is a matter for the Post Office, but I am told that it has on several occasions sought medical opinion on this point and has consistently been advised that the practice of licking stamps entails little or no risk to health.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that there is in existence a process whereby minute globules of plastic containing sticking stuff are put on the back of stamps, and if you press it between finger and thumb it automatically sticks? Would that not be more convenient, quite apart from the health hazard? No matter what the noble Lord has been informed, may I ask him whether it is not a fact that many of the virus and bacteriological diseases can be spread in this way, particularly hepatitis A and B—B being the Australian one and therefore the most obnoxious?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, it is quite possible to use a sponge instead of licking stamps; indeed, every post office provides one for the use of its customers. With regard to the convenience of the stamps. I understand that self-adhesive ones would cause a great deal more inconvenience. They would be very much
822
more bulky to store and it would be rather more difficult to put a number of stamps on letters, because it would be necessary to peel off the adhesive backing. I understand that no major postal administration uses self-adhesive stamps. There have been such stamps issued in Tonga and Bhutan, but I understand that in both cases they were sold as philatelic curiosities rather than as a means of prepaying postage.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, is it true that these self-adhesive stamps are three times as costly to produce?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I believe that they are one and a half times as costly.
LORD BURNTWOOD: My Lords, what medical opinion has been offered to the Minister to suggest that loose stamps, which may be handled by a number of postal assistants and handed over a counter that may not be very clean, and which are then licked by the purchaser, are free from bacteria?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, of course it entirely depends upon who handles the stamps and where they have been. If you drop a stamp in the road and then pick it up and lick it, it will no doubt cause harm.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, can the Government consider reducing the potential risk to Members of this House by providing official paid envelopes for official correspondence?
LORD DENHAM: That is a wider question, my Lords.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether there is any medical evidence at all that any sickness has been caused to anybody by the licking of stamps?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, certainly not from the actual process of licking the gum. I suppose there is a possibility that if stamps are badly handled, or mishandled, germs can pass in that way.
LORD HALE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to recall that many of those who said they would not lick Lloyd George's stamps still happily survive, and are calling to collect benefit?
LORD BYERS: My Lords, will the Minister agree that he has a good story and that he ought to stick to it?
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the worst case of gingivitis that I have ever seen was in a woman who had licked all the stamps for her Christmas mail?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for that information.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Chinese people solved this problem by producing stamps which are neither self-adhesive nor equipped with gum, with the result that a person wishing to send a letter or a postcard has to provide his own gum, with the further consequence that there is a very strong probability that letters will get stuck together since the gum spreads around the edges? Would he like to recommend that to the Post Office?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I do not think any of your Lordships would be glad if I recommended that to the Post Office.

PETROL SUPPLIES
3.12 p.m.
LORD DE CLIFFORD: 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 are aware of the warning being given to small country filling stations by oil companies that due to the increasing shortage of petrol they will be unable to supply them from September, and whether this is connected with a proposed system of rationing which the national Press has stated that the Government are considering.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): No, my Lords; but I have heard that one small independent distributor is ceasing distribution because he finds it uneconomic. I believe that one major oil company is reorganising its distribution system and
824
another has advised some of its non-contractual wholesale customers that if the supply position deteriorates it may not be able to continue to supply them. However, I understand from some major suppliers that there is at present no shortage of petrol for filling stations. The Government's long-standing plans for rationing supplies in an emergency form part of our normal contingency planning.
LORD DE CLIFFORD: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask him whether he is quite certain that during the course of the next few months we shall not reach the situation which they have reached in America and, I now understand, in Italy?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, one is never quite certain in this life, but I think it is highly improbable that we shall. The situation in the United States of America is rather different, for reasons that do not affect this country. The main point is that they have a lack of refinery capacity to process enough imparts to fill the gap left by the falling off of their indigenous output of oil.
LORD HALE: My Lords, will the noble Lord bear in mind that it has been widely reported in the United States that the present shortage may be exploited by the oil companies' withholding supplies from independent vendors of petrol, with the intention of acquiring a monopoly and buying them up cheaply? Will he make sure that there is an equality and a fairness of supply if these steps have to be taken here?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord will remember that there was a Report of the Monopolies Commission in 1965, following upon which voluntary undertakings were obtained from suppliers designed to give retailers greater protection. I can also inform your Lordships that a Monopolies Commission Report on parallel pricing was due to be published at 2.30 p.m. to-day, and should be available in the House of Commons Library now.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the implication of the Question put by the noble Lord opposite is one that should make all of us, and particularly the Government, alert to the fact that now more than ever

825
research should be undertaken into alternative methods of transport, other than by means of the internal combustion engine? Are we supporting any possibilities of an advancement in the electric motor for travel at least in congested cities like London? Such a thing, if we could get it, would be a Godsend.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I should like to look into that question, but it seems to me rather a different one from that on the Order Paper.

TAX AVOIDANCE BY LUXEMBOURG-REGISTERED COMPANIES
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to prevent tax evasion by United Kingdom companies with holding companies registered in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD WINDLESHAM): My Lords, there is no evidence at present that widespread use is being made of Luxembourg holding companies to avoid United Kingdom tax. The matter will, however, be kept under very careful review. There are provisions in the taxation laws of the United Kingdom to prevent tax avoidance, and these can be applied to United Kingdom companies with holding companies registered in the Grand Duchy in just the same way as they can be applied to other companies.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am much obliged for the noble Lord's Answer. Whilst we know that there are so-called tax havens elsewhere—in Switzerland, for example—the position with the Grand Duchy is somewhat different; and as we are now talking about the free movement of capital, and indeed a common currency, within the E.E.C., is it not essential that the Grand Duchy comes into line with us so far as taxation is concerned?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, this country has a highly developed sys-
826
tem of legal restraints designed to counter tax avoidance, and the United Kingdom is quite ready to join with its E.E.C. partners in any further examination of tax havens, both within and outside the E.E.C.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, as it is now a fact that the Grand Duchy has, so far as its present legislation goes, exemption for dividends, capital gains, interest and royalties, is it not essential, as I say, that something more is done? And may I take it that Her Majesty's Government have taken the initiative in a further inquiry?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I understand that a report was published by the European Commission last month recommending joint action to be taken against tax havens. The United Kingdom is equally concerned to prevent companies from avoiding their proper tax liabilities.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I was aware of that report, which is the reason why I put the Question down. I am asking, however, whether Her Majesty's Government will take an initiative in this matter, as we have more to lose than the other countries.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, an initiative has already been taken. What is now required is follow-up action.
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord the Leader of the House could enlighten me a little. Is he aware that on June 6 a Commissioner of the Common Market explained to the European Parliament that the Commission was going to send a report to the Council of Ministers by the 1st of this month? Could he say what position Her Majesty's Government take on this report, which dealt with the special tax position of the Grand Duchy?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, speaks with great experience as a member of the European Parliament, but he is going a great deal wider than the Question on the Order Paper. If he would like to put down another Question I should be happy to answer it.

MAPLIN PROJECT: COMMUNICATION ROUTES
3.18 p.m.
LORD LEATHERLAND: 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 now publish the proposed rail and road routes from Maplin Airport, showing in detail whether any damage will be caused to established communities.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (BARONESS YOUNG): My Lords, a consultation document illustrating possible road and rail routes to Maplin will be published quite soon. The Government will not take a decision on a route for more detailed survey until they have received the views of the public and local authorities on the various possible routes.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that Answer. Is she aware that thousands of people, right across Essex, are very worried about the effect which the roads, railways and new towns may have on their homes and amenities, and does she think it is fair that they should be kept in the dark on this very important question? Secondly, is she aware of the fact that a number of leaks, official or otherwise, have appeared in certain privileged newspapers lately, and that these, giving maps purporting to indicate the routes, are only adding to the confusion? Thirdly, is she aware of the fact that one of the Ministers of the appropriate Department recently said that no bridge would be built across the River Crouch, only to contradict himself a few days later and say that a bridge would be built? Is she also aware of the fact—this is my last question—that many people who are looking twenty years ahead, and who are fundamentally in favour of the Maplin project, are likely to change their minds unless the Government indulge in more open government on this question?
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, on the first part of that supplementary question,
828
I should like to remind the noble Lord that this consultation document is an extra procedure in public consultation, and the Government will issue it as soon as they can. I will give an assurance that it is our intention that this shall be available in time for the Committee stage of the Maplin Development Bill in this House. It is for precisely the reasons outlined by the noble Lord that we wish to undertake this extra process of consultation. So far as newspaper reports are concerned, I am afraid that I cannot comment on where the newspapers got their information: I simply do not know. The observations of my honourable friend are, I think, a matter for the Record.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say what she means when she says that we shall have this consultation document before completing the Maplin Development Bill? We had the Maplin Development Bill some little time ago.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I am sorry if I did not make myself clear. I thought that I said, "before the Committee stage of the Bill".
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether, in preparing this consultation document, the possibility is being examined of more massive reclamation of Maplin Sands and an Eastern orbital highway for London, connecting Essex with Kent, Heathrow and Gatwick?
EARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I do not think my noble friend would expect me to anticipate what is in the consultation document, which will be available in the Printed Paper Office as soon as possible.
LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that some of us would like more information about Maplin, in addition to rail and road routes? Can we have information about the number of large aircraft which may be operating in the 1980s? And in view of what has been published since my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing asked about "hush-kits" the other day, could we be told—since the Americans are now doing considerable research—how many aircraft might be fitted with

829
these silencers which will have a considerable bearing on the use of the alternative airport?
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, the Question on the Order Paper referred to the consultation document on roads and rail routes. I think that the additional information for which my noble friend is asking is really another subject.

SUMMER RECESS
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, with the leave of the House my noble friend the Leader of the House will be making a Statement on the Report of the Security Commission at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m.
It may be to the convenience of the House if I inform your Lordships that, subject to the progress of business, the House will rise for the Summer Recess at the end of the week after next and will resume on Tuesday, October 16.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 38 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be suspended until the House rises for the Summer Recess for the purpose of giving Government Business, except with the consent of the Government, precedence over other Business; and that Standing Order No. 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be suspended during the same period.—(Lord Windlesham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PROTECIION OF AIRCRAFT BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments to be printed.
FINANCE BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
PAKISTAN BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

SOCIAL SECURITY BILL
3.25 p.m.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I have in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Social Security Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interest as far as they are affected by the Bill at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
Clause 49 [The basic scheme in Northern Ireland]:
LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 63, line 11, after ("8") insert ("36").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment adds Clause 36 to the list of clauses in Part I of the Bill which do not extend to Northern Ireland. Clause 36 deals with the requirement for the Secretary of State to present a report to Parliament on the needs of chronically sick and disabled persons and is a new clause moved into the Bill by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. The review referred to in Clause 36 is for the Secretary of State and must therefore relate to Great Britain, since his powers in relation to the operation of the basic scheme are except where constitutional requirements of taxation or foreign policy prevent it, confined to Great Britain and do not extend to Northern Ireland. The basic scheme in Northern Ireland is for the responsible authorities there and they make parallel

831
provisions to those in Great Britain and operate those provisions. The Northern Ireland authorities have power to match there whatever the Secretary of State decides, in the light of his review, to do for Great Britain. I beg to move.
On Question. Amendment agreed to.
LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE moved Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4:
Page 63, line 37, leave out from beginning to ("power") in line 40 and insert—
"(4) The Joint Authority constituted under section 104 of the former principal Act (arrangements with Northern Ireland for unified system), consisting of the Secretary of State and the Northern Ireland Minister, shall continue in being for the purposes also of this Part of this Act and is referred to in this Act as "the Joint Authority"; and Shedule 14 of this Act reproducing Schedule 10 to the former principal Act) shall have effect with respect to the Authority.
(4A)The responsibility of the Joint Authority shall include that of giving effect to the joint arrangements, with").
Page 64, leave out lines 3 and 4.
Clause 99, page 133, line 2, at end insert—(""the Joint Authority" means the Authority continued in being by section 49(4) of this Act").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with your permission, I should like to move Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4 together and to speak also to Amendment 12. These Amendments secure that the joint authority, which consists of the Secretary of State and the Northern Ireland Minister, continues in effect on the transition of present arrangements to the new arrangements in 1975. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 21 [Part IV of National Insurance Act 1965]:
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to move Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 together. These Amendments insert the full title of the National Insurance Act 1946, because "the Act of 1946" is not defined.
Amendments moved—
Page 194, line 42, leave out ("Act of") and insert ("National Insurance Act").
Page 199, line 38, leave out ("Act of") and insert ("National Insurance Act").—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 27 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to move Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 together. These Amendments substitute new paragraphs amending the National Assistance Act 1948 and the Children's Act 1948 because the paragraphs inserted at Report stage have been found not to permit, for purely technical reasons, the repeal of the National Insurance Act 1957, which appears in Schedule 28.
Amendments moved—
Page 249, leave out line 12 and insert ("the words from "of this section" onwards substitute "of this section, less any amount received by the authority by way of death grant in respect of that death under").
Page 250, line 2, leave out from ("for") to ("section") in line 3 and insert ("the words from" the said subsection (1)" onwards substitute "the said subsection (1), less any amount received by the authority by way of death grant in respect of that death under").(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, this Amendment substitutes a corrected reference to the Northern Ireland legislation in the House of Commons Disqualification Act. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 251, leave out lines 11 to 13 and insert ("Ireland, for the corresponding entry substitute—
"Chairman of a Local Tribunal constituted under section 76 of the National Insurance Act (Northern Ireland) 1966"").—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, Amendment No. 10 inserts additional words which are needed to remove an ambiguity. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 263, line 4, after ("pension") insert ("payable to the wife").—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, Amendment 11 also inserts additional words to correct an error. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 264, line 9, after ("wife") insert ("otherwise than").—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 12.
Amendment moved—
Page 266, leave out lines 35 to 39.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 28 [Repeals]:
LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 282. line 30, in column 3, leave out ("Section 51(2)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment omits a repeal to the Post Office Act inserted at Report stage which has been found to be unnecessary in view of the repeal of the whole of Section 51 of that Act by the National Insurance and Supplementary Benefits Bill 1973. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.30 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. May I, very briefly, express my gratitude to those Members of your Lordships' House who have taken an interest in this Bill. It is a major Bill; it recasts the whole of our pension arrangements. It is, necessarily, very technical and complicated and therefore there has been only a fairly small, but loyal, band of your Lordships who have taken an interest in it. I know that it has been an exceedingly difficult Bill to follow, and I should like to express my gratitude to them. In this House we have been especially interested in the needs of the disabled and I hope that we have gone some way to meet what has been asked of us by accepting the Amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. It was forced upon us in the first instance but the noble Baroness kindly changed the Amendment slightly, to put a time limit on the very thorough Government review of social security benefits for the disabled which we now have in hand. May I, in particular, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, and, in his absence, the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. They have been most helpful to me.
Mover, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord A herdare.)
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for his kind words and also to compliment him on his patience and the skill with which
834
he piloted this Bill through your Lordships' House. Only those who have had to suffer—if I may use that word—the piloting of a Bill of this size through the House can appreciate what is involved. As we all recognise, the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, is not only one of the most active Members of the Government Front Bench, but also one of the best attenders on the Government side. He is always present on the Front Bench, listening and watching. Certainly he has had a busy time during this Session; and I do not think that busy time is yet over as there appear to be one or two more small Bills with which he will deal.
Having said that, my Lords, I should like also to say that I cannot allow this Bill to pass without expressing my profound disappointment with it. In 1971 the Government presented the White Paper Strategy for Pensions, and in the Introduction we read these words, referring to the aims of the Government:
"…there must be time for people to consider and discuss the proposed ways of achieving them. In the months ahead the Government will welcome constructive criticism from any source and they will be consulting a wide range of organisations representing employers and employees and the occupational pensions movement on the details of the proposals."
I do not speak in any Party sense on this matter. I am the secretary of a women's organisation and we took those words literally. We arranged groups in which we discussed every section of this very complicated White Paper. We prepared papers which were submitted to the Women's National Commission, and they have been brought forward, first in the debate on the White Paper and subsequently in the debate on the Bill. So far as I can see, the Government have not accepted one recommendation or made one concession in relation to the situation of women. So now we shall have an Act which will incorporate all the old inequalities. There will still be different retirement ages for men and women. The iniquitous cohabitation rule will still be included in a widow's pension book. I have evidence to show that in one year it cost £400,000 to make investigations, so there seems to be no reason why we should still retain the old type of legislation. This Bill is for the future, but not one small point has been altered as a result of the study given to the matter by citizens.

835
We have the strange question of the tax in the State Reserve Scheme and the occupational pension scheme. We have the iniquitous earnings rule for retirement pensioners and for the disabled. I cannot do other than express my profound disappointment that the Government have not seen fit to introduce some new and exciting legislation which would take account of the future. There is no provision in this Bill for the man or woman now retired. When we see the plight of those who are working for higher wages we may ask how much further behind are retirement pensioners to fall in this terrible struggle. We have seen this Bill corrected at every stage. Even at this late stage, after a period of about nine months, it has been found that there were what were described as "errors" in the Bill. I am sorry to say this to the Minister, after having praised him personally, but I hope that perhaps in the future we shall have the opportunity to elect a Government which will introduce a much more exciting and rewarding piece of legislation.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, for the kind remarks in the first part of her speech. I know that she will not expect me to agree with anything that she said in the second part. This is a framework Bill, my Lords. It sets up the framework for new pensions in 1975. That is why the noble Baroness may say that it does not do anything for the pensioner at the present time. That will be done by the uprating Bill to which we shall come later this evening. My Lords, we believe this to be useful Bill. We have looked with sympathy on many of the Amendments which were moved, but there is the matter of finding the money. I do not know whether the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips has ever worked out the full cost of the proposals which she put before us.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, a question before he sits down? How can be reconcile what was said by my noble friend Lady Phillips, about the failure of the Government to recognise the grievances which women have put forward, with the fact that the Government
836
told us that they are going to remove the discrimination against women?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, if I may speak for a third time, I would say that we have looked with great sympathy on the position of women—
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: But that is all!
LORD ABERDARE: —and we are giving women the freedom in the future as they have at present, either to subscribe as individuals to the pension scheme or to depend on their husbands.
BARONESS SEEAR: My Lords, I agree with much of the criticism of the Bill voiced by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips. I should also like to thank the Minister for his approach to the Amendment relating to disabled persons. I look forward to a really constructive piece of legislation following the Reports next year.
On Question, Bill passed and returned to the Commons.

EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING BILL
3.37 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords. I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 1 [Establishment of Commission and Agencies]:
BARONESS SEEAR BARONESS SEEAR moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 14, leave out ("ten") and insert ("twelve").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like with this Amendment to discuss Amendment No. 3 to which it is obviously related. Your Lordships may remember that on Committee I moved a somewhat similar Amendment to this clause. It was defeated after a Division but it received a considerable amount of support from both sides of the House. I have revised the Amendment and now return to the attack. The reason for this

837
Amendment is the very great need, as I see it—and I think this view is widely supported—to ensure that on the Commission there are people who have professional experience in the training field. During the debates on the Bill a number of people have made the point that representatives nominated by the organisations listed in the Bill to serve on the Commission would not necessarily include people with detailed professional knowledge. It is vital that there should be such people on the Commission if it is to be a powerful and effective body. There is a great need to have a Commission which is well-informed and able to take a line of its own vis-à-vis the Minister, the training boards and other organisations in the country. Unless the Commission is composed of strong professional people I do not see how it will be able to do its job.
The Amendment I am now moving is part of a general criticism which is reflected in all the Amendments that I moved during the Committee stage. We believed that in the National Manpower Commission we were going to get an organisation which would have a great deal of freedom of action; which would have power and authority to get things done quickly with the minimum of red tape; which would know what it was doing and which would get on and do it. Unless the Commission has people of the calibre and with the experience that it needs, this will not happen. It seems that the Commission is not going to be of that order. We have vet to know the personnel of the Commission; we have yet to know who the chairman is going to be. It needs to be a very strong and experienced person, supported by strong colleagues, if the Commission is to be anything other than a figurehead. But if the Commission is to be merely a figurehead, then we shall have been grievously misled and we shall return to the attack.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, these Amendments go rather further than the Amendment the noble Baroness moved in Committee, for they seek to enlarge the size of the Manpower Services Committee by two, and they also require those two members to be appointed after consultation with
"organisations whose membership is directly involved in training in industry or commerce."
838
Noble Lords will have noticed that the Amendments rather destroy the symmetry of the Commission in two respects. First of all, they alter the balance between the people with trade union knowledge and people with employer knowledge. The Manpower Services Commission has been carefully designed to preserve that balance. There are, in addition, local authority representatives, and one from education.
The other point is that the balance is also altered in the respect that the pattern of consultation is different. In the one case the text says that
"The said Commission…shall consist of ten persons appointed by the Secretary of State…after consultation with such of the organisations mentioned in that paragraph as he considers appropriate…"
Then it goes on to say:

"(a) as to the three members, organisations representing employers;

(b) as to three other members, organisations representing employees ".

Here we say:
"as to two members representing organisations whose membership is directly involved in training in industry or commerce".
Noble Lords will see that this is not in the same pattern as the other two.
I cannot advise the House to accept the Amendments. In the first place, in the Government's view it is essential that if the Commission is to be effective it must be kept small. I certainly realise that the difference between 10 and 12 members is not in itself necessarily critical in that context, but the whole point is that an increase of the kind proposed is not just an increase in members; it also affects the balance of interest in the Commission—indeed, that is precisely what the noble Baroness wants—and it follows that it is very likely to lead to pressure from other interests not represented on the Commission that they should be represented. It is also almost certain to lead to pressure from those interests which are already on the Commission that their representation should be increased so that their relative position is not worsened.
The organisations which I think the noble Baroness has in mind are organisations such as the Institute of Personnel Management and the Institution of Training Officers. Membership of these organisations is drawn from the

839
management side of industry and commerce, and it is probable that giving the members of such organisations two new places on the Commission would lead to pressure for additional workers' representation, and this, in turn, to pressure from other interests and so on. Secondly, I think it is right that, while people appointed to the Commission are likely in practice to have had experience of employment and trading, as I pointed out in the Committee stage, it is not desirable in the Bill to lay down that a separate category of persons should be appointed because of their membership of particular organisations whose members are drawn from people with such experience.
The noble Baroness said in Committee —and I think she repeated it to-day—that membership of such an organisation and the ability to take a broad view (an ability which will be essential for members of the Commission) are not necessarily mutually exclusive. I entirely agree with that. But it does not follow that one should specify that people with this particular experience, and in their capacity as such, should have two places reserved for them on the Committee. In my view and in that of my right honourable friend, it is the ability to take the broad view, as the noble Baroness has said, that is the first essential: that is what we should look for first and foremost, and we ought not to restrict our field of choice by requiring the membership of a particular category of organisations as a condition of membership. No doubt it will be difficult enough to find the right people to be members, anyway. I pointed out to the noble Baroness that it was virtually certain (I think in her previous Amendment she had required rather more—three, I believe—with these special qualifications, and she now has modified that to two) that there will be people with this particular experience coming up as a result of discussions with the C.B.I. and the T.U.C.
To sum up, my Lords, I think it is undesirable, in terms of the balance of interest in the Commission and the possible effect upon its size, that two extra places should be created and specially reserved for members of organisations specified in the amendment.
840
I can only say to the noble Baroness that I believe that when we finally arrive at this difficult task of selecting the people who we think will take this broad view she will not be dissatisfied.
BARONESS SEEAR: My Lords, this is not a big issue, and I realise that it is unlikely that this point of view will be incorporated in the Bill. However, I should like to make the point that very often it is assumed that people nominated by the employers are the same as the professional managers. The professional managers have a great deal to contribute. They know how to take the broad view and they are not "tapped" to the existing machinery to the extent that they should be. However, as I say, I realise that this provision will not be incorporated at this stage, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SECURITY COMMISSION AND MINISTERS' CONDUCT
3.48 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
"I told the House on the 14th of June that the Security Commission had been invited to verify that security was not endangered as a result of the incidents referred to in my Statement on the 24th of May or by the actions of the persons involved.
"The Commission has now submitted its report to me. It is being published in full this afternoon. Copies are available in the Vote Office.
"As a result of its inquiries the Commission concludes categorically that no classified information was in fact communicated directly or indirectly to the intelligence service of any potentially hostile Power as a result of the incidents in question. It concludes that, in the case of the right honourable and noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, there was no potential danger to security that would have justified denying him further access to highly classified information, had he continued in office. In the case of the

841
former hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, the Commission would have felt compelled to recommend that he should be denied access to classified information.
"The Commission has come across no evidence worthy of credence that any Minister other than the former honourable Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed was involved with Norma Levy or other members of that ring.
"The Commission has found no related failure of security arrangements as they existed at the time in the Civil Service Department, the Ministry of Defence or elsewhere. It does, however, make a number of suggestions for ways in which the existing security procedures could be improved.
"The Commission concludes that the practical difficulties involved in trying to apply the process of positive vetting for Ministers are insuperable, but it does make the following recommendations:

(i) Any Minister appointed to a post in which he will handle more sensitive information than he has been used to handling in his previous appointments should be given a supplementary briefing by the Security Service additional to that which he receives on his first appointment.

(ii) Security containers are already provided in the homes of those Ministers who request them because they take secret documents home more than occasionally. In future security containers should be provided in the homes of all Cabinet Ministers. They should also be provided in the homes of other Ministers who handle any substantial volume of sensitive material. There should be a careful re-examination of the need for this precaution in the homes of all Ministers not in the Cabinet.

(iii) Permanent Secretaries should ensure that the attention of Ministers who do not have such containers should be drawn to any significant increase in the number of secret papers that they take home, and that all Ministers should receive all possible help in fulfilling their personal security responsibilities.

842

(iv) For Ministers in some appointments, Security Service briefing on arrangements for personal and physical security should be expanded or supplemented.

(v) Whenever a new Minister joins a Department, the Permanent Secretary should ensure that that Minister is appropriately briefed on departmental security arrangements, and is content with the adequacy of the security briefings provided.

(vi) When a Minister is first appointed he is already briefed by the Security Service on the basic threat to our security and the system of protective security, and his attention is drawn to the standing instructions on precautions against unauthorised disclosures of information. The Prime Minister should additionally issue guidance for Ministers on the potential security implications of scandalous behaviour and of other circumstances which might expose them to pressure by hostile intelligence agents; and Ministers should be required to refer to such guidance on appointment and from time to time subsequently.

"The Commission also suggests that any Prime Minister contemplating the appointment as a Minister of someone who was not until recently a member of either House, and who may not therefore be well known to him or his senior political colleagues, should bear in mind the desirability of satisfying himself that there is no character defect or other circumstance which would mean that the appointment of that person would endanger security.
"I have accepted all these recommendations and suggestions. I am also arranging for the attention of all Ministers to be recalled regularly to the standing instructions and guidance on security matters."
My Lords, that concludes the Prime Minister's Statement.
3.54 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, for having repeated this Statement, and we are also grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, and the members of the Commission. I do not think your Lordships

843
will wish to debate this matter at any great length to-day. We note that a distinction is drawn between the two individuals who were affected in regard to their liability to access to security information. I would make only one comment. Naturally, we are glad that the Prime Minister has accepted the recommendations; but I am a little surprised that it is necessary for them to be re-stated in this form. Without wishing to go into detail on the security arrangements of a previous Government, I am bound to say that a great deal of trouble was taken, even at the risk of some Ministers being slightly resistant to it. None the less it was taken, not simply by officials and Permanent Secretaries (and there is of course no discredit on Permanent Secretaries) but by a Minister specially appointed for the job; namely, my noble friend Lord Wigg.
Regarding the proposal that Ministers in some appointments should have a special Security Service briefing for personnel and physical security and that these briefings should be expanded or supplemented, I should like to suggest that perhaps the Government may wish to consider who in fact in the Government is carrying this responsibility. It is presumably the Prime Minister, but I am bound to say that throughout my tenure of a sensitive Department I was made very aware of the security aspect; and it suggests to me that there has been some falling off in this matter of security. I do not press this in order to make Party political points, but it is a matter which some people are apt on occasions to take rather more lightly than they should and therefore there is a need for a very serious degree of concentration. I do not think there is anything more I can usefully say on this matter, but no doubt when we have had a chance to study the actual Report of the Security Commission we may wish to go into it a little further.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, from these Benches we should like to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, and his Commission for the speed with which they have completed their inquiries and for the good sense in the conclusions which they have put forward. Of course, we must read the Report but, on a personal note, I would hope that this
844
Report might signal the end of a very unhappy and unfortunate episode.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I should also like to re-echo the thanks expressed by the two noble Lords to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, and his colleagues, who have carried out this work and produced the Report so quickly. I can assure the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition that there is no question whatever of the Government not giving the very highest priority to this matter. The Prime Minister, as he rightly said, has an overriding responsibility for security; but within each Department the Minister also should bear responsibility for security matters.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, I do not know whether I shall be in order if I make a short speech or whether I should put what I have to say in an interrogative form.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I think it would be more in accordance with the practice of the House if the noble Lord would be kind enough to put it in the form of a question.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, if I may intervene before my noble friend speaks, I think the latest version of the Companion referring to this matter says that there is no differentiation between Front Bench and Back Benches and that short comments rather than speeches are in order—in other words, they do not have to be wholly interrogative.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I am sure that the House is looking forward to hearing from the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, on this matter, knowing his interest, whether he puts his remarks in the form of a question or not.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, in the circumstances I must not disappoint them. The first point I should like to put to the noble Lord is that it would be wholly unfortunate if the House, or indeed the country, were to follow the absurd advice of the noble Lord the Leader of the Liberal Party and, just because he thinks it is convenient to him, sweep everything under the carpet. I am sure the House will agree that these matters are of transcendental importance.

845
The second point I should like to put is this. Would the noble Lord be kind enough to explain to the House how comes it that, while this White Paper is of such a character that repeated applications of mine for a copy are refused, there is a pretty close synopsis of the Commission's findings on the Table? That seems to be a question that requires answering. The third point—and I can hardly put it in interrogative form—is that I should like to say how pleased I am, as indeed are the other noble Lords who have spoken, that the Security Commission have reported so quickly, having in mind that in the case of the Report which appeared last weekend it took them just on a year to make the Report—so it seems that there are none so quick as those who want to be quick!;
The next point is this. It is a fact that in 1964, when the Labour Government took office, particularly in the Service Departments, they found that in two of the Services the security arrangements were, for practical purposes, nonexistent. The White Paper that was published last weekend—and I am sure the noble Lord will take this in interrogatory form—disclosed (would he not agree?) the most serious shortcomings on a fundamental point: that each Department must be responsible for its own security. The Secretary of State for Defence, or the Head of any other Department, cannot shuffle it off on to his Permanent Secretary any more than the Prime Minister can escape from his responsibility. That excellent Report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, a decade ago revealed the fact that there was a breakdown in Ministerial responsibility. While we have not had the opportunity of reading the Diplock Report in detail, would the noble Lord agree that the White Paper last week and the one to-day reveals clearly the Prime Minister was guilty, perhaps in a minor degree, of neglect of duty and the Secretary of State certainly was guilty? Would the Minister be good enough to explain how it came about that in a serious matter of this kind Lord Lambton was not seen by the Chief Whip, by the Head of his Department, but that the unpleasant task of telling him that he was under surveillance was left to the Permanent Secretary?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, as to the availability of the Report, the normal practice is that Reports are available in the Printed Paper Office when a Statement is being made. I have checked and I understand that copies are available to noble Lords. I do not think that it would be right for me to comment on any previous Reports of the Security Commission. What I am doing is to repeat a Statement made by the Prime Minister on the publication to-day of this Report. I can assure the noble Lord, whose deep interest in this matter I well appreciate and understand, that there is no question of anyone in this Government seeking to escape from his responsibility for security, from the Prime Minister down. The Prime Minister has a responsibility; the Departmental Minister has a responsibility within his own Department. We are all conscious of that, and we will try to do everything we can to live up to our responsibilities.
LORD O'NEILL OF THE MAINE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware what great pleasure his Statement 'has given to many Members of this House that the noble Lord's predecessor has been cleared? May I say, in addition, speaking entirely for myself but, I feel sure, expressing the view of many Members of this House, with what gratitude we have heard this and how we should welcome him back to our deliberations at any time he feels ready to return to this noble House.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, may I, as an ex-Service Minister, put a simple question to the Leader of the House? In view of the fact that the conclusions of the Commission were to the effect that neither of the parties mentioned recently in this affair was involved in anything associated with security, why was it necessary to appoint the Commission, and why have these recommendations been made? Is it not a fact that over a long period of years the only persons who have been involved in espionage in the United Kingdom, citizens of the United Kingdom in particular, were officials or junior servants in some of the Services, but never Ministers? Not even in the Profumo case did this happen. In those circumstances, why are there all these recommendations and a kind of suspicion generated that Ministers might be involved? Is the

847
Leader of the House aware that when I occupied the positions of Financial Secretary to the War Office, Secretary of State for War and Minister of Defence, it never occurred to me—and I was never vetted or briefed—that there was the slightest suggestion of espionage in the Department?
Is not the matter that is before the Government—and this comes in one of the conclusions a matter of misbehaviour on the part of the Ministers? It is not a matter of security at all. I never believed that either Lord Lambton or the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, were involved in security. Nor do I believe it is possible for junior Ministers to gain a great deal of information which would be of any value to a potential aggressor. Therefore it is only a question of the behaviour of Ministers, and that is a matter of considerable importance from an ordinary standpoint. But, as regards security, I do not know why these recommendations were necessary. I hope that it is clearly understood that, generally speaking, those persons who are appointed Ministers in any Government, whatever its complexion, are not persons who are likely to indulge in espionage.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the Prime Minister made his own inquiries before making his Statement in another place on May 24. He invited the Security Commission to verify that security was not endangered as a result of the incidents to which he referred. There is in this matter a public responsibility; there is a need to be vigilant all the time. If the Security Commission make recommendations, as they have done, for the tightening up of security in a number of respects which were itemised in the Statement I have just repeated, it is for the Government to accept these and see that they are fully implemented.
4.7 p.m.
Loan GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, would the noble Lord pay great attention to the point put by my noble friend earlier about the availability of this White Paper? One of the problems of discussing it now—and my noble friend Lord Shinwell will, when he has read the Report, see the point—is that those of us who saw the "ticker tape" before lunch know why the Diplock Commission drew
848
the distinction between the former Member for Berwick-on-Tweed and the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe; why they have said that they would have felt it necessary to exclude him from any access to certain information and went on to say—and this was on the tape this morning; I saw it when I came into the building—that because of the nature of the acts in which he engaged, and the people with whom he engaged in them, he had laid himself wide open to blackmail. We are discussing this matter to-day when none of us has formerly seen the Diplock Report. Yet if it was on our "ticker tape" this morning, it must have been on the tapes of every other recipient of the service. Therefore we are the only people who are discussing it blind. I hope, therefore, we shall not have any more discussion until noble friends have had a chance to read it so that we are all in possession of the full information.
With respect, the noble Lord the Leader of the House should find out how this Report came to be so widely circulated during the morning, even though it was embargoed, so it said—not for publication before 3.30 this afternoon. If the appearance of it on every "ticker tape" in the whole of London is not in effect publication, it is difficult to know what is.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the House has listened with great interest to several noble Lords who have spoken in this short discussion, especially since a number have on previous occasions held high Ministerial office—in the case of the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, with particular responsibility for security. I will certainly look into whether there was any leak. The time of publication, as I understand it, was 3.30 in both Houses in the normal way. The advice of the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, I am sure was wise: that we should now study the Report, which is available at the Printed Paper Office, and digest its implications.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I do not wish to turn this into a debate, but may I ask the noble Lord to bear two points in mind? He has now said that he will investigate this matter—though I do not suggest it should go to the Diplock Commission—as to how there has been this advance breach of information. None the less it is important and we

849
should have an answer which we do not necessarily expect him to be able to give to-day. May I ask the noble Lord also whether he would consider the point that I and my noble friend Lord Wigg made, which is an important point from a security point of view. I am not raising this in order to prolong the discussion, but it is not just enough to assume that, because Ministers vary in their relations with Permanent Secretaries, the Permanent Secretary can undertake this responsibility. The responsibility has either to be that of the Prime Minister or of a Minister, and, with all the strength at my command, as someone who has seen this operating, I urge this as a serious point. It is easy to say that Ministers are responsible, but somebody has to see that they in fact act responsibly. Perhaps the noble Lord could bear that point in mind.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, in ending this discussion I can say to the noble Lord that I will certainly make sure that all the points that have been raised will be given the fullest consideration.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, I will not tax the patience of the House for more than a second. I am loath to disagree with my noble friend Lord Shinwell publicly, although we do privately continuously. He made a point about security which touches on the point made by the noble Lord who paid his tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe. The trouble here arises from the White Paper following the conference at which Privy Counsellors laid down a standard which in fact only bordered on the line between security and personal behaviour. In my opinion, and I think it is a fact, the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, was sacrificed not in the name of security but of the earlier White Paper, and I hold strongly the view that the standard of conduct that was imposed and was accepted publicly in 1956—nearly 20 years ago—has changed, and therefore the findings of the conference of Privy Counsellors might brought up to date after further consideration by the Government, or by calling another conference of Privy Counsellors.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I should like to take that point into consideration.

EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING BILL
4.13 p.m.
Report stage resumed.
LORD JACQUES LORD JACQUES moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 4, after ("employers") insert ("in particular the Confederation of British Industries and the Retail Consortium").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I moved a similar Amendment at the Committee stage. The purpose was to get an undertaking from the Minister that the Government would consult the Retail Consortium, which represents employers and distribution, as well as the C.B.I., which represents employers in basic and manufacturing industry. I argued the case in detail and I was given an assurance, without commitment, that the case argued would be considered. The purpose of this Amendment is to get the noble Lord's reply after the consideration.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for the brevity with which he has moved his Amendment. I have done as I said I would, but I am still afraid that I cannot go any further on this occasion than I did on the last occasion. My Lords, the difficulty is that such an undertaking cannot be given—I am sure the noble Lord would agree with this—without some implication being conveyed that at least one of the employer members will be someone put forward by the consortium representing distribution. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, made the very fair point in Committee that he was seeking only an undertaking that the Retail Consortium would be consulted, and not that distribution should be specifically represented on the Commission or for that matter any other part of industry or commerce. I accept that, but I do not think it would be right for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to give an undertaking that he would consult the consortium unless it was likely, to put it at the lowest, that he would appoint at least one member in the light of that consultation. I regret that I cannot give such an assurance as I do not think it would be right for me to give such an impression.

851
I also feel that if I did give such an assurance other interests would feel that they had an equal right—possibly an even better one—to similar treatment. I also suggest to the noble Lord that it would be wrong to set about the selection of the members of the Commission in that way. We have already said to-day that we need as members people with knowledge and experience so as to survey the country's manpower needs as a whole. Obviously, it would not be, possible for every interested group to be represented, but what matters is the general calibre of members and their ability to provide effective leadership for the development of the employment and training purposes. I am not saying for one minute that the Retail Consortium could not offer anyone of the right calibre; I am only saying that for the reasons I have given it would not be right to give this assurance that the Retail Consortium will be consulted. All I can do is to repeat, which I do gladly, the assurance I gave last time, that if the consortium wish to put their views to the Secretary of State about membership of the Commission he will, of course, take the fullest account of them. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to rest on that, and that in that way he, as no doubt will many others, will be sending their views to the Secretary of State.
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [Functions of the Commission and Agencies]:
4.17 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 3, line 15, after ("persons") insert ("other than school leavers").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, may I suggest to your Lordships that it would be convenient to discuss with this Amendment Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 11. I beg to move the first of those Amendments and will, during the course of my remarks, explain why I think it would be helpful if we took these Amendments together.
My Lords, the theme of these Amendments is, in fact, the happiness and satis-
852
faction at work of the whole of the working population—no less than that. In my view, every human being can make a useful contribution to the community and one that will give her or him great satisfaction and happiness throughout the majority of their waking hours. We must remember that the greater part of most people's waking hours is spent at work. We have discussed this matter on a previous occasion, and I was most moved by what the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, had to say then, with great depth of understanding and great felicity of expression. He said,
"The really important division in life is between those whose work is part of their life and those whose work is a hostile and evil intrusion into their lives."
That is a very moving statement. It impinges precisely on these Amendments.
As to the suggested Amendment to Clause 8, I am privileged to say that I am by no means alone. What I am seeking here is to promote the best possible machinery for enabling a human being to find, through the right job, a unity between life and work. How is one to perform this enormously important and valuable task? I suggest that it can only be done by the truly sympathetic understanding and skilled advice of fully trained and experienced careers advisers of the kind that are provided by the local education authorities. It is in that way that the long-term benefit to the individual is given priority over the immediate cash gain. It is through that kind of service that the emphasis is placed on guidance rather than on immediate placement. It is the Youth Employment Service which provides the former; it is the employment services under the Manpower Commission which provides the latter.
I do not think there is any difference between the Government and those of us who would like to see the Bill amended in this way as to the kind of service that the local education authorities give through their careers officers, or the value of it. Our difference with the Government is that they believe that a choice should be given for a young person either to take the advice or consult the local education authority or to go to a job placement centre and be placed in a job which is no doubt needed. One can imagine at the moment, for example,

853
great pressure being put on an employment centre to fill vacancies in the digging of the necessary early work foundations of some building that is urgently required—it may even be required for a Government Department. One can well imagine the kind of pressure that will be put on the employment centre to find healthy young people to take their jackets off, roll up their sleeves and get on with the job, and, incidentally, earn a very substantial monetary reward immediately. One can well understand that. Whether that is in the best long-term interest of the happiness of the individual is an entirely different matter. One ought to be free of that pressure. One ought to be able to consider solely the long-term benefit and happiness of the young person concerned.
That is why I am saying in these Amendments that we ought not to have that kind of choice, an unreal choice, because one knows what kind of choice will be made; it is too easy. So I am suggesting a series of Amendments because we are now at the Report stage and I am anxious to do business with the Government; not to go on making speeches or indeed to go on winning Divisions in the Division Lobby, but to do business. We are getting very near the final stage and I want to try to find something that the Government will accept. Therefore, I thought it wise to put down alternative Amendments in ascending order of preferability, so far as I am concerned, and descending order of acceptability, I imagine, so far as the Government are concerned.
The first Amendment removes the choice by restricting the Manpower Services Commission in their work in respect of school leavers alone. Surely the Government would not want to duplicate their services so far as school leavers are concerned. They are at school; they have already no doubt been consulting careers masters, and are in the general ambience of school activities. So I repeat that there can be no administrative reason why that service should be duplicated so far as school leavers are concerned. Surely for them at least the best longterm advice is the only one that ought to be available, and not alternative short-term advice. But, if the Government would be willing to go one step further, I would prefer that we should exclude
854
from the Manpower Services Commission those persons who are looked after by the local education authorities in the Bill. In the Bill under Clause 8(1)(a) we find the services which the education authorities shall provide, and they make arrangements for persons
"who are attending, either full-time or part-time, educational institutions";
and those are the persons who therefore should be looked after by the careers services of education authorities, not duplicated by the Manpower Commission.
If, however, the Government were prepared to go one step further to the ideal solution, that would be that the choice should be withdrawn from the categories of persons whom we have just discussed, and in addition from persons under the age of 18 who have been in full-time employment for less than twelve months. The argument there is simple and straightforward: if you have recently left school or some educational institution and you have obtained a job and it has not proved satisfactory—you have been in it for three, four or five months—and you are still under 18, you cannot, by virtue of having been in employment for such a short period, be able to know enough about your own qualities, about the opportunities of the world, about the long-term benefit, to make your choice unaided. Therefore, it is sensible that those persons as well should consult the careers officers of the local education authority alone; and in that case we should need Amendment No. 11 in order to add those responsibilities to the local education authorities. That is why I have offered the Government alternative ways, I repeat, in ascending order of preferability so far as I am concerned. I very much hope that the Government will accept, if not the third, then the second, and if not the second then at least the first of these Amendments.
There is no need for me to remind your Lordships that this matter was discussed on a previous occasion and that there was an equality of votes. The Amendment was not therefore made. But to an intelligent Government, such as we have, equality of votes means that there are wide feelings of all kinds in your Lordships' House, and of course there is very strong feeling outside your Lordships'

855
House. I understand that this exclusion of choice—in other words, that the responsibility should be that of the local education authorities alone—has recently been supported again by resolutions of the local authority associations and of the Education Committees Association, and by the National Youth Employment Council. I would remind your Lordships that the Bill as at present drafted provides the sole example in all our administration of a service's being duplicated at local level and at national level—so far as I know the only one: a most curious and wasteful and extravagant duplication. So I repeat: we have been over this ground before and I do not need to delay your Lordships further. It is a most important matter. It is clearly not a Party political matter. It is a matter affecting the happiness of all young people. I hope the Government will reconsider the position, and I beg to move.
4.29 p.m.
BARONESS MASHAM OF ILTON: My Lords, I should like to support these Amendments because they assure that young people will have the very best service possible. I think that one really good youth service, which has people working for it who have a special interest and dedication for young people, is better than two services which, as I said at the Committee stage, will only confuse the less able people who will not know which to attend. Because no Hansard is available to read the answer the Government gave at the Committee stage, I now cannot recall whether they gave one to this question. I should like to ask the Minister what extra cost will be involved if careers officers are employed for both Agencies, the Manpower Commission and the Youth Employment Agency; also, what will be the extra cost of the duplication of files and information and telephone calls between the two Agencies.
In the Red Cross Society, to which I belong, we have always had difficulty in the transition of cadets to the senior members. Those branches which have good active youth officers are the most successful. I think I am right in saying that Britain is the only country in Europe which does not have national service.
856
This is a period during which young people can think what they are going to do with their lives when they return home. Also, while in most other European countries many young people stay at school longer, we seem to want to push our young people out into adult life in too great a hurry. Growing up will always be a difficult time. The Youth Employment Service is by no means their only way of obtaining jobs; they may answer advertisements and apply by private contact. Therefore I see even less cause for two Government agencies.
4.31 p.m.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, I too wish to support these Amendments, although my name is linked with Amendment No. 11. There is little that I wish to add at this stage; I spoke at length during the Committee stage, and I am sure that if Hansard had been available all noble Lords would have been convinced by the argument put up by those who supported the Amendment, just as I am afraid I was not convinced by the argument adduced by my noble friend Lord Gowrie. So far as I recollect, he never answered my point about the dual provision of resources, and I cannot for the life of me understand why the Government are so keen to spend money twice over. Goodness knows! they were in a state last week when the question of spending £3 million on free contraceptives was raised, and I imagine that the dual services will cost a little more than that.
Much argument was made, as I thought it would be, about the question of freedom of choice. My noble friend, Lord Gowrie, went on about this at length. I am afraid I cannot see why there should be this choice for a tiny minority. We are speaking only about the age group, 16 to 18. There is certainly no choice before the age of 16, because we do not say to young people, "You may go to school, or you may not go to school, as you wish." Nor do I think there is a great deal of choice later in life: they will either have to go to the Manpower Services Commission or they will not. So I cannot see why for these two years there should be so much emphasis on the costly doubling of provisions.
There is one other thing that worries me. I agree entirely with what has been

857
said by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, about the actual effect this will have on the young people, and also the effect it will have on the Youth Employment Service. I am sure it will weaken that Service, and I imagine that this may be one of the reasons for the Bill. I cannot believe that an employer will bother to go to two different agencies. If he is going to an agency I should have thought he was much more likely to go to the Manpower Services Commission than to the local authority agency. I also feel that there is bound to be a lack of feedback of information about young people who would leave the Youth Employment Service and go to the Manpower Services Commission. I do not think those records will get back to the Youth Employment Service, yet it is most important that such records are available—records of success and of failure in the placement of young people—because after all, it is only by knowing how young people get on that a better service can be provided for those who will be placed in the future. I hope the Government will give way on at least one of these Amendments, although I should like to see them give way on them all.
LORD COLERAINE: My Lords, may I first apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, for not being in my place when he moved the Amendment; I was under an irresistible physical compulsion to leave the Chamber for a few moments and during those few moments Lord Diamond rose to his feet so I missed his introductory remarks. I rather gather that he has put before the House a kind of Dutch auction, and I should like to associate myself with my noble friend Lord Swinton, who has just spoken. I very much hope that the Government can be persuaded to pay the higher price rather than the lower price and to accept the Amendment to Clause 8, rather than an earlier one. I very much hope that they will be able to meet in some measure the very cogent arguments that were put to them during the previous stage of the Bill.
It is not my intention, any more than it is of any other noble Lord or noble Baroness to repeat the arguments that were used at the Committee stage, except in this one respect. Two things seem to me to be apparent as a result of my experience as chairman of the Youth
858
Employment Council for five or six years. The first is that young people fresh from school need some help other than the help they can get from what used to be called the employment exchange. They need help from people who know their background, who know their circumstances and who know their families; and that is what the Youth Employment Service has provided until now.
The second point I wish to make is this. On the whole, the people about whom we are thinking to-day are those less well equipped to face the world. The abler children find a job and stick to it. It is the children who are less able who may encounter difficulties. They probably make a mistake in their first job: as the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, said, they go into a highly paid job, which in the long run will end only in their unhappiness. But it is these jobs which, unless special attention is given to them, can make a youngster into a sort of shuttlecock between one dead-end job and another. In such cases there is no chance for children to have socially satisfactory and happy lives, unless at this particular age they get special treatment.
The position to-day is that these boys and girls are going to a job; they lose that job, and they go for their unemployment benefit to the careers office under the local education authority. There they are dealt with by somebody they have always known from their school days. Under this proposal they will go to the employment exchange (or whatever it is now called) and get their benefit and will be sucked into the general stream of unemployment, as I am afraid in many cases it is. I think that all of us who have experience of the Youth Employment Service know what a very real job it has done. As my noble friend Lord Swinton said, the cost of maintaining it as it is to-day can be only infinitesimal, and it seems to me that to achieve a certain tidiness of bureaucracy—though in fact it is not so tidy after all—and to achieve probably a minimum of economy, we are throwing away an instrument which has in the past proved of tremendous value. If we do that, we shall be doing something that is both foolish and inhuman.
4.39 p.m.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, your Lordships have set an admirable

859
example of brevity at this Report stage and it rather embarrasses me that I am about to break this and make a speech which is a little longer than I should like. The reason for this is that obviously I failed to convince noble Lords in Committee—indeed, my noble friend Lord Swinton has mentioned this. I have gone over what I said during the Committee stage: I have tried to extend it, to make it more forcible and clearer, but I must tell noble Lords that I am convinced that these Amendments are misconceived. I believe that the Government's case in resisting them is altogether a case of merit rather than of policy commitment as such. I hope the House will bear with me if I try to justify this belief through careful argument. I just say at this preliminary stage that of course I share altogether the sentiments expresed by my noble friend Lord Coleraine in Committee and echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, this afternoon. Indeed, I expressed the same sentiments myself rather less elegantly on Second Reading.
Perhaps I may touch first of all on the fourth of this group of Amendments which gives local education authorities a specific duty to provide a career service to all those under 18 years of age who have been in full-time employment for less than 12 months. This is identical with one of the Amendments we discussed in Committee. To recall briefly what I said then—I will try not to repeat myself—the Bill already gives local education authorities the power and duty, as far as the Secretary of State directs, to provide a service to these young people. No one, I think, has suggested that local education authorities will in fact fail to provide a service to young people, and the Government have made quite clear their intention that L.E.A.s should provide this service so that in the unlikely event of any L.E.A. choosing not to provide such a service, the Secretary of State would certainly use his power of direction to require it to do so.
It follows—and I do not think any noble Lord disputed this in Committee—that the Amendment would make little or no change in the effect of the Bill as regards the scope of the local education authority service. If I may say so, I think that my noble friend Lord Coleraine
860
came perilously close to suggesting this a few moments ago. I can assure him that that is not the case.
LORD COLERAINE: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend who is always so courteous, but if I did come perilously close to that danger which he described, it is simply because I disputed in Committee, and I still dispute, the theory that school-leavers, people within this age group, have freedom of choice. If one maintains the L.E.A. service, and at the same time makes such arrangements as will ensure in my opinion that it will never be used, this is not maintaining an L.E.A. service in any real sense.
THE EARL or GOWRIE: My Lords, my noble friend will be aware, so far as this side of the House is concerned, that the Government rest a lot of their case, or a considerable part of their case, on the issue of choice; but it would be quite wrong to think that this is the only consideration that we have been bearing in mind. Perhaps as I develop my argument the other, equally important considerations will come to the fore.
We feel that these Amendments have a quite different effect. They are directed against the proposed Commission; the purpose is to prevent the Commission from providing a service to certain groups of young people. The first three of this group of Amendments each seeks to exclude a different group of young people, and I should like to say a little more in a few moments about the differences between the three, particularly the one about excluding school-leavers. On reading the Amendment I was not initially quite sure what the intention was. But I should like to comment on the general question of excluding certain groups of young people from the Commission's services, and to explain why I cannot advise your Lordships' House to accept that approach which is implicit in the Amendment.
This Bill does not in any way restrict the activities which the local education authority service carries out at present. Indeed, as I have said, it extends the scope of the service by making it mandatory on all L.E.A.s, whereas at present there are some who do not provide it, and by enabling the service to deal with young people of 18 years old or over who are in

861
further or higher education or who have entered employment, whereas these categories are excluded at present. I hope noble Lords, and my noble friend particularly, will accept that extension. I will not repeat all I said in Committee about the present situation and the way this legislation proposes to change it; but I want to emphasise once again that the Bill does not place any restriction at all on the present scope of the L.E.A. service, just in case there is any lingering misapprehension that a young person who has entered employment will be denied the opportunity of continuing to be advised by the local education authority careers officer who advised him before he left education. He will have this opportunity. Under the Bill the L.E.A. has full power to provide such a service, and if it did not do so the Secretary of State could and would direct it to do so.
LORD COLERAINE: My Lords, I apologise to my noble friend, but surely the crux of the matter is tins. He has the opportunity to avail himself of the L.E.A. service but is under no obligation to take that opportunity; but if he does not have that opportunity, surely the L.E.A. service does not exist so far as he is concerned.
TIM EARL OF COWRIE: My Lords, I cannot but agree with my noble friend; but the issue here is that he is not obliged to use the L.E.A. service in any case. Surely the issue is whether young people who have left education should have the alternative, if they do not wish to continue to use the L.E.A. service, of going into the service provided by the Commission, or whether some of these young people should be prevented from using the Commission services at all. I think that covers the objection made by the noble Lord. I know that a number of your Lordships feel strongly that young people in employment should go on using the L.E.A. careers service. They feel that the L.E.A. careers officer knows the young person, knows his educational background, perhaps even knows his family background, and all his other circumstances. They feel the careers officer can give invaluable help, particularly to the immature young person who might otherwise fail to settle in employment or drift into a dead-end job—even a dead-end job, as the noble Lord, Lord
862
Diamond, implied, that was initially temptingly lucrative.
I do not for a minute disagree with this view, and that is why it distresses me to have to argue with my noble friends on this matter. We fully recognise the very great value of the work done by the L.E.A. careers officers and the importance of their guidance to the young people who receive it, whether they are in education or in employment. That is one of the reasons why we want to extend the scope of their service in this Bill. But these Amendments do not require young people who have left education to continue to use the L.E.A. service. All they do is to prevent some of them from using the Commission service. If we stop a young person from going to the Commission, it does not by any means follow that he will go to the L.E.A. service instead.
My Lords, I do not believe that those experienced in this field, including many of your Lordships, would really deny that there are many young people, particularly in the lower groups where intelligence or application or a general level of motivation is concerned—the groups which noble Lords have mentioned with concern many times—who are not willing to use the L.E.A. service. If they are not willing to use the L.E.A. service there are plenty of other ways of getting a job; they can turn to the jobs column of the evening newspaper, they can go to a private employment agency or go after vacancies which they have heard about from a friend.
My Lords, because of the powerful, if slightly emotional, arguments we have heard to-day, I think it is fair for me to imagine the situation that would occur if, as noble Lords would like, we accepted these Amendments. What would happen, surely, is this. Those young men and women who are not willing to go back to the L.E.A. service would not get advice and guidance from any public service at all. I really do not feel that that is what noble Lords, even noble Lords who have been critical of me in this respect, would really want.
One of the reasons why young people may be suspicious of using the local education authority service is that they want to be regarded as adult, and they feel that the L.E.A. service is associated with their

863
school days, where they first encountered the service. There are probably other reasons, but I think this one plays a big part, particularly in connection with the less favourably motivated groups I mentioned earlier. I am not saying that these young people are right in such a view; I think myself that it is a great pity that such an attitude should exist. But we must deal with the facts of the situation, and the fact is that the attitude does exist and nothing we can do or try to do in this Bill will change it. Surely it cannot be in the best interests of these young people who are not willing to use the L.E.A. service to deny them the alternative of using the adult service provided by the Commission instead. Undoubtedly the result would be that they would not obtain advice or guidance on employment matters from any public service at all, and surely that is not what we want.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl, but just to get one fact right which is very material to the argument he is making, could he refresh our memories about the present position? In the present position is the school leaver able to consult either the employment exchange or the Youth Employment Service, or does he consult only the Youth Employment Service?
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, the noble Lord has often pointed out to me that he does not usually ask questions to which he does not know the answer. The present position is that we want to extend the opportunities and the choices open to young people, both under the local education authority service and under the adult service. The noble Lord has not convinced me that it would be right to preclude young people from using the greatly increased and greatly modernised new adult service which the Bill proposes and which he himself has broadly welcomed on many occasions. It has been suggested that young people, particularly the less mature whom I mentioned, will be confused by having the choice between the L.E.A. service and the Commission service, but as I have said, they have a wider range of choice than that already; the choice between the L.E.A. service and such methods of finding jobs as private employment agencies, Press advertisements, word of
864
mouth and so on. And noble Lords, so far as I know, are not anxious to limit that area of choice. The option of going to the Commission, on the other hand, will give young people in employment the chance of getting vocational advice which otherwise they might not have obtained.
It was argued in Committee and here to-day that if both the L.E.A.s and the Commission offer services to these young people this will cause wasteful duplication. The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, certainly made much of this. But we have to remember that both these employment services will exist anyway. The Employment Service Agency under the Commission will be there to provide a general employment service, and the local education authority service will be there to advise young people attending or leaving education institutions. So it is really only a question of making these facilities which will exist anyway available to young people in employment who want to use them. There will be no duplication of staffing. Each service will be staffed to meet the actual demands made on it in practice, which is, of course, the basis on which both are staffed at present.
Nor will employers have to notify their vacancies for young people to both services; there will be arrangements for the circulation of vacancies so that suitable vacancies notified to one service will be circulated to the other. It is true that the Employment Service Agency will need to train some of its staff in the special problems of young people, but of course it already has staff with ample experience in this field in areas where the Department of Employment provide the Youth Employment Service now. I would remind noble Lords that the L.E.A. service is not universally available at present. In any case, I think that the additional training which will he needed is a very small price to pay for the chance to help some young people who otherwise might not get help at all with their employment problems. I must say to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, that I think the extra cost of providing this alternative will be extremely small, if any cost at all, though I cannot in fact put a figure on it.
May I now say a few quick words about the differences between the first three of this group of Amendments. The

865
most thorough-going of the three is identical in its effect with the Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, which we discussed in Committee. It would exclude from the Commission's service, first, young people under 18 who have been in full-time employment for less than 12 months. That clearly represents a significant group of young people who have entered employment. Secondly, it also excludes, if I understand the intention correctly, all those attending educational institutions other than universities, either full time or part time. Most of these are, of course, young people attending school or institutions of further or higher education part time. Let me make it clear that the Commission will not be going into these schools or other institutions to provide a vocational guidance and employment service. That is the duty of the L.E.A.s under the Bill, and in the most unlikely event of the Commission attempting to do this the Secretary of State certainly could and would use his powers to put a stop to it.
But the Amendment would also cover a great many people attending further education institutions part time, whether in employment—for example, young people on day release—or people seeking employment and taking a part-time course in the meantime. I do not think that there is any good reason why all these (and, incidentally, by no means all of them would be young people) should be prevented from using the Commission's services. For example, a young man of 28 taking a part-time course in work studies at an institution of further education would find it very odd to be debarred statutorily from the Commission's services, and surely he would be quite right.
The second of the three Amendments seeks to exclude this same group, those attending educational institutions other than universities, full time or part time, and the same arguments apply. The first of the three Amendments simply seeks to exclude school leavers. Reading the Amendment, I was not entirely sure of the intention here, and I am still not entirely clear. As I have said, the Commission's service will not go into schools. But I am still not clear at what point the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, wishes the service to come to an end. Would it be on the last day of the last term? Surely
866
that would achieve rather little. Perhaps the intention is to exclude school leavers broadly up to the time of their first placing in employment; until then they would be the exclusive preserve of the L.E.A. service. It is very likely that that is what will happen in most cases in practice. Young people will be advised by the L.E.A. service while still in school, and on leaving school many will go into jobs which the service has helped them to find, though, of course, others will find their jobs themselves in the light of the advice which the service has given them.
In other cases, if we wrote this into the Bill I think it could prove an undesirable restriction. A young person may have to wait a long time, perhaps a month, for his first placing, particularly in an area of high unemployment. If he happens to be one of those I mentioned earlier who are not willing to go back to the L.E.A. service once they have left school, where is the point of debarring him from using the Commission's services during this period? I stress that he may not wish to use the Commission's services either, but he should not be debarred from doing so. The effect would be simply to reduce the chance of his finding satisfactory employment at all.
There is one final comment that I must make on these three Amendments. I have concentrated on their exclusion of young people from the Commission's employment services because I think that is what the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has chiefly in mind. But as these are Amendments to the Commission's main duty under Clause 2(1), the effect is that the young people concerned are excluded not only from the Commission's employment service but from all its services. For example, they would not be able to benefit from a course at an industrial rehabilitation unit, or from the limited skill courses which are provided for young people under the training opportunities scheme. I bow to the very considerable experience in this field in this House, but I have myself visited some of the new training opportunity schemes, and I assure noble Lords that they are full of young people who look very fulfilled and very well served by them.
There might also be difficulties over careers information produced by the Commission which might be useful to

867
young people concerned, including school leavers, even if it were not specifically produced with them in mind. If these young people were excluded from the Commission's duty under Clause 2(1) we might find that the Commission have no power to make such careers information available to the L.E.A. service for the use of the young people. I do not rest my case on these points because I doubt whether these effects were intended by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond. If so, it might be possible to avoid them in a revised Amendment, but I think they illustrate the difficulties which would certainly arise if we decided to limit the Commission's duty under Clause 2(1).
BARONESS SEEAR: My Lords, the noble Earl has raised an extremely important point Here perhaps I am stealing Lord Diamond's thunder. Is the noble Earl saying that if a youngster is advised by a local education authority to take a new opportunities course run by the Commission, he should not be able to do so? That is what I understood to be the implication of what the noble Earl said. If that is so, it is a most extraordinary state of affairs, because it will mean that those who have chosen to go to the L.E.A. and said that they are free to go to the L.E.A., will be debarred from using their services. That surely cannot be the noble Earl's intention, but that is what I understood him to say.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, that is not the case. The point I was trying to make is that under the Amendment it would be difficult for the young person to go direct. Of course I accept the point that it would be possible to go under the advice of the local education authority, but I do not see why a young person who for some reason or other, and probably a bad reason, did not wish to make use of the local education authority, should not at some stage of his life make use of the services we are providing and plan to provide them. That is the issue of contention between us.
I must make an end. I cannot accept the Amendments, but in not accepting them I would finally emphasise three points. First, as I have said, the Bill does not in any way restrict the presents
868
cope of the L.E.A. careers service, and we welcome and endorse the tributes paid to it. Quite the contrary; it extends the service, and it distresses me that noble Lords, and my noble friends in particular, seem unwilling to recognise this point. Secondly, if we exclude any category of young people who have left education from using the Commission's services, that does not mean that they will use the L.E.A. service instead—however much it might be in their interests to do so—and these Amendments do not serve that effect. Those who do not wish to do so will simply use other channels or drift. Finally, it is surely wrong to deny to young people who have left education, and who are not willing to use the L.E.A. service, the alternative of using the Commission's services. To do so would be to remove one chance at least for them to receive the advice and guidance in this area crucial to their future lives, which we all agree that they should have.
5.4 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, the noble Earl has certainly gone to great pains to explain the Government's point of view and to put it with courtesy and clarity. I hope that he will excuse me from going on to say that he put it with persuasion, because that is not the case. I think that the shortest way of dealing with his major points would be to go over them in the order in which he put them. First of all, he said that Amendment No. 11 added little to the Bill. That is absolutely right. The powers are there without Amendment No. 11, but it does emphasise—and that was the purpose of putting it there—that this particular responsibility will in future be a responsibility of the local education authority. But that, as the noble Earl said, is a minor point.
The essential point is whether or not young people are going to get the best possible advice. His argument about nobody being compelled to use the L.E.A. service does not persuade me in the slightest. The Bill is not about compelling individuals to seek advice in one particular area or another; it is about encouraging young people to go to the best place for the best possible advice. There can be no doubt what the view of the majority of your Lordships is about that; there can be no doubt about the

869
view of the most experienced people in this field; namely, the careers officers and the local education authorities. We all speak with one voice; we are anxious that this good service should continue. We are very fearful of what would happen if the choice were newly opened and young people without experience, without knowledge, went to what was the most immediately enticing opportunity, which is undoubtedly what would happen.
I am afraid that I must say that the argument about lack of compulsion does not affect the issue in the slightest. What we are concerned with, as the noble Earl rightly said later on, is the exclusion of the choice. I am grateful to him for what he indicated on my intervention, because, as I understand it—and I was not absolutely sure in my recollection—the present position is that there is no such choice for young people at school or in education. The Government's Bill proposes to extend that choice; that is to say, it says, "Do you want to go to somebody who will give you a good answer, the best answer, or do you want to go to somebody who will give you a much more acceptable bad answer?" I must be quite precise about it. The Manpower Commission is not trained to do this job. I will give way to the noble Lord in one moment. The Manpower Commission will be concerned with placement. The Manpower Commission will have one criterion for whether it has been successful or not, and that will be, "How many jobs have we placed at this branch". That will be the statistic that will be available to everybody; that, and that alone. Quality will not enter into the Ministry of Labour's statistics. I forget what they are called now, but they used to be called by that name. Quality will not enter into it and that is what we are concerned with. And what will be the effect on the local education authorities who are struggling in competition with the Manpower Services Commission to keep up their numbers? They will then be encouraged, as one noble Lord said, to go in for body-snatching. Of course that is what will happen. They will be encouraged to do that, and there will be competition for placing the maximum number of young persons, irrespective of where they are
870
placed. That is what the argument is about.
From the experience of the people in the field we are satisfied with the present position, under which the Government gives no choice as to whether you should go to school or not go to school, or as to whether you should get the right advice, if you are at school, as to your future career. The present system is the wise one, and that system should not be withdrawn. The noble Lord wanted to interrupt.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am not quite certain whether I should interrupt at this moment, because the noble Lord has rather gone past the point. It might be more convenient if I came in after him.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I was, as would be apparent, in full flow, and I did not want to stop at that particular moment. There is little more to be said about the points which the noble Earl put to us. I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, who raised the point which put a red neon question mark in my mind the moment the noble Earl said it. It seemed to me quite absurd that any Amendment I could be capable of drafting would produce that extraordinary result. All the noble Earl is saying—and it is a pity that he overstated the argument because that always weakens the case; one does not have to overstate an argument if one has a good case and, I might say in this case, if you have a case at all—is that there will be two doors through which one can go for top training. One door will be the local education authority, and that is no bad door. The other door will be the Manpower Services Commission. So I do not think that that is a problem. If there is a problem, it is over the drafting. Nobody claims to draft better than the Government draftsmen, and the Government have a responsibility at this stage to say, "We agree the principle and we can produce our own draft at a later stage" If they do not say that, it is because they do not agree the principle.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, with leave, I did say that.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, the noble Earl went on to say something

871
which I thought was similar to that, but he started by putting his argument about the number of defects that would arise from the drafting. That did not appeal to me, because the Government have the drafting facilities and the responsibility of governing. We think this is bad government and we have to decide now what is the wise course to take. As the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, said, I offered an alternative, because before he was able to come into the Chamber I explained—in addition to quoting with great appreciation exactly what the noble Lord said on an earlier occasion, because it seemed to me to put the matter so beautifully and in a nutshell—that at this stage we want to do business with the Government, and we want to get something which is acceptable to the Government.
I do not think that the first Amendment goes anything like far enough. On the other hand, the third Amendment involves the further Amendment, No. 11, which, as the noble Earl said, adds little to the Bill because the powers are there; the Amendment merely adds emphasis and declaration. But the second Amendment merely states that those people who are specifically described in Clause 8 shall be the sole responsibility of the local education authority, and we shall not have this duplication of services or this absurd choice between good advice and bad advice. We shall continue to concern ourselves with the happiness and satisfaction in work of young people, rather than with the immediate filling of an urgent vacancy. That is an Amendment which the Government ought to accept and I invite the House to show its feelings about it.
5.24 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, before the House makes up its mind, there are one or two points which ought to be clarified. The noble Lord spoke as if at present there were only local education authorities in this field. But he must know that at the present time, under the Employment and Training Act 1948, there is no duty on local education authorities to provide a careers service; there is simply an option to provide a service. There are some 31 education authorities in England and Wales, and a much higher proportion in Scotland,
872
which do not provide this service at the moment. So it is wrong to say that the Employment Service Agency has no experience in this field, because it has. It has experience in this field in those areas where the local education authority does not provide a service.
After this Bill becomes an Act there will be a duty on the local authorities to provide services in every area. They will be taking over the duties from the Employment Service Agency for those who are leaving school. As my noble friend said, they will have a virtual monopoly and they will be the sole people providing a careers service for youngsters leaving school, or any educational institutions other than the universities. As I said, it is now to be mandatory on the local education authorities to set up these services. Once a person has left school the Employment Service Agency will be in the field as well, and, quite rightly, the choice will then be open to the individual, with no age limit, to go to the local education authority service or to the Employment Service Agency.
Where the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, was perhaps a little unfair (I know that he does not mean to be unfair and he tries not to be) was in his bold assumption that the local education authority service is good and the Employment Agency Service is bad. That was extremely unfair. In the nature of things, the services must vary from area to area, and I have no doubt that in some places the Employment Service Agency will be excellent and the local education authority service will not be so good. But the fact is that some people in the Employment Service Agency already have experience of handling a careers service and they can be used for developing the service. The second point is that there is a transformation going on in employment services at the present time in this country. They are becoming much more human and much more oriented to giving advice, where advice is necessary, and leaving people to select their own jobs, from charts and so on, where appropriate.
So noble Lords ought not to make up their minds on the basis that local education authorities alone provide a special service. We all know that they do a splendid job, but they are not the only people who do a good job, whatever

873
may have been the case a few years ago. So far as the Employment Service Agency is concerned, it is not now the case that it is just providing statistics on the number of employed or unemployed. That is not its purpose. The Agency sets out to consider the interests of the person whom it is advising about the career which he ought to adopt. It is doing that in the interests of the person, and not just in the interests of the firm that is asking for an employee. Of course it is a question of matching the person to the job, as well as matching the job to the person; but I would ask your Lordships not to adopt the attitude on this Amendment that there is only one right course for our young people when they want to get advice and guidance about the appropriate training and so on. That is not the position now and it will not be in the future. The Employment Service Agency will be building up its services and meeting its responsibilities.
The duty is placed on the Commission under Clause 2 to enable people to select their jobs, to train for them and to find them, and this personal approach is extremely important. So I hope these two services will work in concert. There is no reason whatsoever why they should not. If a person indicates that he is looking for a particular job, his record and desires will be passed on from one Agency to another. In the same way, the notifications of jobs vacant that are given by employers will also be made
available to both the local education authority service and the Youth Employment Service in the employment agency services.
I hope, my Lords, that I have dispelled at least some of the missapprehensions that seem to be prevailing. The first was that the local education authorities are at present alone in the field so far as the young people are concerned; and the second was that there will be a sort of invasion of their present preserves by the employment agencies. I believe that the House would be very greatly underrating the capacity of the existing employment agencies if it were to write them off as inferior, and as not the sort of places to which young people should go.
LORD DIAMOND: With permission, my Lords, I would seek leave to withdraw Amendment No. 4.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 5.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 15, after ("persons") insert ("other than the persons described in section 8(1)(a)").—(Lord Diamond.)
5.21 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 58; Not-Contents, 75.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Henderson, L.

Royle, L.

Amulree, L.

Henley, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Archibald, L.

Hurcomb, L.

St. Davids, V.

Avebury, L.

Jacques, L.

St. Just, L.

Bacon, B.

Leatherland, L.

Samuel, V.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Secar, B.

Beswick, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Segal, L.

Brockway, L.

Loudoun, C.

Serota, B.

Byers, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Shackleton, L.

Champion, L.

McLeavy, L,

Shinwell, L.

Chorley, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Snow, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Southwark, Bp.

Diamond, L.

Norwich, V.

Stamp, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Ogmore, L.

Summerskill, B.

Faringdon, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Swinton. E.

Gaitskell, B.

Peddie, L.

White, B.

Gardiner, L.

Phillips, B. [Teller.]

Williamson, L.

Garnsworthy,L. [Teller.]

Plait, L.

Wise, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Hall, V.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Ferrers, E.

Northchurch, B.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Ferrier, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Allerton, L.

Fortescue, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Gage, V.

Reigate, L.

Auckland, L.

Gowrie, E.

Rochdale, V.

Balfour, E.

Grenfell, L.

Rockley, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Berkeley, B.

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

St. Helens, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Sandford, L.

Erooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Hanworth, V.

Selkirk, E.

Caccia, L.

Harris, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Carrington, L.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Sharpies, B.

Colville of Culross, V.

Howe, E.

Somers, L.

Conesford, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Strange of Knokin, B.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Ironside, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Courtown, E.

Jessel, L.

Strathspey, L.

Craigavon, V.

Kilmarnock, L.

Sudeley, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Limerick, E.

Tenby, V.

Daventry, V.

Mancroft, L.

Teviot, L.

Davidson, V.

Margadale, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Vernon, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Milverton, L.

Vivian, L.

Dulverton, L.

Monck, V.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Elles, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Windlesham, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Wynford, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Netherthorpe, L.

Young, B.

On Question Motion agreed to.

5.31 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 3, line 18, leave out from ("associates)") to end of line 20.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, and your Lordships agree, it may be convenient to discuss this Amendment and Amendment No. 13, which stands in his name, at the same time. As the Bill came to the House originally, Clause 2(1) laid a duty on the Commission to make such arrangements as it considered appropriate for the purpose of assisting persons to select, train, obtain and retain employment suitable for their ages and capacities and of assisting persons to obtain suitable employees, a term defined so as to include anyone engaged under a contract of service—for example, partners. This duty covers the responsibility for planning, developing and operating the public employment services and for promoting training for employment and running the training opportunities scheme. In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, moved a very persuasive Amendment to add to this subsection a duty to make such arrangements as the Commission considered appropriate for the purpose of securing the implementation of Sections 6 to 12 of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1954. The
876
Amendment was carried by the narrowest possible of margins. It is those words that the Amendment I am now moving seeks to remove from the Bill.
If I understood his main argument, it was that Sections 6 to 12 of the Disabled Persons Act were not being satisfactorily implemented. He felt—and I think it was a genuine feeling of compassion—that their implementation would be secured better if the responsibility laid on the Secretary of State in those sections were to be transferred and laid squarely upon a new and more expert body and that this would improve the employment prospects of disabled persons. I hope I am summarising his arguments fairly. I think I should explain the purpose of Sections 6 to 12 because at an earlier stage it was rather a mistake that their purpose was not made sufficiently clear. These are the sections that require the Minister to maintain a register of disabled people who are considered capable of employment—a register which disabled people may, if they wish, apply to be put on—and to lay on employers employing 20 people or more a duty to employ a quota of those registered disabled people. It is not an offence for an employer not to fulfil his quota. It is an offence for an employer who is below his quota to recruit someone who is not a registered disabled person without having first received a permit from the Department, which is given if there is no suitable registered dis-

877
abled person available to fill the job. It is also an offence for an employer below quota to dismiss a registered disabled person without reasonable cause. Section 12 empowers the Secretary of State to reserve classes of employment for registered disabled if available.
Section 15 of the Act provides that proceedings for an offence under the Act shall not be instituted except by the Secretary of State or with his consent, or by an officer authorised by him. I mention that because the Amendment carried in Committee would not transfer this duty of enforcement to the Commission and because there was a great deal of criticism in the debate directed towards the fact that very few prosecutions had been instituted since the Act came into operation. Since the Committee stage we have been considering with the utmost care whether the Amendment which the Committee made should stand—or at any rate, something on the lines of that Amendment—and the noble Lord has just virtually said that it is the spirit of the Amendment rather than the exact wording to which he attaches importance. He said that of the last Amendment, and I am sure it is the case with this. I believe that what the Committee wanted in carrying this Amendment was a much more active and vigorous approach. What I shall try to do is to persuade your Lordships that that is precisely what we have been seeking to achieve, bearing in mind the very great changes that have taken place in the structure of industry, in the labour market and, in particular, in the provisions of the disabled since 1944 when there were a very large number of people disabled in two wars.
The problem to-day is very different. It is true, as the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, said, that in May, 1972, nearly 60 per cent. of employers—about 58 per cent.—with quota obligations were not fulfilling their quota. The fact is that there are not enough registered disabled people for all employers to comply with their quota obligations—certainly not enough in the right places. On the other hand, there are many unregistered disabled people in employment. They do not have to register; nor do they count against the quota. Moreover, a great majority of employers who are below quota are not infringing the scheme because they have received a permit from
878
the Department to recruit able-bodied workers—which they may do only if there is not available a suitable disabled person for the job. Nevertheless, there are 9,000 firms who are below quota and have not applied for permits. They might get them if they were to apply.
It is because the situation was unsatisfactory that since 1971 the inspection procedures have been tightened up. Inspection has been transferred to the wage inspectorate and there has been an increase in random inspections and not just where doubts were held about an employer's quota position.
The main point is that the Department are at present right in the middle of a period of consultation on the whole question of the quota scheme. As I said in Committee, the Government published on May 22 a consultative document on the quota scheme, asking for comments by the end of the year. Altogether some 70,000 copies of this document have been distributed, and copies are available in your Lordships' House. This document is one of a series of discussion papers issued on the employment and training services for disabled people. The first, on the disablement resettlement service, came out in July last year. A consultative document on the future of sheltered employment is being prepared, and it is hoped that it will be published later this year. The final stage of consultation will cover industrial rehabilitation and vocational training for disabled people. These discussion papers arise out of a wide-ranging review of the arrangements for helping disabled people with their employment and training problems. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that the fact that the Government have held this review and have embarked on this series of consultative documents shows that we are well aware of the importance of the problems that need to be solved.
We recognise that the present position is by no means satisfactory and we ate determined to find the right way to improve it. This is something which needs to be worked out in the fullest possible consultation with those concerned, the National Advisory Council for the Employment of the Disabled, and all the many organisations concerned with disabled people: the T.U.C., the C.B.I. and many others. Surely this is the right way

879
to settle future policy on these important and difficult issues; to have full consultation with all those concerned on the basis of published consultative documents and to give a chance to all those who wish to make their views known; and then, in the light of this consultation, to take firm decisions. When the time comes to take those decisions, the views expressed in your Lordships' House on Sections 6 to 12 of the 1944 Act will most certainly be given full weight. But surely the time to take the decisions is at the end of the consultative process and not in the middle of it. That is why I am sure it would be wrong to write into this Bill that the Commission must implement these sections. If we settle that now, long before the end of our consultations, and in isolation from all the other connected questions about the future of the quota scheme, it may well be that we should find later that it was not the ideal solution; but by that time it would be enshrined in legislation and too late to make a change.
Further, my Lords, we must remember that the Commission has not yet been set up. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State hopes to bring it into existence at the beginning of 1974 and to bring the prospective members into consultation on an informal basis before that. Surely the Commission should be consulted before taking a final decision to give it responsibility for implementing, or securing the implementation of, Sections 6 to 12 of the 1944 Act. After all, the Commission will be a major body of high standing and will have major responsibilities for disabled people for the provision of employment and training services for them. The members may well have views on whether or not these responsibilities, or any particular responsibility, may be combined with that of enforcing the 1944 Act.
My Lords, if it is decided that the Commission should be responsible for enforcing on employers their obligations under the 1944 Act—I want to make this point very clear—there is already full power under the Bill to give the Commission this function without any need for the Amendment made in Committee which I am asking your Lordships to remove. Clause 2(2)(a) of the Bill gives full power for the making of
880
"agreements between the Commission and a Minister of the Crown for the Commission to perform, on behalf of the Minister, functions exercisable by the Minister … which are connected with employment",
excluding the making of regulations or other instruments having the force of law. I am advised that under this provision the Commission could perform any of the Secretary of State's functions under the 1944 Act, including the function of prosecuting employers for offences under the quota provision. The only exception is his power to make regulations or other instruments having the force of law. Since these regulations or order-making powers are matters on which a Minister must clearly remain fully accountable to Parliament, I doubt whether anyone would argue that they should be transferred to the Commission. So I can give your Lordships a categorical assurance that if, after the necessary consultation, the decision is that any or all of the Secretary of State's functions under the 1944 Act should go to the Commission, other than regulation-making functions, this can be achieved under Clause 2(2)(a) of the Bill, and the Amendment made in Committee is not necessary for the purpose.
My noble friend Lord Gowrie made clear in Committee that it is the intention that the Commission shall be invited to maintain a register of disabled people and to provide services for the district disabled advisory committees which are closely involved in the administration of the quota scheme. But the Act of 1944 lays these obligations on the Secretary of State, and it is therefore right that so long as that Act remains in force the Commission should act as the agent of the Secretary of State in performing these functions. It may be that, as a consequence of the consultative process already initiated, legislation may be required to improve the Act and to bring it up to date. But meantime, the statutory responsibility to Parliament should rest with the Secretary of State. It will be the duty of the Commission, as one of its own functions, to operate the Disabled Resettlement Officer Service and, through it, to keep in the closest touch with employers, and to obtain the maximum co-operation with them in fulfilling their quota obligations. My Lords, these are the officers who provide specialised employment services for disabled people

881
just as the blind person's resettlement officers do for the blind. The services will continue to operate within the framework of the general employment services; that is, through the Employment Service Agency and the Training Services Agency, so that disabled people will continue to be trained alongside the able bodied wherever possible and share the benefits of the Expanding Trading Opportunity Scheme.
My Lords, there are other points which I could make against the Amendment which was made in Committee. One which perhaps I should mention is that the Secretary of State has a number of duties under Sections 6 to 12 of the 1944 Act, so that if the Commission were to be given a duty to secure the implementation of those sections, one of the things which it would have to do would be to make sure that the Secretary of State carried out his duties. But the Commission will have no power to do that nor do I think that it would be constitutionally appropriate that it should have. I do not dwell on this or other technical points, which are matters which no doubt could be tidied up in a revised Amendment if the principle were acceptable. It is on the issue of principle that I ask your Lordships to approve the Amendment in my name. We really ought not to pre-judge the question of whom should be responsible for enforcing Sections 6 to 12 of the 1944 Act before the consultative process on the future quota scheme has taken place, and before the Commission had been set up. We should wait until the beginning of next year when it would be possible to take fully informed decisions on all these matters and not just this one aspect in isolation. If we decide to give the Commission this responsibility, the Bill, as altered by my Amendment, will give full power for this to be done.
I fully understand the deep feelings which caused noble Lords to support Lord Diamond's Amendment in Committee. I hope very much that I have succeeded in convincing your Lordships that there is no question of the Government being complacent and inactive in their attitude to the employment and training of the disabled, but that on the contrary we are tackling the problem vigorously. But we want to carry public opinion with us, particularly the opinion of those most deeply concerned, before making a final
882
decision. Therefore I strongly urge your Lordships not to insist on transferring the responsibility to the Commission now, but to allow time to work out how best the responsibility may be discharged.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, started off by reminding us that we had a vote on this during the Committee stage where, he said, the Amendment was carried by the narrowest possible margin.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The narrowest margin by which an Amendment could be carried.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, according to my figures the Amendment was carried by 64 to 70—or perhaps I have got it wrong. Was it 64 to 65? If so, we will not dwell on the point. I was merely going to make the point that there was a substantial margin. Possibly I have got the wrong figures or the wrong Amendment; yes, my Lords, the figures of 64 to 70 relate to the Amendment regarding women and girls, and I apologise to your Lordships.
I am not surprised that the Government wish to alter, to reverse, the decision of the Committee; because, as I explained at that time, the Amendment was not very happily placed, and it was because it would not achieve what I intended on second thoughts to achieve that I put down Amendment No. 13 which deals with the same point but, I hope, in a more effective way. The noble Lord devoted a good deal of his speech to demonstrating why it is right that that should be in the Bill because that is exactly what the Government are going to do. But he went on to say something very different of which I had to take note and which amounts to this: that when the consultations are completed and the Manpower Services Commission has had a chance to consider what is the best way of serving the purposes of the Act, it may be that Clauses 6 to 12 will not be thought to be the best method by which to do it. I recognise, therefore, that it would be a little unhappy if this were written into the Statute at this stage. So I am not pressing the point.
The noble Lord has, I think, taken the general sense of the anxiety of the Committee as to the amount of unemployment that exists among the disabled. I was

883
surprised to hear him say that there are areas where there is simply no disabled applicant suitable for the vacancies which employers seek to fill. There must, on the other hand, be other areas where there are at least twice the average, because over the country as a whole unemployment figures for the disabled are nearly double those of able persons. So there is still a need, although it is perhaps not satisfactorily disposed of by the very broad provisions of Clauses 6 to 12.
Bearing in mind that the Government have now given the matter careful thought—and the proceedings in Committee were very helpful in enabling the Government to concentrate their mind on this issue—the best advice I can offer to your Lordships' House and certainly to noble Lords on this side, is that we should give the Government the opportunity they seek of completing their inquiries and consulting the bodies which will be charged with the general responsibility of finding employment in this country. As I have often said, we welcome the Bill and the setting-up of the Commission, and we want to do nothing to hamper it unduly. All our anxiety is to see that there is a change in the unsatisfactory situation with regard to the number of unemployed disabled persons. That being so, especially having regard to the assurance from the Front Bench, which the noble Lord was good enough to say was a categorical assurance and which is very clear language indeed, and in view of the fact that the Secretary of State will retain responsibility and will therefore continue to be liable to be harassed by any Member of Parliament who is not satisfied about the way in which the quota is being kept, I think that the wisest course would be to allow the Amendment to be agreed—that is to say for the earlier decision to be reversed—as what we shall be doing is enabling the Government to achieve in their own way what we desire to be achieved.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said. I hope we shall make the best use of the opportunities he has given us.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 3, line 29, at end insert—
("(aa) include arrangements for encouraging increases in the opportunities to women and girls for employment and training").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 8. In Committee, a similar Amendment was defeated by 70 to 64 votes. The present Amendment, which is at a different place, is nothing like so drastic as the earlier one but it does make the point. The point is of course that, although one would not normally wish in tidy drafting to refer to a particular category, the situation with regard to the employment opportunities and training opportunities for women and girls is such that it needs to be mentioned. Women and girls are half of the population and, as I said in Committee, the fact is that, apart from hairdressing, so far as I recollect the figures, the proportion of young girls leaving school who go into apprenticeship is only 2 per cent., compared with something like 50 per cent. of boys. It shows that opportunities are not being taken. I hope that, as we have now moved the Amendment to a very different place, where it merely refers to arrangements that may be made, the Government will feel we are not embarrassing them, or embarrassing those who have the responsibility of carrying out the provisions of the Bill—that is to say, the Commission and the Agencies—but are underlining a need which is a powerful and clamant one.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, the Government have considered this matter further since the Committee stage, and I am happy to say that we are now prepared to accept that it is desirable for women and girls to be specifically mentioned in the legislation.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: Music to my ears! There was no disagreement at all in Committee that the present situation as regards the employment and training opportunities open to women and girls is unsatisfactory; and I certainly expressed my own agreement with noble Lords opposite, and some noble Lords behind me, that the position was

885
unsatisfactory. I do not think I need repeat what I said then about the Government's intention, for precisely that reason, to introduce legislation to help to remove unfair discrimination on the ground of sex and to promote opportunities for women.
Our only difference in Committee was over whether it would be desirable to make a specific reference in this Bill to women and girls. I drew attention at the time to the potential danger of listing in legislation things which the Commission may do, as this could lead to the presumption that anything not listed might be excluded. As against this, noble Lords put forward the argument that adding this to the Bill would not do any harm. The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, said:
"We are proposing to add nothing to the powers and responsibilities."—
that is to say, of the Commission—
We are proposing to let the world know that Parliament thinks it is not adequate that these responsibilities "—
that is to say, the Commission's responsibilities to women and girls—
"should be hidden and tucked away in general, albeit neat, draftsmanship, but that they should be picked out and explicitly stated for the benefit of public opinion generally."
On reconsideration, we are prepared to accept this Amendment. It does not add to the powers and duties of the Commission. What it does is to make sure that the Commission's responsibility to help women and girls to obtain training and to find employment cannot possibly be overlooked, because they are mentioned specifically in the Bill.
Moreover, the Amendment does so in terms which are not likely to encourage any interpretation that action to help other groups, who are not listed, is excluded. For example, it will certainly be part of the Commission's duty to encourage increases in the opportunities available to boys for training in industries where more training is desirable, as well as for women and girls. No one, I think, would suppose that this was precluded by the fact that this Amendment specifically mentions increasing training opportunities for women and girls but not for boys. So I hope it will be clear to all concerned that this provision does not imply any limitation to the Commission's duties and powers in respect
886
of other groups of people. I am glad to be able to advise your Lordships, in the spirit of the age, to accept the Amendment.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I should like to have the honour of thanking the noble Earl, and I feel that I speak on behalf of all women workers in the country. This of course was a piece of discrimination which the Select Committee which has been sitting here and in another place carefully examined, and we were unanimous in feeling that any obstacle to the use of women's labour should be removed. Therefore I feel very happy that the Government have seen fit to accept this Amendment.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, may I echo those thanks? We are very grateful to the Government for doing what I fully recognise is unusual, but what I think is justified in the circumstances. It is most important. It will do the Government no harm; it will do the Manpower Services Commission no harm; it will do the Conservative Party politically a lot of good, and I congratulate them.
Clause 3 [Control of the Commission by Secretary of State]:
6.0 p.m.
BARONESS SEEAR BARONESS SEEAR moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 5, line 23, leave out from beginning to ("make") in line 24 and insert ("he may, after such action has been proposed to the Commission and the Commission has declared themselves unable or unwilling to authorise such action,").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, I am more concerned with the spirit of this Amendment than with the actual wording. I am all the more of that frame of mind because during the last ten minutes I have been looking again at the Amendment, and I realise that, owing solely, I am sure, to the horrible nature of my handwriting, one word is not correct in the Amendment as printed. The mistake quite seriously alters the intention and explains a comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. The word "authorised" should in fact be "undertake". The only resemblance between those words is that they both contain the same number of letters. I take full responsibility for this error. I cannot

887
always read my own writing, so I cannot really expect other people to do so. It was never my intention that the Commission should be "authorised" to do anything. It was, and remains, my serious intention that if there is work to be undertaken in the field for which the Commission has an overall responsibility under the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State should not be able to launch into that activity without the Commission's first having had the opportunity to do it if it felt itself in a position so to do. Therefore, the final words of the Amendment should read:
"… and the Commission has declared themselves unable or unwilling to undertake such action,".
Since I moved this Amendment, I have had a most courteous letter from the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn—partly confused, understandably, by the mistake already made. I am sure we can be in absolute agreement on one point: that there was never any intention that the Commission should "authorise" anything that the Secretary of State (who must be the absolute ultimate authority) should in fact be doing. But I am afraid that the noble Lord's letter has not convinced me about the main point of my Amendment and what I said then. Incidentally, I appear to have so confused the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, that in his letter to me he said:
"I do think that it would be acceptable to the Secretary of State to have to get permission from the Commission to carry out functions"
et cetera. I am certain that he really meant to say that it would not be acceptable to the Secretary of State—so I think we are "quits" on that particular misunderstanding.
What we thought we were getting, with the establishment of the Manpower Services Commission, was a new piece of machinery of the greatest importance—a piece of machinery free from red tape and, as far as possible, free from bureaucratic control, able to take action quickly and not subject to the usual interference that is inevitable when matters are handled by a Government Department. It is surely essential that the Commission should have the maximum amount of autonomy. I cannot see that it can be said that the Commission has the neces-
888
sary autonomy to do the job—it is a new structure that we are wanting: I cannot underline that enough—if the Secretary of State is free to intervene and do certain things with which the Commission is really charged. The noble Lord explains in his letter that the Secretary of State has residual responsibilities in the field of employment, resulting from the fact that the Employment and Training Act 1948 has been repealed; but surely it is possible to make clear in advance what the responsibilities of the Secretary of State are as a result of the repeal of the 1948 Act, and what the responsibilities of the Commission would be.
It seems intolerable that the responsibilities of the two should be in any way confused and for responsibility not to be clearly laid on the Commission so that it can get on with the job with which it is charged. It is important that the Secretary of State should not interfere or take on himself any of the functions with which the Commission is charged unless and until there is a real dereliction of duty on the part of the Commission. We shall only get the new-style service that we want when we have this degree of autonomy and responsibility on the part of the Commission. It seems to me that there is a real organisational confusion embedded in this clause, and that is why I shall not press this Amendment—obviously it contains this error, but I had not intended to press the Amendment at this stage anyway.
I implore the Minister to look again at the division of responsibility between the Secretary of State and the National Manpower Commission and to reassure us that, having pressed so hard for a Manpower Services Commission with new-style powers, we are not getting—and I am becoming quite anxious about this—simply the old employment services dressed up again, with the responsibility resting where it always was in reality. We want the Commission to have power to get on and do the job, and we want the Secretary of State only to have ultimate reserve powers; because it is only in this way, in our view, that the vital work that needs to be done can be done. We do not think, frankly, that this is work for a Government Department. We want a different kind of organisation to do it. I am quite unconvinced that we are

889
getting it as long as we have this clause standing here which quite clearly gives the Secretary of State the power to intervene in a way which undermines the responsibilities of the Commission. My Lords, in view of what I have just said, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 [Restriction on charging persons seeking employment, etc.]:
6.7 p.m.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE THE EARL OF GOWRIE moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 8, line 37, leave out ("and 12") and insert (", 12 and 14(1)").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I think it would be for the convenience of your Lordships if we were to discuss Amendments Nos. 10, 16, 18 and 19 together. The main Amendments are those to Schedule 2, Parts I and III. The others are consequential.
In discussion in Committee of Section 14 of the Industrial Training Act 1964, I said I was prepared to consider tabling an Amendment on Report to provide that the initiative for training trainees from overseas temporarily in Great Britain could in fact come from a board, subject to the consent of the Commission and the Minister. The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, was good enough to indicate in Committee that such an Amendment, while not going quite as far as the Amendment he put down in Committee, would be acceptable to him. These Amendments achieve this effect, while also preserving the present position that money raised by a levy on industry may not be used for the purposes of Section 14. This, in our view, would be quite wrong.
The Amendment to Part III of Schedule 2 achieves the same effect in the case of the Agricultural Training Board, except that it will need to get the consent of the agricultural Ministers, rather than that of the Commission and of the Secretary of State. This is in line with the other provisions in the Bill which transfer responsibility for that Board to the agricultural Ministers. It has also been suggested—and I think there were some words on this point in the Amendment first tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, though not in his revised Amendment which was discussed in Committee—that it is unnecessary to restrict
890
board activities under Section 14 of the 1964 Act to "industry and commerce". It seems to me there is force in this and that the present Section 14 of the 1964 Act is probably a little unduly restrictive of possible action in respect of overseas trainees. The boundaries of what is technically "commercial" may be different in another country from those here, but that does not seem to be a good reason why a training board should not be empowered to provide or arrange for the training in this country of people intending to work overseas in "noncommercial activities, if the board or its industry has the necessary expertise. The Amendments therefore seek to remove this limitation.
So far as the provision of funds from the British aid programme is concerned, as the House may know, the Government reserve a considerable sum for training nationals of developing countries in a variety of ways. This means that we are able to offer a stated number of training places to individual overseas Governments; and we rely on them, in consultation with our overseas posts, to decide on their training priorities. This is in line with our general policy on aid matters, which must take account of the priorities of the overseas Governments. They have in fact so far put forward rather few candidates for industrial training, but we have been very successful in placing these. A number of other industrial trainees in this country are financed by the firms which employ them. The Government have not hitherto sought to use Section 14 of the 1964 Act for un-sponsored trainees, because it would involve us in an unknown commitment outside the normal scope of Government-to-Government aid. However, the question of increasing help for industrial training of overseas nationals will be further reviewed in the near future by the O.D.A. I beg to move Amendment No. 10.
Clause 8 [Provision of services by education authorities]:
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 12, line 34, at end insert ("except that the said reference does include part-time attendance by persons who satisfy the local education authority in question that their attendance is with a view to employment").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 12, and I think I can move it fairly shortly. This gives me the opportunity of apologising to your Lordships for the fact that I have an aeroplane to catch which will not permit me to listen to the whole of the rest of the discussion. My noble friend Lord Jacques will be looking after our interests.
This Amendment again refers to an Amendment which we dealt with at the Committee stage, where I felt I had impressed the Government with the fact that the Bill, as drafted, draws an invidious distinction, although they did not wish it to appear invidious. It was made clear that if a man had to earn his living and could not go to an educational institute until after 5 o'clock he was not to be put in the same category as those who could go at 4.30 p.m. because they did not have to earn their living. The difficulty is that if a man is going to an evening class after 5 o'clock how does one know whether—and the Minister asked me this —the purpose of the class attended is to improve the capacity to be employed and make a contribution to the nation rather than to indulge in a perfectly pleasant and innocuous hobby? The answer I suggested at the time was: let us satisfy the local authority. If they are satisfied then surely everybody should be happy.
It would be very unfortunate if a young person was excluded from the services to which he would otherwise be entitled merely by the fact that he could not get to the classes until after 5 o'clock. This Amendment seeks to put in the kind of satisfaction which is really the maximum satisfaction. It says that if the local education authority are satisfied that the attendance at the classes is with a view to employment then the young person qualifies. If that is not so, then the young person does not qualify. The Government ought to accept that kind of Amendment which does nothing but improve the Bill. It removes a very unpleasant and invidious distinction.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I said at the Committee stage, when the noble Lord moved a comparable Amendment, that I thought there were powers for local authorities to provide a service to a young person attending an evening
892
class for vocational reasons which they could exercise, and I thought they would in all normal cases exercise them. I see the noble Lord's point that it might be felt invidious that the local education authorities' duty should not extend to these young people attending classes beginning after 5 o'clock. I promised on the previous occasion to consider further whether local authorities should have a specific duty to make arrangements for careers guidance in respect of people attending evening classes with a vocational purpose. My Lords, I am very happy to accept the Amendment that the noble Lord has moved. It may serve to avoid any misunderstandings and it makes the Bill a little clearer.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I should like to express my gratitude to the Government for doing what they have done, which is extremely valuable and improves the Bill. I am most grateful.
Schedule 1 [Additional provisions relating to the constitution etc. of the Commission and Agencies]:
6.17 p.m.
BARONESS SEEAR BARONESS SEEAR moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 20, line 27, leave out from beginning to end of line 36 and insert—
("(1) It shall be the duty of the Commission, before such date as the Secretary of State may determine, to select such staff as it requires who shall be chosen from a list of names notified to the Commission by the Secretary of State and also from candidates with considerable industrial and commercial experience in the field of employment and training; and the terms of the offer of employment shall be such that in the opinion of the Secretary of State they are, taken as a whole, not less favourable to the person to whom the offer is made than the terms under which he is employed by the Secretary of State on the date at which the offer is made and such terms will also have full regard to the desirability of movement of staff between the Commission and industry and commerce:
Provided that not less than one quarter of the staff (excluding non-clerical and manual employees of the Commission) shall be persons who possess the industrial and commercial experience referred to in this subparagraph.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is in some ways a continuation of the previous Amendment which I moved. It is the same subject moved from a different angle, an Amendment which I

893
withdrew too swiftly before the noble Lord the Minister could reply. I raised this matter at the Committee stage and I had a courteous letter from the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, in reply to the points I then raised. I am afraid that the noble Earl confirmed my worst fears: as this House will now be all too well aware, my worst fears are that we are getting very much the mixture as before. Regarding the staffing of the Manpower Commission, it is required in the Bill that the Commission must take on the persons already employed in the Department of Employment whom the Secretary of State tells the Commission they must employ. The staff of the Commission are largely predetermined by the Secretary of State. That is not the way in which to get a new styled organisation going. This is going to be very largely manned—and it says so both in the Preamble and in the Bill —by existing civil servants. The noble Earl replied that Civil Service terms and conditions should continue to apply on the Staff Commission and Agencies in order to facilitate free movement of staff between the Department of Employment and other Civil Service Departments. He went on to say that it will be possible to take on people from outside on long or short-term contracts. It leaves no doubt at all that to a large extent the Commission is going to be run by civil servants.
I do not wish to be discourteous, but one cannot put too fine a point on this. The employment services in this country have been run by civil servants ever since the Department of Employment, the then Ministry of Labour, was set up. It has not been a success. The House must know that the labour exchanges up and down this country have been used to a small extent. They have been white elephants in many areas so far as meeting labour market conditions and helping people to find employment are concerned. The manpower forecasting exercise of the Department of Employment was admittedly a failure. Although much good work has been done in Government training centres, it has been on far too small a scale to begin to meet the country's needs. This has gone on for three generations. It is not unreasonable to say that what we need is something basically different. I said on the previous Amendment that the organisation
894
and the control needed to be different. In this Amendment I am asking that, to a large extent, the personnel should be different. So far as clerical staff and that level of employees is concerned, there is no reason why they should not be civil servants, but the people Who are going to make decisions, who are going to be executives in this field, should not be civil servants. We should not have the amateur approach that we have had for three generations. We should have a far more expert approach to this problem, which seems to me to be absolutely vital if this change in the Bill is to mean anything at all.
Can we have from the Minister a clear remit that it is not intended that the Commission should be run by the Civil Service as in the past, largely on the same lines with a little window-dressing to make it look like something different. On all sides I get clues that this is what is going to happen and that it is very largely a waste of time in bringing this Bill in.
It is not exchangeability with the Civil Service and the Department of the Employment and with other Departments of the Civil Service; it is interchangeability with people in industry. And, let me add, we shall not get interchangeability with the people we need if we pay Civil Service rates, for the simple reason not that the Civil Service is underpaid but that the people you want to get are people who take heavy responsibility, take risks and, if they fail, can carry the can. That is not true within the Civil Service. I beg to move.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, in consideration in Committee of the subject of the staff of the Commission and Agencies, I said that I would compare carefully the Bill and the White Paper; that is to say, the White Paper, Employment and Training Government Proposals, Cmnd. No. 5250, and that I would try to make sure that there was no divergence between them. I have done this and satisfied myself that there is not. As she has said, I have also written to the noble Baroness about this. It would be wrong for me to get into a general debate about this. The noble Baroness knows my views as I, if I may say so, know hers, but I should like to say something to her. The Commission is not going to be run by civil servants. The

895
Manpower Services Commission's executive arms, the Training Services Agency and the Employment Service Agency may, and most likely will, contain many people who either are civil servants now, are members of my right honourable friend's Department or who have been brought in from outside, but the Commission, which the noble Baroness has on so many occasions told us she welcomes, will be in charge. They will also be correlating the work of the Industrial Training Boards and other bodies, so I cannot accept that this is the old matter as before with a little window-dressing.
The other point I would make is that the Civil Service itself is not static; it is open to change and innovation under successive Ministers. As I think I said to the noble Baroness in Committee and certainly on Second Reading, I beg her to look for herself at some of the innovations which the Department are at present bringing in under the Employment Service Agency, the new job shops and the like, and also under the Training Services Agency with the training opportunity schemes, the Government training centres and the like. Her argument rests on the mixture as before. I have already dealt with the fact that I do not think that is right but, in addition, the mixture as before has itself changed.
The noble Lord, Lord Byers, suggested in Committee that the Bill makes it mandatory for the Commission initially to appoint only people currently employed by the Secretary of State. This is not so. It is true that initially the Commission and Agencies must offer employment to existing staff of the Secretary of State nominated by him, and I think this is right. There is no evidence that the performance of such large-scale redundancies is deserved or would be welcome. But in spite of this, nothing in the Bill requires the Commission and the Agencies, even requires them initially, only to employ those nominated by the Secretary of State. I would also add my point that the existing staff liable to be transferred also contain many men and women with valuable outside experience, so I do not think the noble Baroness and I really disagree about this and I hope that she will withdraw her Amendment.
BARONESS SEEAR: My Lords, in the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 [Modifications of Industrial Training Act, 1964]:
6.27 p.m.
LORD JACQUES LORD JACQUES moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 26, line 9, leave out ("one") and insert ("one and a half").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we on this side of the House attach a great deal of importance to training. We believe that the economic future of this country depends substantially on the training programme. We are dismayed to find that there is a ceiling of 1 per cent. We believe that this is wrong in principle and wrong in amount. It is wrong in principle because it invites firms in industry to assume that training is all right provided they do not spend more than 1 per cent. on it. It is wrong in amount because substantial industries are already spending more than 1 per cent. on training. That is so in the case of engineering, which is an important exporting industry. We believe that the very minimum that is required is an increase of this maximum from 1 per cent. to 1½ per cent. We realise that in a later paragraph in the Bill the Secretary of State has powers, in exceptional cases, to authorise an amount of levy in excess of the ceiling. We feel that that by itself is not enough and that the maximum ceiling should be increased from 1 to 1½ per cent. I beg to move.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, indicated that in his view the imposition of a normal levy limit of 1 per cent. suggested that the Government do not attach sufficient importance to training. I must say that I wholeheartedly reject this suggestion, and I think I can fairly say that what we are doing in this Bill is clear evidence that the Government do attach considerable importance to training. We do not believe that a normal levy of 1 per cent. will result in a diminution or scaling-down of the activities of training boards. It is certainly not the Government's intention that that should happen; this is not

897
how we see things working out under the new arrangements, and I will say why.
To substantiate the Government's view that the new arrangements in general, and the 1 per cent. limit in particular, will not have an adverse effect on the Board's influence or scale of effort I should like to make two points. The first is that at the present time only a small number of boards have a levy of more than 1 per cent.—and this number will be reduced even further in the period of the run-up to the introduction of the new arrangement. Out of 28 Boards—because the Foundry Committee counts as a board—only six boards including the Foundry Committee have rates of over 1 per cent. at present, although I admit that those six do include the largest body, the engineering training board, and I quite agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, said on Second Reading about the importance to the economy and the country of that board. The second, and perhaps rather more important, point is that when the new arrangements come into full operation, up to £35 million in a full year will be made available to the Commission to cover the administrative costs to the boards of the training grants and to promote training in the non-board sector. This will be a very substantial new contribution from the Exchequer.
It really is wrong to assume that reducing the levy in itself reduces the amount that firms spend on training. Levy does not by any means cover the full cost of training in industry. I think most firms which take training at all seriously spend much more on training than they are assessed at for levy purposes, even without taking into account the grants they may earn which can be offset against levy. Many people in the training world would argue that the purpose of levy is rather to make firms aware of the importance of training and stimulate them to do something about it. Most boards have found a levy rate of 1 per cent. or less is adequate for this purpose.
It is true that the total assessments for levy amounted to about £200 million, but only about £40 million of this was actually received by boards, because grant is set off against levy due. Nobody can tell what the levies will be in future, since we cannot forecast the extent of exemption and exclusions. It is true that
898
the boards which have to reduce their levies to come within the 1 per cent. limit will have less money available for their activities and for grants to stimulate good training, but that is where the Exchequer contribution of up to £35 million a year will come in. It is going to pay their administrative expenses and provide the key training grants. The introduction of levy exemption will also tend to reduce the hoard's funds, but levy exemption will also be a means of giving firms an incentive to maintain good standards of training.
It simply is not part of the Government's policy that boards should exempt from levy firms whose training is not adequate. Levy exemption is intended to be a method of enabling boards to fulfil their responsibilities for securing and improving standards of training in their industries, and of doing so in a way which enables firms which have sound training arrangements to avoid the administrative complexities which have become associated with the levy grant system. The general principle of exemption should be that boards will grant exemption to employers if they are satisfied that the firm is carrying out training adequate to its needs.
Pressure for good training will be maintained by the criteria which boards will set for exemption. These will relate to what a firm can be expected to be doing in order to be regarded as carrying out training adequate to its needs. The criteria should represent standards of good training practice which boards have worked out with their industries. The important thing to realise is that as the standard of what is accepted as good training practice rises over time, so the exemption system can apply its pressure for these improved standards. It is entirely appropriate that the standards qualifying firms for exemption should be progressively raised.
I have said this to show the very point that so many firms are spending more on training than they are assessed for levy; the very point that training boards are even now, so many of them, below 1 per cent.; the fact that the engineering training board itself has reduced its levy from 2 per cent. to 1·5 per cent. already, and will be coming down in due course to 1 per cent.—all these factors I think indicate

899
that it is only in exceptional circumstances that the Secretary of State should have power to impose a levy over 1 per cent. After all, when my right honourable friend the Secretary of State first announced the scheme in another place last August he said that the maximum limit on levy would be 1 per cent., and in the White Paper, Cmnd. 525, published with the Bill, we explain that any levy in excess of 1 per cent. would be applied in only quite exceptional circumstances which make it necessary, and would be subject to the Affirmative Resolution procedure.
In fact, we have even been criticised from the other side for saying that we would allow exceptional circumstances and would go beyond what we originally stated would be the maximum of 1 per cent. We think that, in the light of all these considerations, it is only in exceptional circumstances that it would be necessary to provide for levies above 1 per cent., and we feel that we must stick to the maximum levy of 1 per cent. in normal circumstances. We believe that this is the right amount and that within it will be possible, with the assistance of the £35 million I have mentioned, for the training boards to supervise the training services and to make their contribution to the raising of their standards.
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, in view of the hour, we will consider the reply by the Minister and reserve the right to come back at the next stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, I spoke to Amendment No. 16 with Amendment No. 10. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 5, leave out from ("words") to end of paragraph and insert ("from the beginning to "carried on" there shall be substituted the words "An industrial training board may, with the consent of the Commission given with the approval of the Minister, exercise such functions in connection with training for employment" and at the end of section 14(1) there shall be inserted the words "; and the board may enter into agreements in the making of payments to the board n respect of the exercise in pursuance of this subsection of functions by the board." ").—(The Earl of Gowrie.)
6.36 p.m.
BARONESS SEEAR BARONESS SEEAR moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 34, line 35, at end insert ("; in exercising this control in relation to boards the Minister will have full regard to the desirability of movement of staff between boards and their industries; and").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to give industrial training boards the maximum freedom of action to recruit the calibre of staff they believe to be necessary in order to do the work which the training boards will still have to do, and still ought to do, in the new set-up. I am sure that the noble Earl or the noble Lord will tell me that, as the Bill now stands, there is nothing in it to stop them from paying the higher rates they will need to pay to get these people. It would, however, be a great help and reassurance to some training boards, at least, if this qualification were inserted in the Schedule, so that they would know that they were not going to be tied by the Minister to Civil Service rates in the employment of their staffs. I beg to move.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, at an earlier stage of the Bill the noble Baroness moved the same Amendment and I undertook then to have a look at it. I pointed out that there were other Bills under which the same conditions had arisen before, and that we should in fact be creating a precedent if we did what has not been done before and wrote into the Bill words which had appeared in the White Paper. I am afraid that, having looked at it, I still find that the arguments against taking the unprecedented step of writing such an assurance into the Bill are convincing. In any case, I am bound to say to the noble Baroness that, although it might have a comforting effect, it would not have much more than a comforting effect, because all that the Minister has to do, according to these words, is to
"have full regard to the desirability of movement of staff between boards and their industries".
This has already appeared in the White Paper and, while I must again advise the House not to accept this Amendment, I will repeat the assurance one more time: that, in exercising his control in relation to boards, the Minister will have full regard to the desirability of move-

901
ment of staff between boards and their industries. I wholly agree with the noble Baroness that this is something desirable to happen and therefore it would be necessary to provide the means for it to happen; and I hope she will rest content with that assurance.
BARONESS SEEAR: My Lords, I deeply regret that the Minister is so bound by precedent. After all, there is no precedent for industrial training boards, which are sui generis. However, I take it there is no point in pressing him further, and therefore I ask the leave of the House to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.40 p.m.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to move Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 together. They are consequential:
Amendments moved—
Page 48, line 48, at end insert:
Power of industrial training board with respect to training for employment overseas
("14.—(1) An industrial training board may, with the consent of the Commission given with the approval of the Minister, exercise such functions in connection with training for employment outside Great Britain of persons temporarily in Great Britain as are exercisable by it under subsections (1) and (4) of section 2 of this Act in connection with the training of persons employed or intending to be employed in the industry for which the board is established; and the board may enter into agreements for the making of payments to the board in respect of the exercise in pursuance of this subsection of functions by the board.")
Page 51, line 39, at end insert—
("7A. In section 14(1) of the Act for the words from the beginning to "carried on" there shall he substituted the words "An industrial training board may, with the consent of the Minister, exercise such functions in connection with training for employment."") —(The Earl of Gowrie.)
BARONESS SEEAR: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Gladwyn asked me, in his absence, to convey his thanks that this Amendment, which originated with him, has been accepted.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Baroness.

FAIR TRADING BILL
6.41 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. I should like to say a word or two about the Bill before parting with it because we have spent quite a long time on it. May I begin by thanking all noble Lords who have contributed so effectively to the proceedings on the Bill and for giving your Lordships the benefit of their experience and their wisdom.
I suggest that the Bill has been much improved during the consideration which it has received in your Lordships' House. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, will agree that the Government have been very ready to take account of suggestions for its improvement so as to strengthen the provision which it makes for the protection of consumers. I should like to mention in particular the Amendment which your Lordships agreed to in Clause 124 following suggestions made in Committee by noble Lords opposite, which will place the Director General under a duty to encourage trade associations to prepare codes of practice with the object of promoting the interests of consumers. But many useful new technical improvements have been introduced. Your Lordships received this Bill from another place with 130 clauses and we shall return it with 140 clauses. This is not inflation. I am not sure that in itself this is a matter for congratulation, but in this particular case I am quite sure that the additions made to the Bill represent considerable improvements. Your Lordships have added to the Bill two clauses (Nos. 97 and 98) dealing with the position of wholesale co-operative societies under the restrictive practices legislation, and one clause (No. 106) dealing with industrial and provident societies. These changes were made in response to representations from the Cooperative Movement and were put forward on Second Reading by the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, and I was glad to note the welcome which they received from noble Lords opposite.
Your Lordships have also added Clause 99, on agreements relating to coal and steel. As my noble friend Lord Limerick explained when introducing it at the Report stage, this clause will ensure that producers in this country are at no competitive disadvantage as compared with

903
their European counterparts. But I suggest that the greatest improvement made to the Bill is its extension to cover the troublesome matter of pyramid selling, and I was very glad that it was possible, with the co-operation of the whole House to extend the Bill by the addition of six further clauses constituting an entirely new Part on this subject. It is our intention that the powers conferred by this new Part should be vigorously exercised, and I hope we can eliminate once and for all the trading practices which have caused so much hardship to unsuspecting people.
I should like once again to thank noble Lords in all parts of the House for the welcome that they have given this Bill, and for the co-operation that they have shown in getting it through so expeditiously. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, we on this side of the House would like to compliment the Ministers concerned on the way in which they have steered this Bill through the House. We believe that on the whole it is a good Bill. We are grateful for some of the Amendments which did get through, particularly the ones concerning codes of practice and the two which related to the Co-operative Movement.
Of course there are certain disappointments. Particularly are we disappointed that not even just a little initiative was given to the Consumer Protection Advisory Committee. We believe that to be a psychological error. However, we have been pleased to co-operate with the Government in getting this Bill through the House and we hope that it will in practice achieve as much as it promises in theory.
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Admendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

NATIONAL INSURANCE AND SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFIT BILL
6.45 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Aberdare.)
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 9 agreed to.
Schedules 1 to 3 agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Amendment of Schedule 2 to Ministry of Social Security Act 1966]:
BARONESS PHILLIPS BARONESS PHILLIPS moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 16, line 22, leave out from beginning to end of line 42.
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 1, with the permission of the Committee my noble friends and I would like to speak to Amendment No. 2 as well because in fact it deals with the same philosophy but it is an attempt to deal with the matter in a slightly different way.
When a Bill is introduced which purports to make improvements in the lives of the folk for whom it is catering, as this Bill does, it is important to make certain that these are real improvements, and in the Schedule that we are discussing this evening we are talking about the long-term allowance. This is intended to cover the needs of elderly pensioners who will draw supplementary benefits for the rest of their lives, and for those below pensionable age who have been on benefit for one or two or more years and are not required to register for work.
In the matter of the exceptional circumstances allowance for heating it is good to note that in future this will not be offset against the long-term allowance. But the special diet or laundry costs or any other additions will still be offset. I think your Lordships will appreciate this best if I give as a practical example a case given to me quite recently. If a couple were given 90p for heating, £1·32 for extra diet and 65p for laundry they would receive a total of £2·87. Under the new arrangements nothing would be taken off the 90p for heating, but 50p would be taken off the further allowances, so that they would receive long-term benefit of £12·85 plus £2·37 and not £2·87. It seems quite obvious that the greater the number of claims that are made by

905
anyone in this section the more important it is to have the maximum.
The Help the Aged Group spoke quite recently to a patient in hospital who, when he was at home, was given 83p extra: 50p was taken off the long-term allowance, leaving him with 30p. As he was on a very special and expensive diet this man was literally living at starvation level, and each time he was discharged from hospital his weight fell rapidly. When the Minister was challenged on this point, namely that the heating allowance was treated differently from the diet, he said that the Supplementary Benefits Commission had discretion. This is true. At the moment the Supplementary Benefits Commission use discretionary powers, but it is very significant that this Bill surely removes this discretion. As I read it, from October 1, if the Bill becomes law then, any exceptional circumstances addition given for heating will not be subject to being offset, but exceptional circumstances allowance for any other purpose will automatically have the deduction applied, and because it will be statutory—namely, written into the Bill —and not discretionary, even the Tribunal will not be able to exercise its powers in individual cases as it can do at present. The cases which come under this particular section I suggest would never be large in number, but they will be singularly pathetic in character. Yesterday I was privileged through another splendid group, the Poverty Action Group, to meet four people who I suggest are classic examples of the people we are dealing with under the Bill. The first thing I noticed about them was that they were not complaining; indeed in my experience the people most hardly treated very rarely complain. Perhaps if they complained a little more they would get a little more.
The second point that was very noticeable was that they did not understand how their extra allowances were made up. In each case they told me the total amount they received, but when asked, "Was this for diet or heating?" they could rarely sort it out. One dear old lady rather patiently said, "It seems to me that they give with one hand and take away with the other". I will not go through all the cases, but I think it would be useful to give your Lordships
906
at least one example—and I ask you to remember that these are selected because they are typical examples. Mr. Roche is 78, has bronchitis and a fractured spine. His wife, a little younger, suffers from at least four different diseases, and she has had a coronary thrombosis. Therefore, they each receive a dietary allowance, a laundry allowance and a heating allowance, making their total of extra allowances £2·82. The heating allowance, therefore, is not taken into account, but if the others are taken into account in the long term addition, in fact they would be very little better off—I think it is about 10p.
This Bill is partly to meet the cost which is rising all the time. I would remind your Lordships that if one is on a special diet, which is invariably expensive, one shops in the same market as the millionaire. There is no special price for steak, even if one person buys it as part of a diet and the other because he wants to. If prices rise for the wage-earner, they certainly rise for those people who are at the very end of the scale. In our Amendments we seek to do one of two things. First, we would remove the automatic deduction of the 50p from the exceptional circumstances addition. This would make the thing logical; namely, we should be back to where we are now. It would relieve the officials from what I can only call the cruel mathematical exercise of having to tell someone that they are giving them an extra 30p, an extra 10p, and an extra 10p, and in the next breath telling them they are having to take certain amounts off. This can be absolutely tragic because some people apply only when they are in desperation and few of them understand the system of how they appeal or how they deal with this problem.
The second Amendment seeks to add the heating expenses, the special diet expenses, the laundry or laundrette expenses and so on; in other words that each of these could be offset as is the case with the heating allowance. I know that the heating allowance concession is to be applauded. We know, unfortunately, that last winter there were elderly people who actually died from cold. What a terrible commentary in a so-called civilised society. Nobody would criticise the Government for their splendid attempt to help this group. What I am suggesting is that it would be desperately unfair if

907
those who, through other causes, incontinence or special dietary allowances, were put at a disadvantage. I have a feeling that the Government may well understand this, and perhaps at the end of the Session we are going to receive a lovely surprise when the Minister will rise and say that he will accept either one of our Amendments. But in the event, I beg to move the first Amendment.
6.56 p.m.
LORD AVEBURY: If I may add a few words to what the noble Baroness has said, I think the Government have not sufficiently taken into account the factor that she has mentioned. Although she has already mentioned that we should applaud the exemption of the heating allowance from the deduction which is to be made from other supplementary benefits we cannot see the logic in the way that the Government have tackled it. They say that heating allowances are to be placed in a special category, but that people with multiple deprivations, as the noble Baroness so rightly expressed it, people who have heating, dietary and laundry needs so they are by definition much worse off than the person who needs heating alone, will have the equivalent of the long-term addition deducted from their benefit. So in many cases they are no better off. The noble Baroness has also mentioned that we saw four people yesterday all in this situation, two of whom were visited, I believe, by the Secretary of State, in connection with the question of heating allowances. Therefore, the Secretary of State is in full possession of the details of these cases and must be well aware that they are not only dependent on receipt of an allowance for heating, but also for diet and laundry in each case. The noble Baroness has mentioned the circumstances of Mr. Roche and his wife which I think illustrate the purpose of this Amendment very well.
Just to reinforce what the noble Baroness has said, may I refer to another case which was drawn to my attention, that of Mr. Thompson who comes from Birmingham, suffers from a prolapsed disc and arthritis of the spine, whose daughter needs special shoes and who, instead of receiving exceptional needs payments when she needs a new pair, has been awarded a special exceptional circumstances addition of 25p weekly.
908
If we ignore the basic pension changes—and I think we are right to do this—we must dispute the contention of the Minister in another place that these people are benefiting from Government largesse generally. So is everyone else, but these people are in a unique situation, otherwise they would not have been awarded the special needs allowances in the first place.
We must consider the special needs allowances in isolation, apart from any increase in pensions or supplementary benefit awarded to everyone irrespective of need. Mr. Thompson had the following allowances: diet, 60p, heating, 30p, laundry, 35p and special shoes 25p, making a total of £1·60. Then you have to deduct the 50p long-term allowance making £1·10. If the Bill is unamended, the situation will be precisely the same for him. He will get the diet allowance of 60p and the laundry allowance of 45p; from that will be deducted 50p long-term scale rate and after that you have to add on heat and shoes. Having done that, one finds that he finishes with £1·10, the same as he receives at present. He is no better off. I thought that the purpose of this Bill, as the Tory Party has always claimed, was to help those in greatest need, but we find that that is not the case at all. As the noble Baroness says, when the Minister was talking about this in another place he said that the Supplementary Benefits Commission have a discretionary power to pay more when necessary, but we all know that in practice this discretion is not exercised and that even the full amount of dietary allowances are not paid. The Minister referred in particular to people who need an expensive diet because they are suffering from kidney failure. A case has been brought to my attention by the Child Poverty Action Group where it has been medically established that the person needs a special diet costing £4 and is receiving only £3·50. So in any case, quite apart from this Amendment, we are not paying the full amount of these people's needs. In addition, we are going to deduct the long-term allowance from whatever they receive.
When the long-term allowance was first initiated in 1966 it had the purpose in mind that people who had been on supplementary benefit for a considerable period had needs which were greater

909
than those who had only just lost their income, either by reason of unemployment or retirement or whatever; that the longer you exist on the small income that you receive from supplementary benefit the greater your needs become. I think that is obvious to anyone who has had contact with old people or people who are chronically unemployed or sick. Their needs do become greater with time. That is entirely independent of the question of whether their health requires special diet or whether they need expensive laundry facilities for some other reason, and arises entirely from the fact that they have been on benefit for a long time. It follows quite logically from the consideration of the circumstances. The Minister himself said that the Government accept that there are people with multiple needs, and he said they will benefit from the improvement in the rates of benefit. One can see from the figures that have already been quoted that this is not in fact the case.
It is all very well to say that opponents of the Government have distinguished heating as something which should be given high priority. I agree with the noble Baroness that it is a most appalling thing that old people should die from hypothermia because they have not been given proper heating allowances. But would it not be just as bad if old people were to die because they could not afford the proper diet, which is allowed for in the supplementary benefit rates but taken away with the other hand? It is quite true, as the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, said, that the old people who are victimised by this policy simply cannot understand it. They know that a total amount has been given to them which is inadequate for their needs and that they are not going to benefit, in distinction from what the Minister said in another place, from the Bill now going through this House, apart, of course, from the basic increases in pension, which, as I say, are not relevant in this context.
I hope the Minister will think again on this matter, because if he does not enormous suffering will be created for a small number of people, and, as was pointed out in another place, we shall save a mere £6 million. The Government can give away £15 million to help owner-occupiers by subsidising interest
910
rates for three months, and this to a group of people who, by definition, are better off than those on social security, who could not possibly afford to buy their own houses. If they can give away £15 million to people buying their own houses, they can surely afford £6 million to take account of the dietary and laundry needs of this most deprived section of the community, and they must do this if they really believe in the Tory policy of helping those most in need.
7.4 p.m.
BARONESS MASHAM of ILTON: I welcome the extra allowance for heating, but, unfortunately, in some cases this is not nearly enough to cover the rise in costs. To-day, concerning this Amendment, we are not speaking of disabled people who want incentives to work and a much needed tax relief to offset the extra expenses which all disabled people incur. Your Lordships are considering a totally different group. They are people without drive and the needed energy to compete in life. They are people with exceptional expenses. They are just trying to survive in an increasingly expensive and complicated society. They are not treated in the civil and courteous way in which the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, deals with us; they are hounded before tribunals and told to go to bed early if they are spending too much money on lighting.
In this Amendment the noble Lords who are supporting it are asking Her Majesty's Government to treat the extra expenses of special diet, and laundry and laundrette expenses, in the same way as heating. I have watched people who are continually returning to hospital for treatment, and it is evident that most of them come from the lower income groups. I am sure that diet has a great deal to do with it, and in some cases a special diet is vital to their lives. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, because he has an elegant figure, will not know personally the extra expense of high protein foods. I do. My noble kinsman has a weight problem and must not eat the cheaper foods such as pastas and sausage rolls. My housekeeping bills are therefore very high. Instead of deducting this mere 50p or 75p in cases of the over eighties, it seems to me that even if the amount granted was £5, it would be common sense and economically worth while to

911
grant it, as the most expensive result of all is to have these people in hospital. The same goes in regard to laundry. Most of your Lordships will agree with me that sending clothes to the laundry these days is a sure way of halving the life of the clothes and therefore incurring yet another extra expense. These unfortunate people who are incontinent feel very embarrassed sometimes when they have to plead with their social services for special laundry allowances.
I should like to ask the Minister what the cost of administering this scheme would be. Would it not be nearly as cheap to let them keep the 50p or 75p? This would benefit the people who need it so much and would leave the hard worked Civil Service to get on with more important jobs. I believe that the Government were expecting more people to take up the constant attendance allowance than did so; therefore there must be some spare money around. The Government to-day have shown, by giving young people two duplicated employment services, under the Employment and Training Bill, how flexible they can be. I sincerely hope that Lord Aberdare will show also how flexible his Ministry can be. I do not know how your Lordships can have the heart to vote against this Amendment to-night.
LORD MAYBRAY-KING: In briefly supporting this Amendment, which has been so ably spoken to, I would begin by taking the opportunity of congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, on his patience, his skill and his humanity in piloting two major Bills through the House during this Session. I speak in this debate as one who is closely associated with the Disabled Drivers' Association, and indeed with the Disabled Income Group, and am conscious of the fact that we are living in a time when we are becoming more and more aware of the special needs of the various kinds of chronically sick and disabled. This Bill, the very Schedule we are talking about, takes care entirely —perhaps not adequately according to Lady Masham—of the heating problems of the old people by isolating that special provision from the cut-back which is made in an earlier part of the Schedule. What this Amendment seeks to do is to realise in the Schedule what is realised
912
at present in administration: the needs of certain kinds of sick people for special expensive diet, the needs of certain kinds of sufferers for extra special laundry expenses. If these are provided, they are to be cut back under the arrangements made in the Schedule. This Amendment, if accepted, would allow these two special kinds of expenditure, which mean so much to so many special people, to be disregarded in the Schedule, as we disregard whatever special extra provision we make for heat. I sincerely hope that the noble Lord will accept this Amendment. It can cost very little, but it can mean a lot to a number of very unfortunate people.
LORD PLATT: I do not want to take up the time of the Committee unduly, and I will try to confine myself to one or two points which perhaps have not been adequately covered by other speakers in this debate. At the Second Reading I suggested to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, that we might have to come to this Schedule at the Committee stage and deal with the off-set which is being made against allowances for exceptional circumstances. The noble Lord, with his usual wisdom and logic, said, "Well, of course, the supplementary benefit is given partly to pay for a person's food and, for that matter, his washing"—I will not say "his laundry", because he does not necessarily have to go to the laundry. He then said, "Therefore, is not it reasonable, if you are then to give him the cost of the special diet which he has to live on, that a little should be taken away from the basic supplementary allowance which had been given to him to include the ordinary needs of food?"
This very reasonable argument seems to me to have three rather major flaws to it. The first is the question of how these special allowances are calculated. I know in one case that the cost of a special diet was estimated, not by the pensioner but by the hospital dietitian, as £3·50. The pensioner was given £2·50. Either this was a bit of meanness or it was a perfectly logical exercise, in that he was probably already spending £1 in any case, and if the cost was going up to £3·50 the difference was £2·50. In other words, an off-set was already made when he was given that allowance. The Bill, as it stands, will now say that

913
another off-set has to be made for exactly the same purpose. This seems to me to bring illogic into what at first seemed to me to be a perfectly logical argument.
The second major objection is the very bad effect on morale— and, may I say, to the Party at present in power, and therefore in votes. Because the ordinary person, especially the elderly, just cannot understand these regulations. He says, "You are giving me 90p for this, and then you are taking 50p away. I don't understand it." Even the ordinary "Peer in the street", as I call him, will find it almost impossible to understand this particular piece of legislation. It really has a devastating effect on the morale of the pensioner. The third objection is that it has a very bad effect on the people who have to administer this kind of thing. They may understand it and think that it is all perfectly fair and logical, but to the ordinary recipient you are giving with one hand and taking away with the other. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to assure us that the Government are going to have a new look at this matter and see whether the whole thing cannot be done in a better way.
7.14 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: I want to say just a few words in support of the Amendment that has been moved. I shall be talking mostly to some parts of the second Amendment, but as the Amendments are being taken together I do not think that that matters very much. Everything should be done, particularly in the case of old people, to ensure that those who are incontinent can get their laundry washed by all possible means. To take that service away seems to me very wrong. People will be quite content —their families will, and their friends will —to do the washing if it can be done in some kind of economical way. What really upsets people, lowers their morale and gets them down, is to be confronted by a large amount of filthy or foul laundry and have no means of washing it, because what money there might be to help them in that washing is not now going to be given them. I should very much like to support the Amendment mainly from that point of view, but the same thing applies to special diets. There are people who need a rather more expensive diet than some of their young contemporaries, and I am quite certain
914
that nothing should be done to prevent them from having it. If they do not get their proper diet, if they do not get their laundry done properly, they are going to be moved for a long-stay either in hospital or in a local authority home. Not only is that going to be expensive, but it is against more modern ideas for the care of old people. I strongly support the Amendment before us.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: I shall take just about one minute. I had the privilege of serving in the Ministry of Social Security when the Minister was Miss Herbison, and we were the first to introduce a grant for hypothermia. I know the difficulties involved in these cases. Nobody could be a kindlier person than the noble Lord speaking from the opposite Bench about social security. The great problem that a Government must ultimately solve is the battle between the Cabinet and the Treasury over the money side of this question. Here is a relatively paltry sum compared to other sums which are being paid out, such as the subsidy given for houses. During my period in office I saw this battle myself of the Minister against the power of the Treasury. When I use the word "illiterate" I do not mean unwise—people can be illiterate and be very wise—but it is hard for people who are illiterate and not accustomed to these tribunals to make appeals about things like incontinence and other sorts of disabilities, and for surgical belts or boots.
I had 26 or 27 years' experience as a Member of the other place, and everyone, on both sides of the House, had to deal with many constituency problems and knew the problems that had to be met. I appeal to the Minister—I do not want to repeat arguments that have been given —and I appeal to the Government to look at this matter again. Some power must be taken from the Treasury over the relativity of amounts. The small amount that would be given here for the comfort and succour of the disabled is hardly measurable compared with the money given out to big firms and those "lame ducks" who now have golden crutches.
BARONESS ELLES: I apologise for being late and not hearing the first part of the discussion on this Amendment. It is an Amendment about which I feel very

915
strongly, so may I be allowed to contribute one or two words to this discussion. The people we are dealing with—and I think that this is the crux of the matter —are people who never have any hope of improving in health. They are people who will never benefit from the age of affluence in which we are living; they are people who will never have a large percentage rise in their wages, and they will depend entirely on the paltry sums that the Government are prepared to give them in order to have minimum comfort.
My right honourable friend in the other place and my noble friend in this House are well-known for their compassion and understanding of these problems, and it is in no way a criticism of them that I wish to make this plea. I realise that it will cost the Government a little money, but what is £9 million a year if it will make over 300,000 people live in a greater degree of comfort than they otherwise would? It is absolutely incomprehensible that we can allow extra money for hypothermia cases so that they will be warm, when they will be warm sitting between wet sheets. This seems to me quite illogical, and I would therefore plead with the Government, although I realise that it is difficult, to look at this point again to see whether 50p a week can be given—it is not even 50p a day that we are asking for—to enable people to have the minimum comforts which nobody would allow a dog to be without. Even if someone is over 80, it will come to only 75p. So it would be a gesture on the part of the Government to recognise that we should show compassion to those most in need, and we should support this Amendment.
LORD ABERDARE: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, for saying some nice things about me at the beginning of his speech. One of the nice things that I have had the privilege of doing over the last few years is to introduce this annual uprating Bill, and I think we can be proud of the fact that we are the first Government to introduce an annual review of pensions and other social security benefits. It has always been a pleasant Bill to introduce because, being an uprating Bill, never before have there been any dissentient voices; and it is a little astonishing that, in a Bill which is designed to give everybody more, we
916
should now be criticised for not having gone quite far enough. As noble Lords everywhere have acknowledged, we have —and I hope I shall make this clear in my remarks—made great improvements in the payment of the so-called heating allowance, which is a definite improvement and a move forward. But one learns by experience from speaking on social security matters in this House that if one gives a penny one is asked for a pound.
In this Bill the long-term scale rates contain amounts of 50p, or 75p for the over eighties, which correspond to the former long-term addition, which are specifically intended, like the long-term addition always was and is, to take the first strain of special expenses in long-term cases. In other words, special expenses up to 50p or 75p a week in longterm cases are already provided for in the scale rates, and an exceptional circumstances addition is appropriate only to the extent that such expenses exceed 50p or 75p. The justification for this is the same as it was in relation to the long-term addition: the fact that many long-term beneficiaries will have special expenses which should, up to a point, be provided for automatically without the need for detailed inquiries. This was the original reason for the longterm addition which was introduced in 1966 by the Government of noble Lords opposite. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, who, having spoken so violently, has now left us—
BARONESS SEEAR: He is coming back.
LORD ABERDARE: —was quite wrong about the origins of the purpose of the long-term addition. It was not just to meet small expenses. If I may quote what the Minister said in the Second Reading debate on that occasion:
"The purpose of this long-term addition is a simple one. It is to remove in these cases the need to inquire into the small day-to-day expenses for which the bulk of the discretionary allowances are now made."
In those days, every extra allowance had to be gone into in every individual case. Instead of that, the long-term addition was made available—and all credit to the Government for doing so—in order to avoid the need for going into all these details.

917
In strict principle, this should apply to all special expenses irrespective of their nature, but in practice the Bill provides three exceptions. Two of these, relating to rent additions for non-householders and children's special expenses, merely put into statutory form what the Supplementary Benefits Commission have always for good reason done on a discretionary basis. The third exception relates to additions for special heating expenses. This is a new provision and it is being introduced because we attach priority to the heating needs of the old and the longterm sick who are on supplementary benefit. We have frequently made clear our concern about this problem, and we have now taken positive action by improving the supplementary benefit provision for heating before next winter begins.
We have therefore decided to provide for heating additions to be paid in full on top of the long-term scale rate, instead of being offset against the long-term addition. This is a change which has been advocated by many people, including the Child Poverty Action Group and Age Concern. We cannot make any firm estimates on the matter, but we think that over 400,000 supplementary beneficiaries will receive more for heating as a result. There will be those with extra heating needs who now get no addition because their extra expenses are being covered by the long-term addition, and those who now receive a reduced heating addition because their extra expenses are partially covered. All will get heating additions in full and the estimated cost is something like £6 million a year, though in practice it will cost whatever is needed to implement this proposal. So heating expenses are being treated differently in relation to offsetting against the long-term scale rate, simply and solely as a matter of priorities.
We consider that the change made by the Bill is a simple and understandable way of giving extra help to people with heating needs. We do not accept that the change invalidates the general principle of a long-term addition intended to meet automatically special expenses up to 50p of 75p. -Consequently, it does not follow that, because heating expenses are now exempted from offsetting, all special expenses should be so exempted. Diet and laundry expenses up to 50p or 75p,
918
along with other special expenses on such things as home helps and abnormal wear and tear of clothing, are provided for by the special expenses element in the longterm scale rates and, where necessary, by an exceptional circumstances addition where the expense exceeds that amount.
It is true that a proper diet can sometimes be as vitally important to a person's health and welfare as adequate warmth, or, to put it another way, that a given state of ill-health can produce both heating and dietary needs. On the basis of medical advice, the Supplementary Benefits Commission currently allow, subject to offsetting against the long-term addition, 92p where a person is suffering from a number of specified conditions such as diebetes and peptic ulcer, and 40p where a special diet is needed in other cases; for example, during convalescence following a major illness or operation. By no means all the circumstances in which diet additions are given are really "life or death" situations, and certainly this is not at all true of laundry additions. Most frequently it is a question of a chronic but not necessarily serious condition requiring extra nourishment. Where it is claimed that hardship exists, the Supplementary Benefits Commission are prepared to look into any case to see whether more help can be given under their discretionary powers: for example, by increasing the amount of the exceptional circumstances addition. For example, where it appears that a particularly expensive diet must be followed—for instance, in a case of kidney failure—the Supplementary Benefits Commission are prepared, on medical advice, to pay the actual cost, however high this may be. It is certainly not true, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Platt, suggested, that additions for special diets already made would be reduced by the Bill. The Bill will make no change in those allowances.
Given that the long-term scale rate will provide for special expenses up to 50p or 75p and that the Supplementary Benefits Commission's flexible discretionary powers are available to give help above this level, we consider that the present provision for special needs other than heating is adequate. We do not think it right to accord all special expenses the same priority as heating by providing for such additions also to be paid in full on top of the long-term scale

919
rate. But the Supplementary Benefits Commission will always consider increasing benefit in individual cases, and the Commission will also keep under review the general levels of special additions for diet and the criteria on which they are given. We do know the number of people who at present have some special needs but whose needs are covered by the longterm addition, and who therefore have no exceptional circumstances addition to their benefit. It is consequently not possible to say accurately what the cost of the Amendment would be, but our estimate is that it would be not less than £15 million a year. Now the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, I think considers this to be a paltry sum.
LORD AVEBURY: if the noble Lord will forgive my interrupting, I am looking at the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee stage in the Commons, and the Minister there, Mr. Dean, said that if we were to go beyond the £6 million or so that the improved heating arrangements involved and on to what was proposed by the Opposition, which is substantially the same as what we are proposing here, we would need about £12 million. I do not know whether my arithmetic is correct, but if you take £6 million from £12 million you get £6 million, and not £15 million.
LORD ABERDARE: The £6 million is the cost of the heating allowances which we are already giving, but if, in addition, we did away with any offsetting against the long-term addition of any other need, it would then cost an additional £15 million as far as we can estimate it. This is not a figure that it is easy to set definitely, but it certainly could well be in the region of £15 million. If the second Amendment, which covers only laundry and diet, were to be put into effect, then the figure would probably be nearer £10 million. But at a time when there are so many demands on resources, and having made an important concession in the sensitive area of heating, we do not feel justified in going further and treating all special expenses in the same way, when these can already be met from the long-term scale rate plus an exceptional circumstances addition where that is appropriate. I hope that your Lordships will
920
not agree to either of these two Amendments.
7.35 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I should like to thank the Minister for his reply. Of course, throughout the whole of this Bill he has on each Amendment told us that he sympathises. I was brought up on the old-fashioned idea that "fine words butter no parsnips". We appreciate the point that the long-term allowance is intended to cover these particular problems of diet and laundry. There seems to be no reason why a long-term allowance would not equally include heating; but even if we take into account all the arguments advanced—and, in the end, they are mainly monetary—we still come back to the fact that I can produce three sums here to show that in one case those concerned are getting only about 5p more and in another case they are not getting any more. If this Bill is to give everyone who is concerned with it a little uprating then it must apply equally to the people who are on supplementary benefit. This is my plea. If the pensioner is to get an extra £1, then it is equally true that these people must be uprated as well. But under this system, by the calculations we have made—there are only five or six cases, and they are not selected—in some cases these people will get only lop more and in others they will not get anything.
I feel that the Minister has not made out a case. He may say that every time he gives us one thing we ask for a little more. This is true, but this is an exceptional group. I pleaded, heaven knows!, for the pensioners, and I pleaded for the widows. But this is a group which is far worse off than any other group that we have pleaded for in your Lordships' House. I am fascinated by the figures which the noble Lord produced. I am always fascinated by the way Departments produce figures. We had quoted to us the figure for illegal immigrants. We did not know where they were, even; but they could tell us that they numbered something like 19,000. We were told how many widows could be affected by the abolition of the cohabitation rule, which conjures up wonderful ideas of how they are assessed. We are now told of this figure; but we do not know that every one of these people will take this amount up in total. This figure must be based

921
on the assumption that everyone will take it up; and even if they did—and I have talked to a lot of people about this—this is the one group in the community for which most people would be happy to pay a higher contribution. In the end, as I said the other day, where does the money come from? It does not come from the Government; it comes from the people —and I believe that this is one group that the people would be happy to see assisted. I know that the battalions are gathering outside. I am not going to be put in the same category as my noble friend Lord Shepherd, and be accused of moaning and groaning. Those outside have not heard the force of these arguments, and I feel it would be to some measure against their conscience if they were to oppose these Amendments.
BARONESS BROOKE OF YSTRADFELLTE: I had no intention to speak to this particular point, and I apologise for the fact that I have not heard all the argument, but the argument I have heard from both sides of the Committee has made me rise to my feet.
7.47 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I beg to move Amendment No. 2.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 42, at end insert—
922
For over 35 years I have worked very closely with the domiciliary service of the Queen's Institute of District Nursing, and I know exactly how much is known of the individual cases that need specific and special help. In spite of that, I like to think that perhaps in your Lordships' House I have not got a reputation for being a hard-faced, inhuman individual. I have great sympathy with the point of view that has been put forward by my noble friend to-night. I think that those people who are going to need the most help are going to get it. I think that it is not going to be available to everyone, and I think that is right; but if the domiciliary services, of which I happen to have very special knowledge, are going to report those cases that need help, I am perfectly happy to support my noble friend by not going into the Lobby on behalf of this Amendment.
7.38 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 29; Not-Contents, 34.
("(d) special diet expenses incurred through illness,
(e) laundry and laudrette expenses incurred through illness, or incontinence, disability or infirmity or lack of facilities.")—(Baroness Phillips.)

CONTENTS

Amulree, L.

Hanworth, V.

Platt, L.

Archibald, L.

Henderson, L.

St. Davids, V.

Avebury, L. [Teller.]

Jacques, L.

Seear, B.

Beswick, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Serota, B.

Davies of Leek, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Shackleton, L.

Elles, B.

Loudoun, C.

Somers, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Swinton, E.

Garnsworthy, L.

Maybray-King, L.

Wise, L.

George-Brown, L.

Monson, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Phillips, B. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Davidson, V.

Saint Oswald, L.

Auckland, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Sandford, L.

Balfour, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Selkirk, E.

Berkeley, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Ferrers, E.

Sudeley, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Terrington L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Gowrie, E.

Teviot, L.

Carrington, L.

Monck, V.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Coville of Culross, V.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Windlesham, L. [L. Privy Seal.]

Conesford, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Young, B.

Craigavon, V.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

On Question whether the said Amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 32; Not-Contents, 31.

CONTENTS

Amulree, L.

Hanworth, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Archibald, L.

Henderson, L.

St. Davids, V.

Auckland, L.

Jacques, L.

St. Just, L.

Avebury, L. [Teller.]

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Seear, B.

Beswick, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Serota, B.

Davies of Leek, L.

Loudoun, C.

Shackleton, L.

Elles, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Somers, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Maybray-King, L.

Swinton, E.

Garnsworthy, L.

Monson, L.

Wise, L.

George-Brown, L.

Phillips, B. [Teller.]

Wynne-Jones, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Platt, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Saint Oswald, L.

Balfour, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Sandford, L.

Berkeley, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Selkirk, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Ferrers, E.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Sudeley, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Gowrie, E.

Terrington, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Monck, V.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Conesford, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Windlesham, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Craigavon, V.

Mowbray of Stourton, L.

Young, B.

Davidson, V.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
House resumed: Bill reported, with the Amendment.

GLASGOW CORPORATION (PARKS, ETC.) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.
DEE AND CLWYD RIVER AUTHORITY BILL
The Queen's consent signified, and Bill reported, with Amendments.

TRENT RIVER AUTHORITY BILL
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition
924
to the Bill was withdrawn: the Order made on June 5 last discharged, and Bill committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

  AFFIRMATIONS IN COURT PROCEEDINGS
  AFFIRMATIONS IN COURT PROCEEDINGS