Sitting of 19 July 1973

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

DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF
The Vice-Chamberlain of the Household The Vice-Chamberlain of the Household reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Addresses, as follows:
I have received your Addresses praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Denmark) Order 1973, the Double Taxation Relief (Corporation Tax) (Republic of Ireland) Order 1973, the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Cyprus) Order 1973, the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Finland) Order 1973, the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on income) (France) Order 1973 and the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Jamaica) Order 1973 and the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on income) (Malaysia) Order 1973 be made in the form of the drafts laid before your House.
I will comply with your request.

NEW WRIT (BERWICK UPON TWEED)
Mr. Taverne:Mr. Taverne: I beg to move,
That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for Berwick upon Tweed in the room of Antony Claud Frederick Lambton, Esquire, who since his election for the said Constituency hath accepted the Office of Steward or Bailiff of Her Majesty's Three Chiltern Hundreds of Stoke, Desborough and Burnham in the County of Buckingham.
Hon. Members: Object.
Mr. Speaker: Objection is taken. The motion will stand over until the time for matters of privilege to be considered.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

  ZETLAND COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
  Ordered,
  That the Promoters of the Zetland County Council Bill shall have leave to suspend Proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further Proceedings and that all fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid.
  That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House.
  That there shall be deposited with the Bill a Declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill presented to this House in the present Session.
  That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and shall be committed to the Chairman of Ways and Means, who shall make only such Amendments thereto as have been made by the Committee in the present Session, and shall report the Bill, as amended, to the House, forthwith, and the Bill, so amended, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table.
  That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any Proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session.
  That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Political Parties (Talks)
    1. Mr. Douglasasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his meetings with political parties in Northern Ireland since 28th June 1973.
    Mr. McMasterasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress he has made in his talks with the leaders of the parties in the Northern Ireland Assembly towards the setting up of an Executive; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. William Whitelaw): I am having a series of talks with the leaders of the parties represented in the Northern Ireland Assembly. I have arranged with them that the first meeting of the Assembly will be in the Central Hall at Stormont on Tuesday 31st July.
    Mr. Douglas: I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. Did he assure the party leaders that there is a distinct resolution on the part of the British people to maintain troops in Northern Ireland so long as there is civil unrest there? Is he aware that this resolution does not extend to allowing political leaders in Northern Ireland to exceed the framework of the White Paper, and that the British people will expect political leaders in Northern Ireland to bring forth proposals for the resolution of the political situation within the framework of the White Paper and the Act that was recently passed?
    Mr. Whitelaw: First, it is important for me to say that many of my talks with the party leaders are naturally confidential and must remain so. Hon. Members know very well that I have made the views of this House and of Her Majesty's Government abundantly clear to all concerned.
    Mr. McMaster: In view of the great importance of making the Assembly work, will my right hon. Friend take particular care not to undermine the Unionist Party, in case he is left with no reasonable
    684
    authority in Northern Ireland with which to negotiate?
    Mr. Whitelaw: My answer to my hon. Friend is that it is not part of my business to do anything about the individual parties in Northern Ireland. I am dealing with the party leaders. I shall do my best to put the problems before them, and discuss them with them, and trust that they will get together to make the new constitution work.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: Is the Secretary of State aware that our support from the Opposition side for the White Paper approach is as firm as ever and that it is far too early to talk of failure, but that we are anxious to see a more positive response concerning power-sharing by those groups in Northern Ireland which value their connection with the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman has said about the support that he and his right hon. and hon. Friends have given, and their feelings. I accept that.
    I should make it clear that the talks I have had are necessarily in advance of the first meeting of the Assembly, as a preliminary stage. It would be quite wrong for anyone to conclude that there was any question of their failure in any way. We have had constructive discussions and have put forward different points of view. That is the first stage and I think it is very important.
    Mr. Stratton Mills: Is it intended to bring together the leaders of the various parties prior to the meeting of the Assembly to sort out a method of making the Executive work?
    Mr. Whitelaw: So far I have had individual discussions with the leaders of the parties. How I proceed from there must be a matter of judgment which I am sure the House would wish to leave to me.
    Mr. Kilfedder: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that I appreciate, as we all do, the hard work that he has put into seeing party representatives about arrangements for the first Assembly meeting. Does he not also realise that there is regret that he has not yet agreed to meet the spokesman for the 10 Unionists who have been excluded by Mr.

    685
    Faulkner from the Unionist Assembly Party? Will he arrange to meet their spokesman while this group is temporarily and wrongly excluded from the Unionist Party in the Assembly so that they can have something to say in the arrangements for the Assembly and make a contribution to its first meeting, bearing in mind that the group represents one-eighth of the total membership of the Assembly?
    Mr. Whitelaw: The person whom I am recommending to Her Majesty the Queen as the Clerk to the Assembly has had informal discussions about the arrangements for the working of the Assembly. Immediately his appointment is made—which I trust will be early next week—he will be in a formal position to make arrangements with all members of the Assembly for the first meeting. Thereafter, the arrangements for the Assembly are a matter for the Assembly itself. He is having informal discussions with any member of the Assembly who wishes to put points of view to him on that matter.
    I must point out to my hon. Friend that I have very properly seen the leaders of the parties represented in the Northern Ireland Assembly and any delegations that they have seen fit to bring with them to see me. [HON. MEMBERS: "Your hon. Friend?"] I understand that the hon. Gentleman is a member of the Unionist Party in this House, and that is why I refer to him as my hon. Friend.
    The leader of the Ulster Unionist Party in Northern Ireland is Mr. Faulkner. I have seen the delegation led by Mr. Faulkner and I believe that is my correct constitutional position.

    Sheep Exports (Republic of Ireland)
    Mr. Farrasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what have been the exports of live sheep from Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland in the 12 months to the latest available date and in the preceding 12-month period.
    The Minister of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. David Howell): In the 12 months ending 31st May this year, more than 178,000 live sheep were exported from Northern Ireland to the Republic. This compares with just under 125,000 in the previous 12-month period.
    Mr. Farr: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the figures he has given. Has this trade finished now that the United Kingdom has banned live sheep exports? Furthermore, is there any evidence of sheep smuggling across the border?
    Mr. Howell: The trade continues. The ban on live animal exports in Northern Ireland certainly would apply to any cattle or sheep direct for the Continent, although that is a small amount. It is considered impractical to restrict free movement of sheep and cattle from Northern Ireland to the Irish Republic. The main aim is to slaughter as much as possible within Northern Ireland, but movement continues and is unrestricted.

    Agricultural Expansion
    Mr. Charles Morrisonasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about agricultural expansion in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. David Howell: The pattern of Northern Ireland agriculture over many years has been one of steadily rising volume of production from a falling labour force. Production in 1971–72, the latest year for which figures are available, was 16 per cent. higher than five years earlier.
    Mr. Morrison: My hon. Friend has painted a very attractive picture, but in view of the beef shortage can he say what the rate of expansion in beef production is in Northern Ireland? Can he also say what hope he has for increasing the production of store cattle in Northern Ireland for fattening in England?
    Mr. Howell: In 1967 the figures for beef cows were 181,000, and in 1972 they were 285,000. Considerable programmes are now in operation in Northern Ireland for encouraging expansion, and these programmes will also encourage expansion in the production of store cattle.
    Mr. McNamara: The figures given by the Minister have indicated the great extent of rural depopulation which has taken place in Northern Ireland—the increase in productivity against the number of people involved in the industry. Has he not a duty to the House and to the people of Northern Ireland to indicate what steps he and the Government are

    687
    taking to maintain the population in the rural areas by the provision of further employment opportunities?
    Mr. Howell: Of course there has been some rural depopulation. This is mainly a reflection of the changes in farm methods, higher productivity and the move into the towns. I recognise the need to maintain a lively rural life in Northern Ireland. In response to that we have a whole range of programmes to encourage employment on farms, agricultural schemes, the new Enterprise Ulster arrangements for employing school leavers in major outdoor schemes, and a variety of other programmes. I do not think there is any lack of attractive possibilities in the rural areas. The main need is to create jobs in some of the areas in the towns to which people from the rural areas have moved.

    Security
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement on the security situation since the Assembly elections.
    Mr. Whitelaw: There has been a steady improvement in the overall security situation. However, some serious incidents of violence continue to occur; these have involved tragic loss of life and injury both to civilians and to soldiers.
    Mr. Beggs-Davison: Is not the important fact about the Assembly elections the utter rejection by the Northern Ireland people of courses of violence, and is it not therefore an endorsement by the Northern Ireland people of an all-out effort now by the security forces to bring violence to an end as quickly as possible even if this means rigorous measures inconveniencing the public?
    Mr. Whitelaw: Yes, I believe that to be so. The only question I would raise with my hon. Friend is over the word "now", because I maintain that this action by the security forces has been continuing throughout all these months and will continue to occur as stringently as possible. There are times when action must be taken which causes inconvenience to people. Sometimes people are very happy to have the inconvenience mentioned in general but not so pleased when
    688
    the inconvenience happens to strike them in particular.
    Mr. Orme: Directly related to the issue of security, may I ask whether the Secretary of State has anything to say about the current hunger strike in Crumlin Road gaol of Mr. Michael Farrell and Mr. Tony Canavan who have been sentenced to eight months and five months respectively? I understand that they are pursuing status as political prisoners and that their condition is deteriorating. These men were sentenced for breaking the law —for organising a march, not for throwing bombs or creating terrorism. Cannot the right hon. Gentleman do something to move these men and meet their demands, which seem justifiable in the circumstances?
    Mr. Whitelaw: As the hon. Gentle. man, who has put the case very reasonably, rightly says, Mr. Farrell and Mr. Canavan were both found guilty on 25th May of behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace. Mr. Farrell was sentenced to eight months and Mr. Canavan to six months. They appealed and were granted bail. On 26th June their appeals were dismissed, and they were committed to prison. When they were committed to prison they at once applied for special category status, saying that they would go on hunger strike if it was refused to them. Their request was refused on 6th July, whereupon they went on hunger strike.
    The request of these men was turned down for the simple reason that they are serving sentences of less than nine months. Indeed, in all other cases of people—there have been a considerable number —who are serving less than nine months, requests for special category status have been turned down. If that change were made, at least another 100 persons serving in the Crumlin Road gaol would have to be considered for special category status. The prison medical officer naturally is giving daily reports on the condition of these two people and he reports that he is not unduly worried by their condition. They have asked to see the governor today and he will be seeing them. I shall hear a report about this meeting. I must make it clear, however, that people have been refused special category status in all cases where the sentence is less than nine months.
    Mr. McMaster: Will my right hon. Friend reduce the Army commitment wherever possible, particularly in quieter areas such as East Belfast, and replace it with the ordinary police—the Royal Ulster Constabulary—as quickly as possible?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I shall do everything possible, as is the Government's policy, to build up the strength, morale and position of the RUC, and—if one can succeed in that—thereby to be able to reduce the number of troops. However, certain incidents have occurred which leave me in great doubt whether I should be able to reduce the troops in the areas which my hon. Friend has suggested.
    Mrs. McAliskey: On the question of security, will not the right hon. Gentleman accept that, while he may say that eight months is too short a sentence, Mr. Michael Farrell, as the leader of the People's Democracy, in all his involvement in Northern Ireland—I do not say that he is by any means a privileged person, but he is nothing if he is not a political person—has been working for a political purpose? Furthermore, he has had a great deal of influence in the Belfast area where he works, especially among young people, in attempting to get them to work politically, as opposed to violently. Given Michael Farrell's support in a troubled area like Belfast, does not the Secretary of State agree that to refuse him his right as a political prisoner merely because of a sentence of eight months as opposed to nine months can lead to nothing but a worsening of the security situation, and, indeed, a worsening of Mr. Farrell's health? He is not the kind of person who will easily give up his demands.
    Mr. Whitelaw: I am sure the hon. Lady will appreciate that, although she suggests Mr. Farrell is not activated by political motives, he is asking for special category status as a political prisoner. Second, the hon. Lady must realise that if the request were granted on this sentence—I shall not comment on the length of sentence; that is a matter for the people who impose it—and if we changed that situation, another 100 people would be involved. We cannot differentiate between one and another.
    Mr. Kilfedder: Can my right hon. Friend say whether any persons are likely
    690
    to be arrested and charged in Northern Ireland or Great Britain in connection with the recent illegal importation of arms into Dublin for use in Northern Ireland by the IRA? Will they be charged with their treasonable activity? Has not the IRA claimed that it has successfully imported arms into the Irish Republic and conveyed them across the border? Will my right hon. Friend make a statement about that?
    Mr. Whitelaw: The best answer I can give on efforts to arrest people who have been doing these things is to make no statement at all.
    Mr. Stallard: The Secretary of State's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) was unsatisfactory. Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that the offence does not matter too much but that what matters is the length of the sentence in relation to political status? Is not this introducing something entirely new? If these people were sentenced for a political offence, I should have thought that they were political prisoners. If the right hon. Gentleman is saying that it goes not by the offence but by the length of the sentence, that is something about which we should all be concerned in this House. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is deep concern about the rapidly deteriorating, critical condition of both these men currently on hunger strike in Crumlin Road gaol?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I understand the position. I was only pointing out the implications of any change in the situation, which are that there are 100 other people in exactly the same circumstances who would have to be considered if such a change were made. That is a point I must make to the House because it is extremely important. Until now, in the present circumstances the rule has been that people with less than that length of sentence have not been granted special category status. That has applied to people from all sides who have been sentenced. However, I shall look carefully at the full implications of this situation.
    Mr. Stratton Mills: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are many people, myself included, who feel that the original creation of the category of

    691
    political prisoner was a mistake? Therefore, will he resist every effort to extend that category?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I note what my hon. Friend has said, and I shall carefully consider this difficult situation.

    Assembly Elections (Postal Votes)
    Mr. David Jamesasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage proportion of the total votes cast in the recent Assembly elections was postal votes.
    The Minister of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. William van Straubenzee): 15·5 per cent.
    Mr. James: Is not that figure eloquent testimony to the extraordinary care and skill exercised by the electoral officers in making certain that the election was absolutely and patently fair?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: Yes, it is. It is encouraging also that only about 1 per cent. of the postal ballots received for the Assembly election were rejected.
    Mr. Kilfedder: Does the action of the chief electoral officer in deleting "OHMS" from official electoral communications represent considered Government policy, and is this a further slip in the direction of getting rid of Royal symbols in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: No, Sir; my hon. Friend is making a mountain out of a molehill. OHMS envelopes were never used in the past for this purpose. All that happened was that a certain stock of envelopes was used, and it was quite inappropriate for "OHMS" to appear on them for this purpose.

    Mass Media
    Mr. Sydney Chapmanasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he is satisfied with his Department's relations with the mass media.
    Mr. David Howell: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Chapman: Is my hon. Friend aware of the deep anxiety felt by many people in this country when they read a front page article in a national newspaper suggesting that our troops were not being issued with the safest form of personal armoured vests? As this story
    692
    was completely unfounded, will my hon. Friend agree that either liaison between his Department and the mass media needs improving or the Daily Mirror was not acting with its usual objectivity and fairness?
    Mr. Howell: I know that there was concern about that article, but the question it raises is for my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.
    Mr. Fitt: Though the Government may be satisfied with their relations with the mass media, is the hon. Gentleman aware that many reports have emanated from Army circles in Northern Ireland which have caused great disquiet among the population? In particular, a story that appeared in the Daily Mirror a fortnight ago cast a sad reflection and made a scurrilous attack on the women of the Ardoyne area. Has he taken any steps to ascertain where the report emanated from, and will he give an apology to the people living in that area for the scurrilous and vicious attack, which obviously emanated from Army public relations?
    Mr. Howell: As the hon. Member knows, Northern Ireland is a place where many reports emanate from many areas on many things. The question of what appears in a newspaper is not a matter for my right hon Friend or the Government. I think that the hon. Member will accept—I hope that the House will, too—that immense difficulties face reporters in Northern Ireland, and they do an excellent job in very difficult conditions. Aside from any particular case such as that raised by the hon. Member, that general point ought to be borne in mind.
    Mr. McMaster: Is my hon. Friend aware that the mass media have been used all too often as a willing and ready vehicle for Republican propaganda in Northern Ireland over the past three years? Will he take whatever steps are necessary to counter the Republican propaganda which has been carried by the mass media on every possible occasion?
    Mr. Howell: My hon. Friend expresses his view. I have expressed the view that can fairly be held about the work of the

    693
    Press and broadcasting. I think that it is a reasonable view to take.
    Mr. Paget: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether it was the ladies of this area who held down a young soldier when he was separated from his unit and murdered?
    Mr. Fitt: It was not.
    Mr. Howell: This is a matter for dispute with the newspapers and the report. I do not know the precise details.
    Mr. McNamara: The Minister of State will be aware of the constructive proposals put forward by the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications in the Republic on the need to exchange radio and television functions between the Six Counties and the 26 counties of the Republic. Granted that that is not the immediate concern of the hon. Gentleman's Department, it must nevertheless be of the utmost importance to him. Will he give an undertaking that he will, as far as possible, progress the development of the discussions so that a healthy interchange of information, in order to improve relations between the various parts of Ireland, will be carried forward?
    Mr. Howell: I am aware of these proposals, but, as the hon. Member will accept, it is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications. I shall see that the hon. Member's comments are brought to my right hon. Friend's attention.

    Royal Ulster Constabulary (Pay)
    Mr. Stratton Millsasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will now make a statement on increased pay for the Royal Ulster Constabulary during the present emergency.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: A claim by the Royal Ulster Constabulary Federation for a special allowance in recognition of the arduous nature of RUC duties in the present emergency in Northern Ireland was rejected by the Police Council. My hon. Friend will have noted that at a recent meeting with a deputation from the Police Council my right hon. Friend said that he was prepared to consider, after stage 2 of the Government's pay policy, any proposals put forward by the Police Council for special recognition of the par-
    694
    ticular circumstances in which the Royal Ulster Constabulary operates at present.
    Mr. Mills: Is my hon. Friend aware that the conditions under which the RUC operates and the dangers which its members face are in no way comparable with those of any other police force in the United Kingdom? It is grossly unfair that this has not been given some form of special recognition. Will my hon. Friend give more encouragement, therefore, than the words in the latter part of his answer which, if I understood him correctly, indicated that a further look may be taken at this matter in the autumn?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: I am as well aware as any other hon. Member of the special strains placed upon the Royal Ulster Constabulary as compared to other police forces in the United Kingdom. However, my hon. Friend will know better than most the similar strains that are imposed on members of the public services generally throughout Northern Ireland. It is not, regrettably, exclusively a matter for the police. I must not go beyond the words that I used in concluding, but it is important to remember that, if the Police Council puts forward proposals, they will be given careful consideration.
    Mr. Orme: Is the Minister aware that it is ridiculous to talk about phase 2 and phase 3 in an abnormal situation such as exists in Northern Ireland—
    Mr. Whitelaw: It is the law.
    Mr. Orme: We believe it is a bad law anyway, and it is a much worse law applied in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: It must be right throughout Northern Ireland that we follow the same legal requirements as in the rest of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Will my hon. Friend convey the gratitude widely felt in this House to Sir Graham Shillington and our good wishes to Mr. Flanaghan?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: I will most certainly do the first, but my hon. Friend will wish—he wishes always to be accurate—to recall that the appointment of a new chief constable rests in the hands of the Police Authority, subject to the approval of my right hon. Friend, and

    695
    that it has announced publicly that it will advertise the appointment.
    Mr. Deedes: Is there not a slight inconsistency in the policy which permits Northern Ireland to continue exports of live cattle to the Republic but by which phase 2 precludes an extra allowance for the RUC?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: I am not sure that the first follows on from the second.
    Mr. Kilfedder: Can my hon. Friend give an assurance that no action will be taken to restructure the RUC or to diminish further its morale and standing in the community? Is he aware that some people in Northern Ireland feel that the reasons given by Sir Graham Shillington for his resignation are not the full reasons?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: If that is my hon. Friend's view—because he has given credence to it—he is not accepting a statement made personally by the Chief Constable.

    Investment Grants
    Mr. Adam Butlerasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what have been the sums paid in investment or equivalent grants, excluding amounts in compensation, to companies for new development in Northern Ireland in the last available 12-month period and the two previous periods.
    Mr. David Howell: Grants totalling £32·3 million were paid under the main schemes in the year ending 31st March 1973. The figures for the years ending 31st March 1971 and 31st March 1972 were £37 million and £32·4 million respectively.
    Mr. Butler: Those are interesting figures. Do they not seem to suggest a continuing faith by industrialists in the eventual success of my right hon. Friend's policy? Can my hon. Friend say specifically how much of this investment is on behalf of foreign investors and what has been the net reduction in unemployment as a result of this investment?
    Mr. Howell: To put it in terms of jobs created rather than net reduction in unemployment, up to the end of March 1973 7,012 new jobs in manufacturing were created, which was more than in
    696
    the previous two years. In the first six months of this year 4,670 new jobs were created. There has been a marked reduction in unemployment over the past two years and I think that the current level is the lowest since 1966. This is encouraging. As my hon. Friend says, these figures indicate a continuing determination of outside investors and those already there to invest in Northern Ireland and to demonstrate the reality of the words that "Ulster is still very much in business".

    Livestock Smuggling
    Mr. David Clarkasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his estimate of the cost to EEC funds arising from the smuggling of livestock between Northern Ireland and Eire.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: It is not possible to provide an estimate since the amount of levy is based on the live weights of animals which, given the clandestine nature of the problem, cannot be determined.
    Mr. Clark: Will the Minister confirm that the Northern Ireland Pig Marketing Board has been losing 12,000 pigs a week in recent months—one presumes across the border? Will he look into this? By my reckoning, it represents about £1 million lost annually in levies to the EEC farming community.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: I can confirm that discussions are taking place at official level, but the hon. Gentleman will no doubt know that producer pig prices on both sides of the border are currently similar and, therefore, there is little or no incentive for smuggling at present.
    Mr. John Wells: Is my hon. Friend aware that the control of this disgraceful trade would go a long way to stopping many of the complaints about cruelty through the export of animals?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: I will take note of my hon. Friend's comments. He will, I hope, have noticed that discussions are taking place between officials of both sides in an endeavour to stamp out, or at least reduce, this practice.
    Mr. Kilfedder: Will my hon. Friend take steps to notify the Common Market Commission of the misuse of EEC funds

    697
    by the Republic of Eire, which appears to take no effective action against the smuggling of pigs into the Irish Republic? This smuggling increases the price of bacon and pork in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: In so far as there is responsibility about smuggling, we must both take responsibility. My hon. Friend will know, however, that the border is such that I could smuggle him quite easily, let alone a pig.
    Mr. Maginnis: May I ask my hon. Friend what steps his Department is taking to make the difference between pig prices in the North and South much less than at present, and in this way eliminate the smuggling altogether?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: That is the serious point—that prices at present are in fact such that there is very little incentive to smuggle pigs.

    Royal Military Police
    Mr. Merlyn Reesasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the extra personnel of the Royal Military Police now in Northern Ireland work under the operational control of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
    Mr. Whitelaw: Those members of the Royal Military Police in Northern Ireland whose duties are directly in support of the RUC operate under the control of the Chief Constable, by whom their tasks are laid down.
    Mr. Rees: In that case, why was there the upset recently in the RUC? Was there a breakdown in communication? Secondly, irrespective of the future structure of the RUC, what steps are being taken to increase the number of civilian detectives in the force?
    Mr. Whitelaw: As to the reasons why there were these rumours and speculation, all I can say is that they were entirely unfounded, that they were quite wrong and that people should cease to play on the fears of a very distinguished number of people who are doing their best to serve their country in the Royal Ulster Constabulary. There are people who seek to play on these fears for some political reason which I believe to be wholly unjustified and wrong. I should like to make it perfectly clear that the Royal Ulster Constabulary will be
    698
    strengthened and increased to the maximum extent by the Government. The military police are there to help, in support, in the present security situation.
    As for the recruitment of further civilian detectives, we shall do everything we can to build up the status, the strength and the prestige of the Royal Ulster Constabulary in every way possible.
    Mr. Stratton Mills: Will my right hon. Friend inform the House of the present size of the RUC detective branch, which under the present conditions is clearly operating under considerable pressure? Can my right hon. Friend give an estimate of the number required to cover this work load and the methods by which it will be strengthened?
    Mr. Whitelaw: It is very difficult to give estimates of exactly how many people would be required to cover particular loads of work. We shall do everything we can to build up these strengths as they are required. In the meantime, I know that the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the Chief Constable and his leaders are all very grateful for the help which they are being given by the Royal Military Police. If there has been a mistake or some trouble in communication when they were introduced, that is to be regretted. But their help is considerably appreciated.

    Ulster Freedom Fighters
    Mr. McNamaraasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement on the success of the Government's efforts to apprehend members of the Ulster Freedom Fighters.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: The security forces have had considerable success in arresting those involved in acts of terrorism, and a number of people believed to be members of this organisation have been apprehended.
    Mr. McNamara: I am most grateful to the Minister for his reply to that Question. Is he aware that considerable concern was expressed, in this country and in Ireland, over the report in the Sunday Telegraph with regard to the members of this organisation? The House will be pleased to know that considerable progress is being made to apprehend them as well as any other criminals in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: The hon. Gentleman will know from a letter that he had from my right hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend shared his concern. He will also recall that police inquiries, not only in Northern Ireland, are proceeding.
    Mr. Maginnis: Have the security forces discovered with which terrorist organisation the Ulster Freedom Fighters are associated?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: I would rather not speculate as to the background of organisations. I am saying simply that a number of those believed to be connected with it have been apprehended.
    Mr. Fitt: As the Minister has indicated, he now believes that some members of the UFF organisation have been arrested. Has any progress been made in connection with the brutal murder of Senator Paddy Wilson for which UFF members claimed full responsibility?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: The answer to that question is that very intensive police inquiries are continuing.
    Mr. McMaster: Is my hon. Friend aware that there would be no UFF or even UDA in Northern Ireland if it were not for the continued hard and violent IRA campaign pursued over the past three years? These other bodies have come into existence only recently and express the frustration of the average person in Northern Ireland about the continued violence without any effective steps being taken to curb it.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: I cannot believe that there are any circumstances that justify the particularly brutal and foul type of murder and other crimes which are claimed, at any rate by members of this organisation.

    Casualties
    Mr. Warrenasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give the total number of civilian and military casualties in Northern Ireland in the last three years.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: During the three-year period ending 30th June 1973, 816 people died in Northern Ireland as a result of civil disturbances. It is not possible to give an accurate figure for
    700
    the number of people injured during this period.
    Mr. Warren: With these tragic figures before us, does not my hon. Friend find a most welcome voice in that of President Erskine Childers who, on television in America last week, said that Irish Americans should stop sending money to Ireland for the purchase of arms and that the continued presence of British troops in Northern Ireland was absolutely necessary?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: Yes, Sir, I noted those statesmanlike remarks and I am sure that they were of great assistance. I am sure my hon. Friend will know that among the figures which I gave him about one-quarter were members of the IRA.
    Mr. Grylls: Is compensation being paid to the families of those who have been casualties of these events?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: There is another Question almost immediately on this matter, and I will answer that point when we reach it.
    Mr. Wilkinson: May I ask my hon. Friend to neglect no opportunity of informing the country that those who gave their lives and sustained injury in the security forces did not do so in vain but did so reasonably, in support of the British way of life, and that their sacrifice will be recognised as having been worthwhile by Her Majesty's Government and by the country as a whole?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: I am sure that the House applauds all those who seek to maintain law and order in part of the United Kingdom.

    RUC and UDR Fatalities (Compensation)
    Mr. Benyonasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give the most up-to-date figures available for compensation paid to relatives of members of the RUC and the UDR who have been killed in the current disturbances.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: Compensation paid up to 30th June under the criminal injuries legislation to relatives of members of the RUC and RUC Reserve who have been killed in the current disturbances is £117,934.
    Questions concerning the UDR are matters for my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence.
    Mr. Benyon: In view of the very difficult role undertaken by the RUC, can my hon. Friend say whether there are any other forms of assistance for personnel injured in the course of their duties and for their families?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: Yes, Sir. There is assistance under police pensions schemes, the Police Fund and so on. The figures that I have given to my hon. Friend refer only to those which have been paid at the date of his Question as distinct from those which have been awarded.

  DISCRIMINATION
  Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Departments of Employment. Education and Science and the Home Office in respect of the Government's methods of eliminating sex discrimination.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Hamilton: Does that answer mean that these three Ministers and the Prime Minister himself now agree that legislation is needed to deal with the problem? If so, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that a comprehensive Bill to deal with the problem will be introduced before the Equal Pay Act becomes effective, as that Act will prove ineffective if not accompanied by another measure dealing with equal opportunity, which is what the Anti-Discrimination Bill covers? Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that, had the Government not opposed this Bill when it was successively introduced by private Members on this side, it could have been—and should have been—passed before the end of this Session?
  The Prime Minister: The Government are committed to legislation but also to consultation before legislation, and both of these approaches were welcomed, as the hon. Gentleman knows, by the House of Commons Select Committee. I think that we have benefited from the Select Committee procedure having been pursued. The consultation not yet having taken place, clearly I cannot give the hon.
  702
  Gentleman the precise timing when a Bill could be introduced.
  Mrs. Monks: Will my right hon. Friend agree that sex discrimination is largely the result of natural prejudice and certain attitudes of mind, which are difficult to isolate and change, however desirable that may be, by Act of Parliament?
  The Prime Minister: I assure my hon. Friend that I have no such prejudices. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer acted in the Finance Acts of 1971 and 1972 to help to remove tax discrimination against women.
  Mrs. Renée Short: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Departments referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) are themselves guilty of considerable sex discrimination? Will he look at the current issue of the Department of Employment Gazette—at the back page where there is a small item about ending sex discrimination, and at the middle page where there is false information about the number of women admitted into Government training centres and about discrimination in rates of pay for women and men being trained—and see that that Department puts its own house in order forthwith?
  The Prime Minister: I could not accept the hon. Lady's accusations without investigation, but I am prepared to look at the matter she raises. Clearly, the way in which these matters are dealt with by Departments will be covered by the, consultation and legislation.
  Miss Joan Hall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, with the Equal Pay Act coming into force at the end of next year, other questions are being asked, one of which is whether the retirement age should be the same for men as for women? What are his views on that?
  The Prime Minister: I recognise the point about equal pay being carried through, which is specially allowed for in stage 2; but the second half of my hon. Friend's question raises a much bigger issue.

  ISLE OF MAN
  Mr. Stonehouseasked the Prime Minister if he will now seek to arrange an official visit to the Isle of Man.
  The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so, Sir.
  Mr. Stonehouse: Is the Prime Minister aware that, although people from the Isle of Man have rights in the United Kingdom, there are increasing restrictions on United Kingdom citizens inside the Isle of Man? Now that barriers are coming down all over Europe, why are they being raised round the Isle of Man? Why cannot the Isle of Man have the same relationship with the United Kingdom as have other offshore islands such as the Isles of Wight, Skye, Orkney, Shetland, and so on?
  The Prime Minister: Those islands are part of the United Kingdom and directly under the Westminster Parliament, and the Isle of Man is not. The Isle of Man is entitled to pass domestic legislation which deals with some of the matters raised by the right hon. Gentleman. I know that he is in close contact with people from the Isle of Man on this, and perhaps what he has in mind is the question of those who wish to settle there investing a certain amount of money in Manx Government bonds. That is a matter which, I understand, has now passed through Tynwald but is awaiting advice to Her Majesty on Her Majesty's action.
  Mr. Adam Butler: Is not lower taxation one of the attractions of the Isle of Man? Have not my right hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made the country more attractive to live in because of the lower levels of personal, company, and indirect taxation?
  The Prime Minister: Her Majesty's Government have greatly reduced taxation. I am afraid that I cannot hold out to my hon. Friend any hope that we can reduce income tax to the level of that in the Isle of Man.
  Mr. Lipton: Does the Prime Minister realise that not only in the Isle of Man but in all the Channel Islands the most vicious restrictions are imposed upon the settlement of British subjects? A British subject has to produce many thousands of pounds before he is allowed to settle in any of those places.
  The Prime Minister: That was the point I made in an earlier reply—that
  704
  this is a matter of domestic legislation for those places.

  MINISTER FOR TRADE AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS
  Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Prime Minister if he will dismiss the Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs.
  The Prime Minister: I do not intend to appoint or dismiss any Minister unless and until I make an announcement to the contrary.
  Mrs. Short: Is the Prime Minister aware that the public see the Minister and the Price Commission as part of the "phoney" façade that he has erected to try to con the public into believing that he is doing something for the consumer? Is he aware that since it was set up the Price Commission has cost the British housewife more than £200 million in rising prices? Is he aware that when he ventures forth to meet the housewives the Minister does nothing but insult them? Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore dismiss both the Minister and the Price Commission and take over these responsibilities himself?
  The Prime Minister: I cannot agree with the hon. Lady.
  Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that, far from being dismissed, my right hon. and learned Friend deserves the congratulations of the whole House and the country for introducing more measures for the protection of the consumer than have ever been introduced in one Session of Parliament? As the Molony Committee made it perfectly clear that prices were not an issue in consumer protection, is not the hon. Lady's question both misdirected and ill-informed?
  The Prime Minister: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. The legislation which has been introduced by the present Government has often been demanded by Opposition Members. They were not able to introduce it themselves, and now they ought to give my right hon. and learned Friend the credit for doing so.

  PORTSMOUTH
  Mr. Juddasked the Prime Minister whether he will make an official visit to Portmouth.
  The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so, Sir.
  Mr. Judd: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that many people in Portsmouth, although affected by the particularly high cost of living in the South-East, suffer from below-average wages? Next time the right hon. Gentleman is relaxing on his yacht in the Solent, will he reflect that in flats overlooking his relaxation there are pensioners who have not been able to afford meat and decent meals for months? Will he reflect that there are housewives in the neighbouring community who are driven to distraction by rising prices, and families which cannot afford a holiday, let alone a yacht? Will he appreciate that his speech yesterday did nothing but rub salt into the wounds by revealing his relentless commitment to the interests of the wealthy minority in our society and his indifference to the majority of people in Britain?
  The Prime Minister: There is absolutely no truth in the hon. Gentleman's allegations. I pass through Portsmouth on many occasions and, if the hon. Member wants to introduce me to pensioners who say they have no means of ever buying meat, I will gladly meet them, because the present Government have done more for pensioners than has been done by any previous Government.
  Mr. Ralph Howell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that of our overall extra spending in 1972, amounting to £4,333 million, only 101 per cent., or £454 million, was extra spending on food whereas £481 million, or 11 per cent., was extra spending on alcohol, gambling and tobacco? Does not this disprove the point just made by the Opposition?
  The Prime Minister: It certainly proves that the expenditure could have been put into food if those concerned wished. We also believe in choice for the individual.
  Mr. Raphael Tuck: Is the Prime Minister aware that food prices rose by no less than 11·9 per cent. during the so-called freeze? Does the right hon. Gen-
  706
  tleman know what a freeze is? He ought to buy himself a brass monkey; then he would know. When shall we have a policy? When are we to have some sensible action so that food prices can be kept within sensible limits so that the poor and the old-age pensioners can buy the food?
  The Prime Minister: Manufactured food prices have been strictly controlled, and, as I told the House yesterday, over the past six months prices have fallen slightly. The hon. Gentleman is so ignorant that he does not realise that not even his own party is prepared to control the prices of fresh foods. He should study the problem.

  NORTHERN IRELAND
  Mr. Sydney Chapmanasked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to Northern Ireland.
  The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans for a further visit.
  Mr. Chapman: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the deep concern and bitterness felt by many people in this country about a front page headlined report in a British national newspaper alleging that our troops were not provided with the best form of personal body armour? As these reports were unfounded and the allegations untrue, will he look seriously at the Government information services to see that the Press is given adequate information? Will he use the considerable authority of his office to remind the British Press of its responsibility towards British troops in Ulster?
  The Prime Minister: As regards information to the Press—my right hon. Friend is here with me on the Front Bench—if the Press wishes to check any item of information about Ulster, all the facilities are available day and night for that to be done, either in Belfast or in London. I do not think there is any problem about that. But, naturally, the responsibility rests with the Press, or the correspondent concerned, to do the checking.
  It is true that there are two forms of personal protection of flak jackets available. One is used by the police, because they believe that it bests suits their purpose and they have to defend themselves,

  707
  on the whole, against low-velocity weapons at short range. That form of protection is, I think, slightly heavier. The Army has chosen the form of protection which protects the troops against what they believe to be their greatest danger, which is the high-velocity weapon. This form of protection gives them greater mobility in the duties they have to perform. Therefore, there is justification for the policy and for the Army choosing the form of protection which bests suits it.
  Mr. Harold Wilson: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that, as and when the Secretary of State is successful, as we hope, in securing an agreement with all concerned in Northern Ireland to make it possible to implement the intentions of the House in the Northern Ireland Constitution Act, he will have no hesitation in immediately recommending that Mr. Speaker shall recall the House so that we may put into effect the necessary legislative instrument?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, I can give the right hon. Gentleman an absolute assurance on that point. Naturally, we should discuss the matter first through the usual channels. The House may rest completely assured that, if that situation should arise, we shall not hesitate to approach Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Stratton Mills: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is still his intention to advise Her Majesty the Queen to visit Northern Ireland at an early but appropriate moment?
  The Prime Minister: It is not customary for Her Majesty to seek my advice about visits to parts of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. McMaster: As, following the passage of the Assembly Bill in Northern Ireland, this House is now almost totally responsible for the affairs of Northern Ireland, would it not be appropriate for my right hon. Friend to reconsider his decision and pay an early visit to this part of the United Kingdom, which will in future be increasingly administered from Westminster?
  The Prime Minister: The basis of my hon. Friend's question is not entirely correct. After the Assembly meets and the Executive is formed, this House will be able to devolve powers to the Assembly and to the Executive. That would mean
  708
  that far more power would be exercised in Northern Ireland than during the period of direct rule.
  As for my own movements, as my hon Friend knows it has not been customary for me to announce very far in advance when I am actually going to Northern Ireland.

  ALBANIA
  Mr. Adleyasked the Prime Minister if he will seek to pay an official visit to Albania.
  Miss Joan Hallasked the Prime Minister if he will seek to pay an official visit to Tirana.
  The Prime Minister: I have no plans to visit Albania.
  Mr. Adley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the recent visit to this country by Cardinal Mindszenty and the words of Cardinal Heenan should remind all of us in this House, especially those on the Opposition benches, of the reasons why Mr. Ernest Bevin made the decision that he did about diplomatic relations with Albania? When certain hon. Gentlemen seek to criticise allied countries might they be reminded of and put into perspective the difference between certain countries with which we do not have diplomatic relations and the way of life to which we have grown accustomed, which may be subject to criticism, but which, by comparison with countries like Albania, has a great deal to commend it?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
  Miss Hall: With the increasing dialogue with China and increasing visits and trade, China is the one country which has influence over Albania. Will my right hon. Friend therefore try to get for us more trade with Albania as that might at least allow a country that prides itself on being so Socialist to be more human?
  The Prime Minister: We are always prepared to increase trade right across the world and we are prepared to increase trade, if possible, with Albania.
  Mr. Kaufman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When we had a number of linked Questions on Tuesday, you made a point of calling—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order.

MARATHON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (GRANT)
Mr. Robert Hughes Mr. Robert Hughes (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what reply he sent to the Commission of the EEC in response to the directive that a 4 per cent. grant paid to the Marathon Construction Company was an infringement of the Community Rules.
The Minister for Industrial Development (Mr. Christopher Chataway): Her Majesty's Government recently received a communication from the Commission suggesting that the payment of construction grants on mobile offshore installations under Part III of the Industry Act 1972 is a contravention of the Council Directive on aid to shipbuilding, No. 273 of 1972. The letter invited our observations. We do not accept the Commission's view of this matter, but we are considering its letter and will be replying to it in due course.
Pending the resolution of this issue, which may take some time, we shall, of course, continue to meet our obligations to pay these grants. And, of course, the House will be aware that the directive in question expires at the end of this year.
Mr. Hughes: Bearing in mind that the House was assured during the passage of the Industry Act that the proposal to allow grants for this type of construction could not be challenged by the EEC, may I take it that the right hon. Gentle. man is being specific in saying that this recent communication will be challenged at all costs? Will he tell the House how this directive affects other oil rig construction bases in Scotland? If it affects future construction rig sites, is he aware that the ability of Scotland to benefit from the discovery of North Sea oil will be greatly impaired?
Mr. Chataway: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that this grant is only one small part of the assistance available to the Marathon Company. I assure him that we shall safeguard the position of this company.
Part III of the Industry Act was discussed with the Commission in advance,
710
of its passage. The Commission is doing its job—a job we very much want to see it do which is to ensure that there is not competitive bidding among member countries. Hence it makes these inquiries of this Government as it does of others.
Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind in considering this approach from the Commission that not all firms in Scotland are by any means convinced that the provision of these taxpayers' subsidies to an American concern to enable it to take work which might otherwise have gone to domestic Scottish concerns in the same industry is necessarily in the long-term interests of employment and prosperity in Scotland?
Mr. Chataway: There can be no question of this company having taken work away from other firms since it is the only manufacturer of submersible rigs of this kind. I would argue strongly that this country has benefited substantially over the years from offering the same regional incentives to incoming firms as to British industry.
Mr. Ewing: The Minister indicated that the Government did not accept the contents of the directive from the EEC. Later he said, "Pending the resolution of this issue". Does this mean that he is open to persuasion by the Common Market, and that if the EEC persuades him that the Government are wrong they will not proceed with this type of grant? The right hon. Gentleman should be aware that the whole of the North Sea oil industry is at stake on this issue.
Mr. Chataway: We are talking about the interpretation of a directive which applies to shipbuilding as a whole and which expires at the end of this year. The Commission has suggested that this particular feature of construction grants, which represents a very small part of the total, is a contravention of the directive on aid to shipbuilding. We do not agree with that. Therefore, it may take a little time to resolve the issue.
Mr. Edward Taylor: Is my right hon. Friend aware that hon. Members such as myself, who have worked in shipbuilding, and who represent the Glasgow area, appreciate just as much as do farmers

711
from the east coast of Scotland the splendid work that he personally did in getting this magnificent operation and others to Clydebank? Does he agree that this issue is far more important than a 4 per cent. grant to Marathon? It affects firms which took, and were grateful for, the Minister's assurance that the amounts set out in the White Paper will be paid until 1st January 1978. In those circumstances, while we fully appreciate that the Minister and the Government will be doing all they can to safeguard the position, will he set out clearly what the practical position is in the event of his being unable to agree with the Commission on this issue? What will happen then? Will it go to the Court or to the Council of Ministers where we have a veto?
Mr. Chataway: No, Sir. The implications of the decision are not as my hon. Friend fears. He suggests that they throw into doubt the incentives which are generally available under the Industry Act. But he will know that, contrary to the forecasts made by hon. Gentlemen opposite for several months previously, the result of the discussions on Article 154 of the Treaty of Accession make it clear that our system of regional aids remains untouched. We are talking about the interpretation of one directive relating to shipbuilding. It affects only one company and it simply concerns this year. Therefore, my hon. Friend need not entertain the anxieties that he appears to have.
Mr. Gourlay: Is the Minister aware that after the liquidation of the Burntisland Shipbuilding Company in 1968, causing severe unemployment in the area, the Robb Caledon Shipbuilding Company took over the shipyard and has only recently made a major breakthrough by getting a contract for the manufacture of modules for oil rigs. After considerable pressure on the Department, the company has recently received a grant. Will he therefore confirm that in no circumstances will any proportion of the grant be clawed back and that it can proceed with this project?
Mr. Chataway: I confirm that this matter does not affect Robb Caledon in any way. It affects only the one company that we have mentioned, and I
712
have given an undertaking that we shall safeguard that company's position.
Mr. Ross: Is the Minister aware that when this matter was discussed in Committee on the Industry Bill he told the Committee not to be worried because he was keeping closely in touch with the Commission? He went on—
"In framing our proposals for the construction grants scheme, we naturally took account of such international developments and the rates of grant … conform to the new policy on shipbuilding aids … in OECD."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee H, 13th July 1972; c. 787.]
When did the Minister have the first indication of difficulty? How can he be satisfied that the difficulty ends with the mobile offshore platforms of Marathon? Is not he aware that there are four or five firms which build offshore platforms? Does he realise that this is not satisfactory, bearing in mind the assurances we were given? If the EEC questions our rights on this, what will happen about the rights of other companies which are building similar platforms all round our coasts?
Mr. Chataway: During the passage of the Industry Act we took into account the policy of the Community. It should be noted that expenditure under this head represents less than half of 1 per cent. of the total expenditure under the Industry Act. As I have explained to the House, we are concerned here with the interpretation of one directive. It is absolutely right that the Commission should ask these questions. It is asking them of other Governments, and it is in the interest of industry in Scotland, as throughout the United Kingdom, that there should not be a bidding up in aid throughout the Community but that there should be a common discipline. There will be many occasions when the Commission will make inquiries of this kind.

RHODESIA
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement.
I promised the House that I should make a further progress report on efforts to settle the Rhodesian problem before the recess.

713
I have now been able to study Sit Denis Greenhill's report on his visit to Rhodesia. In the light of it I am sure that the policy we have been following remains right. Our purpose, as the House knows, has been, while maintaining the status quo, to bring the various parties in Rhodesia together so that they could work out for themselves a settlement which could resolve the difficulties within their country, bring the dispute with Britain to an end and be a basis for independence for Rhodesia.
Hon. Members will have seen that Mr. Smith and Bishop Muzorewa have met. Mr. Smith is also meeting the leaders of other African groups. This meeting between the bishop and Mr. Smith is certainly a step forward and we must hope that it will eventually lead to that agreement between the races which everybody in this House would like to see.
Mr. Goronwy Roberts: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that there will be no change in Government policy towards Rhodesia during the recess and that the House will be recalled if such a change is proposed? Secondly, will he assure us that sanctions will continue to be actively enforced by this country? Thirdly, was the right hon. Gentleman able to press Dr. Caetano about Portuguese co-operation in enforcing United Nations policy on sanctions, and, if so, what reply did he receive?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: As I said in My statement, the status quo will be maintained. If there were any significant change which involved this House, my right hon. Friend would reconsider recalling the House.
On sanctions, this country is fulfilling its complete obligations under the United Nations instructions. I spoke to Dr. Caetano about Portuguese actions on sanctions and I asked him whether Portugal could change her policy. I am afraid that the result will be exactly the same as Portugal's present policy.
Mr. Soref: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that at the Tenth Anniversary Conference of the Organisation of African Unity recently held in Addis Ababa, it was decided to intensify terrorist activity against Rhodesia? Is it not a fact that the bishop himself has pub-
714
licly supported the Organisation of African Unity on various occasions? In the light of that and of the fact that Bishop Muzorewa has never denounced or criticised terrorism or the killing of white and black Rhodesians in Rhodesia, is it not unthinkable that he could be a satisfactory partner in producing peace in Rhodesia?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I think that everyone in the House will agree that this problem will not be solved peacefully by terrorism. It will be solved by negotiation between the races inside Rhodesia. There Bishop Muzorewa represents an important part of African opinion and Mr. Smith represents the Europeans. Their meeting is a start in the process of negotiation.
Mr. John Mendelson: During the next few months, when he is trying to encourage discussions between the two sides, will the Foreign Secretary use his influence on the regime to allow more normal political life to the African people—ordinary discussion meetings on a larger scale perhaps—with the help of some of the interned political leaders? If they could be released, discussions might begin which could lead to the get-together which the right hon. Gentleman has in mind.
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes, Sir. I hope that this meeting with the bishop will mean that Mr. Smith will meet other responsible Africans in Rhodesia and that the circle of discussion will widen. That is the best hope for a negotiated settlement. I am sure that the initiative this time must come from Rhodesia, and I believe that has been accepted by Mr. Smith and the bishop.
Mr. Evelyn King: Is it not a fact, as my right hon. Friend said, that we have conscientiously carried out our part of the sanctions obligations over a period of eight long years to our great loss? Is it not also a fact that the major trading nations of the world, including the United States of America and more others than I care to mention in Asia and other parts of the world, have not carried out their part? Must there not come a point—whatever view we may hold about Rhodesia—at which we are entitled to say to the United Nations that, whether or not this is a burden

715
which ought universally to be borne, it cannot be a burden that we alone have to bear?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: We have done all we can to ask the United Nations to insist that other countries bear their fair share of the sanctions burden. So far we have borne an unfair share. I hope that other countries will now tighten up the sanctions and the loopholes. Now is not the time—when talks are beginning in Rhodesia—to say anything which might upset those talks. I would rather not say anything more.
Mr. Maclennan: How does the Prime Minister intend to represent to the Commonwealth Prime Ministers in two weeks' time that the Government have been doing all they can to persuade the principal sanctions breakers within the EEC that they have been seeking to stop the loopholes, in the light of his reply that this is a matter for the United Nations?
Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman represent to Mr. Smith that, if he wishes to achieve a settlement that is acceptable to all the peoples of Rhodesia, he must enter into discussions not only with Bishop Muzorewa but also with the leaders of African opinion who are either in gaol or detention?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: It must be for the Rhodesians to decide who takes part in the conversations. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] When I talk about the Rhodesians, I mean the African and the European Rhodesians. I am not talking about one race. It must be for them to decide among themselves how they settle this affair and they must then come to us with a proposal.
When we detect a breach of sanctions we take the matter to the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations, and it is for that committee to pronounce on it.

WOOL TEXTILE INDUSTRY
The Minister for Industrial Development (Mr. Christopher Chataway): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about a scheme of assistance for the wool textile industry under Part II of the Industry Act 1972.
716
The wool textile industry, most of which is situated in assisted areas, has not in practice been receiving the assistance available under Section 7 of the Industry Act, as it was felt that the criteria for that assistance were not suitable to the particular needs of wool textiles and that an industry-wide scheme was desirable.
The purpose of the scheme now agreed is to secure a viable long-term future for an industry of considerable regional and national importance. It is based on detailed work carried out by the Economic Development Committee for the wool textile industry over the past year. It is designed to help a basically successful industry, which has in the past suffered from low profitability and lack of investment, maintain its competitiveness by rationalising its production facilities, improving its structure and eliminating uneconomic capacity.
The scheme has four main elements. First, firms which re-equip will receive capital grants of 15 per cent. of the cost. Secondly firms which re-equip and rebuild will get capital grants of 20 per cent. Thirdly, for wider-ranging and major projects which include elements other than the renewal of physical assets, we are offering concessional loans or interest relief grants with equivalent effect. But we have to balance the need to strengthen the industry with the need not to create surplus capacity.
As a condition of the assistance I have described, firms will accordingly be required to scrap existing equipment to the extent of at least 90 per cent. of the capacity of the new equipment in the case of carding sets, spindles, looms and dyeing machinery, and of 100 per cent. in the case of combs, and will have to demolish vacated buildings. Fourthly. we are offering grants to encourage the elimination of marginal capacity.
The scheme will have effect from today's date and we shall require projects to have been approved by the end of 1975 and to have been completed before the end of 1977. We are setting minimum figures for the eligibility of projects of £50.000 for re-equipment, £50,000 for rebuilding and £25,000 for improvements to existing buildings. A total of £15 million within existing expenditure provisions is available for the scheme.

717
It is the view of the Economic Development Committee, with which I agree, that there will be no significant redundancy as a consequence of this scheme. Indeed the major need is to secure that the industry does not lose experienced and valuable manpower and is able to provide stable and attractive conditions. There will, however, obviously be a significant need to retrain and redeploy people affected by schemes of rationalisations and restructuring. To achieve that we are encouraging the employers and the trade unions to agree on a code of practice. I believe that they are making good progress.
Consultations about the scheme under Articles 92 and 93 of the Treaty of Rome have been entered into with the Commission.
The scheme will be kept under continuing review to ensure that it is being operated so as to secure that the assistance is contributing to the longer term rationalisation of the industry.
A copy of the scheme will be placed in the Library.
Mr. Benn: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for making a statement which was first delayed and then leaked. Much of it appeared in yesterday's issue of The Times. A massive subsidy is involved of approximately f15 million with, as I understand it, no public participation or control. There is involved the re-introduction of investment grants. In fact, there are involved four different types of grant, which represent a reversal of past policy.
First, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the scheme will be more satisfactory than the schemes for the cotton textile industry? Further, how does the amount involved compare with what the Atkins Report recommended—namely, £40 million investment by 1975?
Secondly, though the right hon. Gentleman says that he hopes there will not be redundancies, will he give the House an estimate of how many people might become redundant under the scheme? Have the unions agreed in advance to the provisions? As the right hon. Gentleman says that £15 million of public money is to come without increasing public expenditure, from where are the savings to be made? Will the right hon. Gentleman make a statement about that?
718
Thirdly, has the Common Market Commission agreed to the scheme? I ask that in view of the embarrassing answers which the right hon. Gentleman had to give to an earlier Private Notice Question.
Fourthly, the right hon. Gentleman says that discussions have been entered into. Has the Commission agreed? Will there be parliamentary approval for the scheme? Will there be a debate and decisions made in the House? Will there be a provision for repayment? How much public money has to go into private industry for that industry still to qualify as free enterprise?
Mr. Chataway: The right hon. Gentleman said that there have been reports about the scheme in the Press. He will appreciate that over a long time there has been consultation within the EDC and with the unions and management concerned. The Atkins Report, of course, was published and it is inevitable that consultation has been very public.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the scheme will be more effective than previous schemes for the cotton textile industry. We have sought to learn from the successes and shortcomings of the cotton textile reorganisation scheme of 1959 which, I believe, on balance was valuable to the industry. In some respects this scheme follows the 1959 precedent.
It is the belief of the EDC, on which the unions are represented, that the scheme will not result in overall redundancies. The code of practice which the unions and the employers are working out together will, I hope, have the assent of both sides.
The forecasts made in the White Paper on Public Expenditure of the likely expenditure in the regions as a result of the Industry Act were such that this expenditure falls within those forecasts.
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is well aware that he now has the reputation of being a Cassandra with feet of clay—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman has sought to spread anxiety on so many occasions without any success. My officials have had extensive informal discussions with officials of the Commission. We have taken its observations fully into account. We have not yet secured formal clearance. That

719
necessarily involves some discussion with other member States which is not complete. We are satisfied that the scheme meets the Commission's guidelines on aid to the textile industry.
Mr. Wilkinson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if this decision is a reversal of policy, it is a decision by Her Majesty's Government which implements the recommendations of the Hunt Committee on intermediate areas which the Opposition when in government refused to implement?
Further, does he recognise that this is extremely welcome news for Yorkshire and for Scotland because it represents a decision to invest in success at a time when the wool textile industry, as far as cloth and tops are concerned, increased in volume its export performance over the past 12 months by no less than 25 per cent.? The Regional Development Officer of the Yorkshire and Humberside Economic planning region has said that the Yorkshire region could experience a boom of no less than threefold in coming months. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is the sort of decision which gives great hope to the region and to the wool textile industry, which is of immense importance to Britain?
Mr. Chataway: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I agree that the industry is achieving considerable success at the moment. It is meeting 90 per cent. of the home market and exporting £150 million, which is nearly one third of its production—[Interruption.] Why Opposition hon. Members should decry its success, I do not know. The plain fact is that the industry during past years has suffered from low profitability because of much outdated equipment and buildings. Therefore, there is a need, if we are to ensure the industry's long-term success, to encourage rationalisation and greater efficiency. The scheme will have a considerable environmental effect, particularly in Yorkshire and Humberside, as it will lead to the demolition of some of the worst old buildings which still disfigure the region.
Mr. Torney: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a year or so ago there was considerable worry among the operatives in the textile industry in Bradford about the security of their jobs and
720
redundancies, which at that time were widespread? Does he think that it is wise —I welcome the investment which he has announced—that the money should be given without some public, ministerial or parliamentary control to ensure that the employers do not create redundancies because of rationalisation, as they have done in the past?
In a leading article in yesterday's Bradford Telegraph and Argus attention was drawn to the gross discourtesy of the Minister in allowing leading representatives of the industry to come to London on Tuesday in the expectation that the statement would be made, when it was not. I hope that the Minister will not tell me that it was not made because of pressure of parliamentary business, because he knew last Thursday what the parliamentary business was to be. The leading article said that the woolmen's comments were unprintable. The incident has shown a complete lack of co-ordination between Government Departments.
Mr. Chataway: I am sorry that some journalists were inconvenienced by the timing of the statement, but I have the responsibility to make the statement to the House first. On the major question which the hon. Member raised, this is a scheme into which both unions and management have put a great deal of work over a considerable period and it follows the thorough study in the Atkins Report. The hon. Member need not feel that the interests of the employees or the unions will be overlooked in the scheme. The industry is in a healthy condition today, whereas a year or two ago it was not. One of the features of the wool textile industry has been the cyclical nature of the business. This is not a short-term scheme to deal with such difficulties. It is a scheme aimed in the long term to make a successful industry even more successful.
Miss Joan Hall: Will the Minister say how the scheme will affect training, because one of the biggest problems of the industry at the moment is the shortage of labour? Will it be a matter of taking workers from other industries? How does the scheme fit in with the Government's wages policy? A lot of thew firms will be interested to know how it fits in with the Government's policy on profits.
Mr. Chataway: Obviously, there will be no exemption for this industry from the laws which apply to other industries. However, there will be a need for substantial retraining, and this is one of the matters which are currently being discussed between my Department, unions and management. I hope that by that means and by creating better conditions in the industry, not least more attractive conditions of work, in the long term the industry will be able to attract sufficient labour.
Dr. Summerskill: There will continue to be concern among those who work in the industry in spite of the Minister's welcome announcement as long as there is a feeling among young trainees that they may be made redundant when they are 40 or 45. There is a feeling among the middle-aged employees that they are now no longer of any use, and the threat of redundancy still casts a great shadow over the industry. The announcement will not be wholeheartedly welcome unless that threat is removed.
Mr. Chataway: The industry employs about 100,000 people—it is still a big industry. The fact that it is able now to compete so effectively in world markets is a guarantee of its continuance. But, obviously, the scheme is intended to contribute to its efficiency and, therefore, to its continuing ability to employ people on attractive conditions.
Mr. Powell: Will my right hon. Friend make clear whether this taxpayers' subsidy is to be paid to these firms because they are winners or because they are lame ducks, or something in between?
Mr. Chataway: There is a certain similarity between this scheme and the cotton textile reorganisation scheme of 1959 which my right hon. Friend supported.
Mr. Powell: I spoke against it.
Mr. Chataway: In preparing this scheme in the early stages I read with considerable care the debates on the cotton reorganisation scheme and I was particularly struck by the speech which my right hon. Friend made on that occasion which, with qualifications, supported the scheme.
Mr. Powell: I spoke against it.
Mr. Chataway: My right hon. Friend went into the Lobby on its behalf.
Mr. Powell Mr. Powell indicated dissent.
Mr. Chataway: I believe the action which was taken then with good effect on the cotton textile industry is well justified in this industry. The wool textile industry has had difficulties associated with outdated machinery and buildings but it has shown that it can be highly successful.
Mr. David Steel: At first sight the scheme appears to be an imaginative and conditional form of assistance to the industry in the development areas. Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the minimum eligibility figures he has specified of £50,000 and £25,000 will not inhibit the development of small wool firms which may also require this assistance? Has the right hon. Gentleman any forecast or estimate of the proportion of the £15 million which will find its way to the industry in Scotland?
Mr. Chataway: It will be difficult to make forecasts in answer to the latter part of the hon. Member's question, although the amount going to Scotland will obviously be a minority part since the minority of the industry is located in Scotland. It was thought right to set the minimum figures at the specified levels because there are now in the industry too many small units and there is a need for rationalisation. I do not deny, however, that there is a need for small specialist units, and if they do not qualify under this scheme they will be able to apply for Section 7 assistance under the normal arrangements of the Industry Act.
Mr. Skeet: Will my right hon. Friend indicate the amount of money the industry has spent since the Atkins Report of 1969? The important part of this scheme is the investment in new machinery. Is it likely that that machinery will be acquired in Europe or in the United Kingdom.
Mr. Chataway: There is no doubt that a certain amount of the machinery will be imported since some European manufacturers have a considerable strength in the production of such equipment. I naturally hope that as much of it as possible will be bought in this country.

723
I agree that the provision of new plant and machinery is extremely important but the encouragement for reorganisation, restructuring and the construction of new buildings is of equal importance.
Mr. David Clark: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the people in Yorkshire can give him only two cheers for the announcement? We welcome the injection of capital into the industry, but the Minister did not give the other half of the equation. What is in this for the workers? Has the Minister forgotten that 40,000 people have lost jobs in the industry since June 1970'? Why is there no mention of a redundancy scheme in his statement, since I believe there was mention of the matter in the discussions in the Economic Development Council?
Mr. Chataway: We do not expect there to be any significant overall redundancies. The scheme has the support of both sides of the Economic Development Council. I know that the hon. Member will have been most encouraged by the big fall in unemployment in Yorkshire and Humberside and by the general health of the region.
Mr. Benyon: Is not this industry currently one of the most prosperous in the country, as witnessed by the recent reports of the companies concerned? In that case why could not these funds have been provided through normal commercial channels?
Mr. Chataway: These firms over a substantial period have not been able to invest on an adequate scale, and the particular nature of the textile cycle has been, in part, the reason for that. It is an industry which, given the encouragement to take the necessary steps to render it more efficient, is most likely to succeed. The scheme therefore represents investment which will be of substantial benefit to the regions concerned and to the nation.
Mr. Benn: May I ask the Minister to answer the question I put to him earlier? Will the scheme require parliamentary approval? It is a £15 million scheme under the Industry Act. I think that by an oversight the right hon. Gentleman failed to answer the question.
Mr. Chataway: If there were any project which amounted to over £5 million, it would require us to proceed by affirmative resolution.

SHEPPERTON FILM STUDIOS
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask whether you have received any request from the Government to make a statement this afternoon about their intention to allow the sale of Shepperton Film Studios for purposes other than film-making without consultations with the trade unions?
Mr. Speaker: That is a doubtful point of order. In any case the answer is "No."

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Harold Wilson: May I ask the Leader of the House to 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, 23RD JULY—Remaining stages of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.
Debate on a motion to take note of the Reports of the Pay Board and Price Commission.
Motion to take note of the Draft Directive of the European Communities relating to raising the age for driving licences.
Remaining stages of the Government Trading Funds Bill, of the Nature Conservancy Council Bill (Lords) and of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Bill (Lords).
TUESDAY, 24TH JULY—Until seven o'clock there will be a debate on Metrication on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Consideration of Lords Amendments to Bills which may be received.
Orders and Regulations relating to Social Security, Northern Ireland, Southern Rhodesia, the European Communities, Welsh Water, Noise Insulation and Agriculture.
WEDNESDAY, 25TH JULY—It Will be proposed that the House should meet at

725
11 a.m., take Questions until 12 noon and adjourn at five o'clock until Tuesday, 16th October.
It may be convenient if I say now that the business proposed for Tuesday, 16th October will be a debate on the Hardman Report. Further business for that week will be announced later.
Mr. Wilson: May I take up first the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) which you, Mr. Speaker, ruled as being a dubious point of order. May I now ask, in order, whether the right hon. Gentleman will ensure that an early statement is made on this matter, if not today on the Consolidated Fund Bill then early next week?
Secondly, will the right hon. Gentle. man give an assurance that no agreement and particularly no treaty will be reached and signed with the Government of France concerning the Channel Tunnel until there has been a debate in the Commons capable of giving approval to or rejecting any such action?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the growing concern, particularly in the West Riding, but also elsewhere, about the Government's attitude to successor councils in local government, with a number of pre-existing councils not now being given the status for the future which it is thought they should have? Will he say whether we can have a statement about this next week, because during the recess many important decisions can be made by the Minister for which he will not be accountable to the House? Finally, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the promised White Paper on the Companies Bill will be published before the recess?
Mr. Prior: I very much hope that the White Paper on the Companies Bill will be published before the recess, although it will probably not be published before Wednesday. If the point about the film studios is not dealt with on the Adjournment of the House or on the Consolidated Fund Bill, I will ask my right hon. Friend to see whether he can give further information next week. This matter could be relevant to business later today.
Dealing with successor councils, I would point out that a Prayer has been tabled concerning the Local Government
726
Order and no doubt arrangements could be made for it to be debated, either in Committee or possibly on the Floor of the House. I shall be glad to see what arrangements can be made. In any event, I am confident that my right hon. and learned Friend will take account of what the right hon. Gentleman said. I believe that there is a good deal of anxiety on the point and I should like to have the chance to study it further and if necessary to ask my right hon. and learned Friend to report to the House.
I think it will be for the convenience of the House if my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries makes a statement about the Channel Tunnel, perhaps on Tuesday, telling the House exactly where the negotiations have got to and whether it would be convenient to publish a White Paper during the recess. I am certain that the point made by the right lion. Gentleman about no treaty being signed will be one of the points with which my right hon. Friend will wish to deal in his statement.
Mr. Fowler: Has the attention of my right hon. Friend been drawn to the House of Lords decision yesterday in the Distillers v. Sunday Times case? Does he agree that this judgment must cause new concern about the limits which the law of contempt places on the freedom of the Press to make comments? In view of the public importance of this subject, will he consider arranging an early debate?
Mr. Prior: This is a matter for great concern and it is one of the reasons why we set up the committee to look into it. We should now await the report of the Phillimore Committee. In view of what my hon. Friend said, and the widespread interest in this matter in all parts of the House, I will report this to my right hon. and learned Friend and see whether we shall be in a position to have a debate on our return from the recess.
Mr. C. Pannell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that most laymen cannot understand how the judiciary is working these days? We get a ruling from the High Court, with the distinguished Court of Appeal overriding that ruling, and then we get a fairly arid ruling from the House of Lords afterwards. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if we

727
substituted the Court of Appeal for the House of Lords as the final appellate body we might get some sense in our considerations?
Mr. Prior: We shall obviously have to discuss what the right hon. Gentleman said but I do not think it can be next week.
Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the need, when we come back in the autumn, to discuss the position of agriculture particularly in this country and also the development of the common agricultural policy, which will be most important, both here and in Europe.
Mr. Prior: By the time we come back in the autumn it may well be that further information is available about the reforms considered necessary to the CAP. That would be a suitable time for a debate.
Mr. Lawson: May I revert to the question of forestry and ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Government have yet completed their prolonged discussions on this subject and are in a position to make a statement before the House rises?
Mr. Prior: I will certainly convey that to my right hon. Friend and see whether it is possible for a statement to be made. I know that discussions have been going on but I am not certain whether they have been completed. I will try to find out and, if they have been completed, I will ask my right hon. Friend to make a statement.
Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is some dissatisfaction on both sides of the House about the way in which we discuss foreign affairs? In view of the written evidence I have given him, which shows that over the past eight years 65 per cent. of the speeches on foreign affairs have been made either by Front Bench Members or by 20 back bench Members will he find time for a short debate enabling the House to consider procedures which might improve the quality of the discussion on foreign affairs and increase the availability of Ministers concerned with this subject to more informed and rigorous examination by larger numbers of back bench Members?
Mr. Prior: This will not necessarily be an easy situation to improve, although I have much sympathy with my hon. Friend. I am grateful to him for letting me know that he intended to raise this subject. The whole question of foreign affairs debates and our other procedures needs looking at. We ought to consider whether we can conduct our debates so that more Members have a chance to take part and so that there are more precise debates more frequently on various itemised issues.
Mr. Elystan Morgan: Has the right hon. Gentleman given further thought to having the Welsh Grand Committee sit as a Select Committee so that it would be able to interrogate Ministers intelligently on their policies rather than have to suffer long soliloquies in which ordinary members of the Committee are unable to play any meaningful part?
Mr. Prior: I have not given any further thought to that.
Mr. David James: Has my right hon. Friend seen the all-party motion No. 203?
[That this House, mindful of the injustice suffered by authors and other creators of original material through the lending of their works by libraries without appropriate recompense, urges Her Majesty's Government to amend the Copyright Act 1956 so as to give them the necessary protection under the law.]
This concerns the subject of public lending rights and calls for a fundamental amendment of the Copyright Act to protect authors whose books are lent by public libraries. A total of 265 Members have signed this motion, including the entirely acceptable amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins), at end add
"but such amendment shall not entail a charge by libraries to borrowers of books".
May we have time to debate this important subject in October in the hope that legislation will be introduced in the next Session?
Mr. Prior: This is an extremely complicated and complex matter, and I cannot hold out any hope of legislation. It would be wrong of me to do so. We can consider the possibility of a debate when we come back after the recess.
Mr. Hardy: Will the right hon. Gentleman make sure that the debate on successor councils takes place in the House and not in Committee? Is he aware that Conservative-controlled councils which do not fit the criteria set down have been granted successor status, while Labour councils which clearly fit the criteria have been refused and have received letters from the Minister which seem to be careless, ill-justified and entirely infuriating?
Mr. Prior: I cannot accept the latter part of what the hon. Gentleman said. I can assure him that in another capacity I receive countless complaints about how the present Government have bent over backwards to suit the needs of the Labour Party instead of looking after their own interests. No doubt exactly the same thing happened the other way round when the hon. Gentleman's party was in government.
If a number of hon. Members wish to debate the Prayer, it can be debated on the Floor of the House. But it is unlikely that we could find time between now and Tuesday evening.
Mr. Redmond: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way to my pleas for a debate on metrication but why is it to be on a motion for the Adjournment and not on a motion to take note of or approve the White Paper on metrication published 18 months ago?
Mr. Prior: We thought this was a reasonable way of allowing a debate to go as wide as hon. Members might wish on a subject which is of widespread interest and some controversy.
Mr. Shore: Although we shall go into recess on Wednesday, the other legislature affecting this country will not. I refer to the Council of Ministers of the EEC. Can the Leader of the House give an assurance that he will make every effort to bring forward for a statement early next week any matters outstanding? I think, for example, of the major Supplementary Estimate which we know is somewhere in the pipeline. Failing that, will he go out of his way to ensure that major decisions are not taken while Parliament is not sitting, in the absence of any opportunity of questioning Ministers in Brussels in the next few months?
Mr. Prior: The Council of Ministers meets, I believe, on Monday and Tuesday next week. If decisions are reached, or there are important matters arising from its meetings, I shall try to make arrangements with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to make a statement. Barring that, I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that the work of the Council of Ministers cannot be held up while we are in recess, but the Government will make the necessary arrangements for the country to be kept informed.
Mr. Cockeram: While we welcome the Adjournment of the House on Wednesday afternoon, does my right hon. Friend appreciate that certain hon. Members have made arrangements to entertain constituents and that there is difficulty concerning the catering arrangements of the House later this week? Will my right hon. Friend make arrangements for those facilities to continue to be available?
Mr. Prior: I am in some difficulty. I have been informed of the matter by certain hon. Members. The difficulty is that the contract for the catering staff runs only while the House is sitting. They are free to go immediately the House adjourns. If my hon. Friend and other hon. Members approach the catering manager today, confirming their bookings for Wednesday evening and Thursday lunchtime, he will see, provided the numbers justify it, whether it is possible to overcome the difficulties. I cannot go further than that.
Dr. Miller: As the Leader of the House and the Minister for Industrial Development twice this afternoon answered questions which involved at least some kind of approval from our European partners, will the Leader of the House assure us that before we rise we shall have an answer to the points left in the air and be told whether there will be any objection from our European partners to the matters mentioned in the answers to those questions? If there is objection, it makes a mockery of any pretence to have a regional policy.
Mr. Prior: I think that my right hon. Friend made the position abundantly clear in his statement this afternoon. I do not think that there is any misunderstanding about the position between now

731
and the end of the year. I am certain that when the hon. Gentleman reads what my right hon. Friend said he will come to that conclusion.
Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Can my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate on the Government's decision on the Maxwell-Stamp report on taxicabs, and draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to the fact that both sides of the House are getting sick and tired of the delay in bringing this matter to fruition?
Mr. Prior: I will draw my right hon. Friend's attention to it.
Mr. Robert C. Brown: Has the Leader of the House seen Motion No. 405?
[That this House, deeply concerned at the threat to the jobs of many thousands of men and women employed in sugar refining and processing in the United Kingdom as well as to the economies of the developing countries of the world dependent upon the continuing importation of 1·4 million tons of cane sugar, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to ensure that the European Economic Community honours its specific and moral commitment. to the right hon. Member for Hexham. given during negotiations for entry.]
I declare my interest as a sponsored member of the General and Municipal Workers Union, which organises the labour in the sugar refining industry. Since 11,000 jobs—particularly in the development areas—are dependent upon the continuing importation of 1·4 million tons of cane sugar, and since the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food left many questions unanswered yesterday due to the pending major debate, does not the Leader of the House feel that the workers in tile industry are entitled to an assurance that the British Government will, if need be, use the veto on this issue? Will he arrange for a statement next week?
Mr. Prior: My right hon. Friend said yesterday that the importing of 1·4 million tons of Commonwealth sugar to the Community is assured. Of course, what the hon. Gentleman has to realise —this is very important—is that there is over-capacity in the sugar refining industry, which is recognised by both
732
employers and unions. This has to be sorted out over the next few years. I am certain that my right hon. Friend was absolutely firm on the amount of sugar which will be imported under the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement.
Mr. S. James A. Hill: As we are expecting a decision from the Ministers in Brussels on the size of the regional development fund, and shortly after that the regional development committee for Europe will be appointed, with British members in Brussels, will it be possible to have a full debate on regional policy so that the views of the House can be relayed to Europe?
Mr. Prior: This would be a suitable subject for debate, but not before we adjourn for the Summer Recess.
Mr. Driberg: Apart from the catering arrangements, I note that one Committee room is booked for a small meeting and a Press conference on Friday morning of next week. Will that have to be cancelled?
Mr. Prior: I can not give the hon. Gentleman an off-the-cuff answer. We shall look into it and let him know whether we can arrange for a Committee room to be available.
Mr. Maclennan: Does the Leader of the House recognise that there is widespread support on this side for the points made by the hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler) about foreign affairs? I taxed the patience of the House and Mr. Speaker in the foreign affairs debate by expatiating on this subject. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that increasing the frequency of debates is not necessarily the whole answer, and that study in depth and opportunity to examine Ministers closely on policies is more to the point?
Mr. Prior: I have noted what the hon. Gentleman said. I would like to see shorter debates with shorter speeches, and, perhaps, greater attendance in the Chamber, too.
Mr. McMaster: In view of the importance of maintaining the political initiative in Northern Ireland, what arrangements is my right hon. Friend making for the early recall of Parliament, if it is necessary, particularly at short notice, during the recess

733
should an Executive be formed during August or September?
Mr. Prior: I have already given an undertaking that nothing should stand in the way of the recall of Parliament if it is needed for an order to bring the Executive into operation. I hope that in any other event the affairs of Northern Ireland will be conducted so peacefully that there will be no need for a recall.
Mr. Clinton Davis: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the Home Secretary will make a statement before the recess on the case of the 36 illegal immigrants he mentioned in the debate on immigration so that we shall at least be able to discuss the matter before the House rises?
Mr. Prior: I will consult my right hon. Friend about that and if necessary get in touch with the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Crouch: I have hesitated to raise this matter before with my right hon. Friend because I am not even sure that it does not involve a matter of privilege. But is he aware that I am finding it increasingly difficult to get into the House from Old Palace Yard? Could he give consideration to the facilities of the House by the erection of a bridge over St. Margaret's Street. I am increasingly being attacked by juggernauts not only in my constituency but in access to this House. I hope that my right hon. Friend will realise that this is not a question for the silly season. I mean it seriously.
Mr. Prior: I am sorry that my hon. Friend is having such trouble, but I must tell him that it would be a very expensive operation to erect a bridge. It is not that I do not recognise that there is some inconvenience. This is one of the reasons why I feel that a new building is necessary, and I think that that is the long-term answer. I am not keen to see the Government spending a lot of money on a short-term solution when we intend to spend a lot of money in order to provide a long-term building.

PRISONERS (CRUMLIN ROAD GAOL)
Mr. A. W. Stallard (St. Pancras, North): I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"The rapidly deteriorating conditions of two prisoners, Mr. Michael Farrell and Mr. Tony Canavan, currently on hunger strike in Crumlin Road Gaol, Belfast."
It is specific because these two men are well-known politicγal activists and they were convicted under a statute which was introduced to deal specifically with offences of a political nature. The men are being kept in solitary confinement for 23 hours a day in the gaol and are being denied political status.
It is urgent because of the deteriorating physical condition of both the men and the effects that this is having on their wives and families. It is important because of the standing of these two men in their own communities. It could have grave and serious effects on the present very delicate political and security situation in Northern Ireland.
In the absence of any satisfactory explanation why political status cannot be granted to these two prisoners, in view of the replies to Questions today and the fact that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland appears to have given credence to the widespread belief in Belfast that the sentences imposed on these men were the maximum possible sentences which would not grant political status, it would appear again to the people of Northern Ireland that only those who throw bombs or use guns can qualify for sentences heavy enough to justify or merit political status.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to give me notice of his intention. I have considered carefully what he said. I has also considered the exchanges at Question Time. I am forbidden to give my reasons for my decision but it must occur to anybody that one of the factors I would take into account is the other opportunities to raise the matter which are immediately available to the hon. Gentleman. I am afraid that I cannot grant his request.

NEW WRIT (BERWICK-UPON-TWEED)
4.37 p.m.
Mr. Dick Taverne(Lincoln): I beg to move,
That Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the county consitumcy of Berwick-upon-Tweed in the room of Antony Claud Frederick Lambton, Esquire who since his election for the said county constituency bath accepted the Office of Steward or Bailiff of Her Majesty's three Chiltern Hundreds of Stoke, Desborough and Burnham in the county of Buckingham.
I seek once more to move the writ for the Berwick-upon-Tweed by-election. Since the last occasion when I raised this matter, some tell days ago, the situation has changed in that the Conservatives in the constituency have now adopted a candidate and have therefore removed any further reason for delay, and we have also had an explanation from the Leader of the House as to why the writ has not been moved. That explanation is, quite simply, that August is an inconvenient month.
First, if August is an inconvenient month, that is the Government's own fault. There has been no explanation whatever by the Leader of the House about the contrast between Ripon, where the cause of the by-election arose later and where the writ has been rushed through to take a by-election in July, and Berwick-upon-Tweed, where the cause of the by-election arose earlier and where we now face a delay until November at the earliest. In fact, all three by-elections now pending could have been held in July if the Government had wished.
Secondly, it seems that perhaps the explanation, according to newspaper reports and perhaps as confirmed by the lukewarm nature of the Leader of the House's defence, is that the Government themselves may have favoured an earlier by-election in Berwick-upon-Tweed but that local politicians preferred to delay it in order to suit their own political convenience. If that is the case, it is quite intolerable.
A few local politicians should not have the right to deprive their own constituencies of representation. They are the last people to judge, as my own experience in Lincoln shows. But in Lincoln
736
the delay was not backed by the votes of 194 Members in the Lobby. It is hardly a noble sight when 194 national representatives allow themselves to be dragooned into voting for the electoral convenience of a small group of local politicians, and in particular I ask what happened to those Conservatives who, I understand, during the delay in holding the Lincoln by-election used to chant, "Lincoln, Lincoln, Lincoln" to voice their objections to the delay.
Lastly, I turn to the argument of inconvenience itself. I certainly concede that an August by-election is not ideal, but I suspect that what some Conservatives have in mind is the parallel with the election at Stratford-on-Avon in 1963. That was, of course, a disaster. The circumstances were not dissimilar, except for the timing. I remind the House that Mr. John Profumo resigned on 5th June 1963, while Lord Lombton resigned on 1st June 1973. The by-election at Stratford-on-Avon was fixed for 15th August, whereas the by-election for Berwick-upon-Tweed will be in November or December.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: When my hon. Friend described the Stratford-on-Avon by-election as a disaster, I think he should have added that it was a disaster for the Conservative Party. It was a great success, although not a victory, for the Labour Party.
Mr. Taverne: I bow to my hon. Friend's expert knowledge of the Stratford-on-Avon by-election. I was trying to imagine myself inside the mind of the Conservative Party in seeking reasons for the delay, and to those following that course of reasoning the Stratford-on-Avon by-election was a disaster.
But neither electoral disadvantage nor marginal inconvenience outweigh the disadvantage of a constituency being left without a Member of Parliament for five or six months. There is no question about hon. Members representing neighbouring constituencies being able to make up for this disadvantage. Perhaps I may again cite the experience at Lincoln. Whilst Lincoln was without a Member, my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Bishop) looked after the constituency and we must all agree that there is no more conscientious Member than he. Yet, although he dealt admirably with

737
the individual cases which came to him, when I was re-elected on 1st March I faced a huge backlog of individual cases. This involves not only individual cases but wider considerations.
My constituency is at present in the news for other reasons. Some crucial and controversial planning decisions, in which the Department of the Environment might have been interested, were passed by the Lincoln Council while Lincoln had no Member of Parliament. Everybody in the House knows that constituencies cannot operate properly if they are without their Member of Parliament. Therefore, the overriding consideration should be for the House to ensure that a vacancy lasts for the minimum period.
If the Government wish to move the writ just before the recess, I shall withdraw my motion. If the Government discover an ingenious way of moving the writ during the Summer Recess, provided that there is no long delay—say, within a period of three months from the time of the seat becoming vacant—again I shall withdraw my motion. I am sure that everybody in the House agrees that for a seat to be unrepresented for five to six months is too long a period, and that indeed it is a constitutional outrage. During the by-election I pledged that I would end this kind of fiddle. This is what the motion is all about.
4.42 p.m.
Mr. Robert Mellish: It might be convenient to the House if I express a point of view on behalf of the Labour Party on this matter, and at the same time seek to clear up some of the statements which have been made concerning the issue of writs so far as I am concerned as the Opposition Chief Whip. I should like to think that I am also speaking on behalf of the Government Chief Whip.
The procedure since 1911 has been that, by procedure and practice of this House, either the Opposition Chief Whip or the Government Chief Whip on behalf of their respective parties move writs when seats become vacant. This practice has worked reasonably well since 1911, but it is right that there have been some instances on which both major parties have been rightly criticised in the past. I wish to put on record that some of these criticisms have been unjustified
738
and I propose to reply to some of these criticisms today.
To take the case of the hon, and learned Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taverne), much has been said about the delay in moving the writ there. I wish to remind the House that at the time when the hon. and learned Gentleman resigned, he no doubt expected the writ to be moved within a few days to suit his own personal convenience. I took advice on this matter—not from any caucus, but from those who are responsible for running elections. I learned that Lincoln happens to be a constituency which has a record, for reasons best known to Lincoln, of enormous movements on the register. I was assured that past records showed that if I were to move the writ before the new register came into being, I would disenfranchise a vast proportion of those who might otherwise have the right to vote. In the event, I moved the writ at the earliest opportunity on the new register so that within a matter of days from the time when the new register came into being, the writ was issued. As a consequence I was assured by the experts that around 14 per cent. of those who voted at the Lincoln by-election were able to do so because I moved the writ when I did.
I want it to go clearly on the record that there is no substance in the idea that there is a great, dire plot in the moving of writs. There are many things to be taken into account, as any political agent—and political agents are a responsible body of men, including those in the Liberal Party, I hope—will explain to anybody who is interested. It is the oldest part of the register which causes great confusion, hardship and, if I may so call it, sometimes an undemocratic arrangement in local constituencies. These matters are taken on board by any Chief Whip when he is taking advice on the moving of a writ.
Long before the matter of the Berwick-upon-Tweed writ was raised, a letter was sent on 2nd January 1973 by the Government Chief Whip on behalf of that right hon. Gentleman and myself. The letter was addressed to Mr. Miller, Secretary of the Mr. Speaker's Conference and reads:
"I think you may know that Mr. Pym and Mr. Mellish would welcome the Speaker's Conference looking at the question of the

739
issue of writs at by-elections. The terms of reference of the Conference may specifically refer to this. Otherwise, presumably there would be an opportunity for the Parties to give evidence on the issue."
I think that proves conclusively that we are concerned about the matter of a form of regulations in regard to the moving of writs, taking into account the problems which arise towards the end of an old register, problems which can never be ignored.
Speaking for myself as Chief Whip, and not necessarily speaking on behalf of my party, I regard it as wrong for a writ to be outstanding for four months or longer. It may be that when Mr. Speaker's Conference has considered this matter, it may well say there should be a minimum period before the writ is issued. It would be possible for an hon. Member to die on one day and for some mischievous person in the House to move the writ the next day. Therefore, there must be some sense of understanding in the matter. Therefore, there surely must be some rule governing the period between the death or resignation of a Member and the time when a writ is issued.
The other problem to be considered by Mr. Speaker's Conference in regard to the constituency of Berwick-upon-Tweed is that the Government are prohibited by the Standing Orders from moving a writ in the month of August. If such a writ were allowed, this would enable the by-election in Berwick-upon-Tweed to be held early in September. I believe that this embargo should go. I make this statement today to assure my hon. Friends that I am anxious that this matter should be cleared up. There is no question of any connivance on either side of the House. I hope that there will be a little more trust and understanding on these matters than has been shown in the past.
4.49 p.m.
Mr. William Hamilton: None of us was born yesterday. Although I welcome the spirit in which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) has spoken, it is undeniable that both parties—the Opposition Chief Whip as well as the Government Chief Whip—have used and abused the procedures for moving or not moving writs
740
according to party convenience at the time. It is time it was stopped.
Despite whatever differences anybody may have with the hon. and learned Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taverne), I think the House would agree that he has performed some service in bringing this matter to some kind of decision. If the matter goes before Mr. Speaker's Conference, that is fine, but the fact remains that, unless something is done before Mr. Speaker's Conference makes its recommendations, Berwick-upon-Tweed will be disfranchised for six months. Mr. Lambton is no longer the Member, the constituents have now no Member to represent them and there will be many heart-breaking cases which will not be dealt with, as the hon. and learned Gentleman said. There is no reason at all why, if the two Chief Whips are acting in good faith—and I have no reason to suppose that they are not—they should not get together between now and next Wednesday to decide to bring forward in the House an alteration of Standing Orders. [Interruption.] The Chief Whip will answer me. Where there is a will, there is a way. We can do virtually what we wish in this House if there is a will. If the Government were determined to have the by-election in Berwick-upon-Tweed before next November the two Chief Whips could get together and formulate an alteration of Standing Orders which would enable the writ to be issued during the recess.
If this cannot be done, there is, I suggest, another alternative. A direction or recommendation could be issued to Mr. Speaker's Conference that this matter should be given a degree of urgency, and an interim report issued on it if necessary, in the next two or three weeks, to enable the Government to move the writ during the recess.
I think that at least one of these two proposals is possible. In any event the present situation is indefensible. As the hon. and learned Member for Lincoln said, it is a constitutional outrage that the constituency, for the convenience of the local or national party, should be disfranchised for such a long period.
4.52 p.m.
Mr. Wilfred Proudfoot: What the Opposition Chief Whip said has provoked me, too, into remembering that I was not born

741
yesterday. My memory is that in the immediate post-war period the party agent in my constituency said that as a post-war measure of economy, we had gone from a register published twice—or as many as four times—a year, to an annual publication. Surely, as part of our economic growth, we might ask the Leader of the House to consider whether registers could be up-dated more frequently. In any constituency, I understand, 10 per cent. of the people on the register change their addresses and there are problems with postal votes. In these days of computers the up-dating of registers should be comparatively simple. I hope that Mr. Speaker's Conference will consider whether the registers can be up-dated more frequently.
4.53 p.m.
Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: The hon. and learned Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taverne) appears to be the only man in step, according to him. He is setting himself up, as he said a week ago in a speech which was virtually the same as that today, as a political gadfly. I have been in this House only three years, which is not as long as the hon. and learned Gentleman, in his two incarnations, but I have been here long enough to realise that the House can work only if it works within a set of conventions. It is no good the hon. and learned Gentleman in a sudden flush of enthusiasm donning a white sheet and deciding that he is the only one who knows what is best. He has always had a reputation, if I may put it to him courteously, for intellectual arrogance. He must not arrogate to himself the job of keeper of the conscience of this House.
I was one of the 190 or so hon. Members who voted against the motion last week. I was not dragooned into it. Having heard his argument, I was convinced to the contrary. I am not prepared to be accused by him of being party to any fiddle.
4.54 p.m.
Mr. David Steel: I do not wish to repeat what I said when this matter was last debated, but it is useful that we now appear to be moving towards agreement before we even start discussions in Mr. Speaker's Conference. I welcome what the Opposition Chief Whip said. It is
742
unfortunate that the by-election writ for Berwick-upon-Tweed has not been moved. Therefore, the Government are faced with taking a decision about holding the by-election in August which I agree is not a good time, particularly in that constituency, where there is a big tourist trade. If there is some light emerging from this debate I hope that we shall accept that these incidents have been useful.
What the Opposition Chief Whip said regarding Lincoln is not a new argument. He put it at the time, and I did not accept it then. My hon. Friends and I did not agree that the balance of the advantage lay in leaving the constituency unrepresented until more voters came on to the register, but that is a matter in which we agree to differ.
If we are to revise the rules, let us revise them in such a way that whichever party may have responsibility to move a writ can do so during the long recess. Some constituencies, with the best will in the world, remain disfranchised for some time.
Mr. Mellish: Through the death or resignation of a Member, the hon. Gentleman could face a situation in which, if he made these good will efforts to see that people were represented at constituency level, he would have to move the writ so that the by-election took place a week before the register was revised. If the election agent said that that was shameful, would the hon. Gentleman say, "I will not do that, but will consider the electorate as a whole"? Would the hon. Gentleman not accept this?
Mr. Steel: The record of my predecessors—nothing untoward has occurred in my term of office—is that they moved writs for by-elections between one and three months after the death of a Member. That is a reasonable period. That was not the case in Lincoln. It was not a question of the party having the by-election a week before the new electoral register came out: it was a question of having it in the autumn. No one would have an election just before the publication of a new register. The election at Lincoln could have taken place in December.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I would like to put a question

743
to the hon. Gentleman, because he has addressed himself to this matter in a reasonable way. Does he recall that, in the case of the Carmarthen by-election in 1957, Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris died on 22nd November, 1956 and the Liberal Party, which had the right and duty to move the writ, extremely sensibly waited for the new register to be published and held the by-election three months and one week later, on 28th February, 1957? I am not engaging in a large controversy here today, but I put it to the hon. Member that his party at that time realised in that context the sense of waiting for the new register.
Mr. Steel: I do not deny that. I said that my predecessors moved writs within three months, which was reasonable. That was the case in Carmarthen and it did not interfere with the production of the register. The Speaker's Conference is at present discussing the question of publication of registers. Computerisation gives new possibilities on that account.
4.58 p.m.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. James Prior): One thing which the debate has shown is that nothing is quite so easy, straight forward or simple as some people like to make out. I know that the hon. and learned Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taverne) has strong views on this matter, and there are strong views in all parts of the House. I respect this and have a good deal of sympathy for these views.
The hon. and learned Member has already put this matter to the House once, on 10th July, with considerable determination, and despite the lack of support he then received. While I sympathise with his general point, I cannot agree, as I told him on that occasion, that the Government should have moved the writ to enable the Berwick-upon-Tweed by-election to be held this month or next.
I should like to go through the reasons again. When a Member of Parliament has to resign his seat as suddenly as did the former Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, there is general recognition that it is reasonable to allow constituency parties a little time to choose new candidates. To have held the by-election this
744
month would in the circumstances have been too soon. The case is different from that of the other two by-elections being held this month for the reasons which I have just explained.
There is, in the case of Ripon, an additional reason. The late Sir Malcolm Stoddart-Scott had already announced his intention not to stand at the next election and a candidate had been adopted in place of him. Therefore it was reasonable to say that we had a candidate there and we could start the election. In the case of Berwick-upon-Tweed there was no candidate. Therefore a candidate had to be selected.
My point is that circumstances are bound to vary between constituencies, and it is a nonsense necessarily to equate the experience of Lincoln with that of Ripon, Berwick-upon-Tweed or almost any other constituency. There will be differences in the times when a by-election should be called.
Nor do I believe that many people in Berwick would have thought it sensible to hold a by-election next month. I think that that is pretty well agreed in the House today.
In this case it is a pity that, because the writ cannot be moved in the recess following the resignation of a Member, our procedures do not allow the by-election to be held in September. I have looked carefully into whether there is any way in which we might get round this difficulty. I must tell the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) that there is not.
Mr. William Hamilton: Why not?
Mr. Prior: I shall tell the hon. Gentleman why it is not possible. I have considered whether we could now pass a resolution calling upon Mr. Speaker to issue his Warrant during the recess. However Section 1 of the Election of Members During Recess Act 1858 provides:
"It shall and may be lawful for the Speaker of the House of Commons for the time being, during any recess of the House as aforesaid, to issue his warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new writ for election of a Member of the House in the room of any Member who has, since such adjournment or prorogation, accepted any office whereby he has, either by the express provision of any Act of Parliament or by any previous determination of the House of Commons vacated

745
Moreover, Section 4 of the same Act goes on to provide that the Act
"… shall not in any way apply to the acceptance of any of the following offices; that is to say the office of steward or bailiff of Her Majesty's three Chiltern Hundreds of Stoke, Desborough and Burnham …"
It seems clear, therefore, that were this House to pass a resolution calling upon Mr. Speaker to issue his Warrant during the recess, we should be calling upon him to perform an illegal act. I do not think that any hon. Member would regard that as being appropriate.
I have also considered whether we should ask Mr. Speaker to issue his Warrant now to take effect during the recess. I am afraid that that also would be contrary to the law. Paragraph 1 of Part I of the Second Schedule to the Representation of the People Act 1949 provides that the writ for a by-election shall be issued
"… as soon as practicable after the issue of the warrant for the writ."
I am afraid that that wording also seems to be quite conclusive.
In order to move the writ during the course of a recess on an occasion such as this, it will require a change in the law. It is not enough just for Mr. Speaker's Conference to say that it wishes to change the law. A Bill will have to be brought in during the usual course of our business and eventually become the law of the land. Until that happens there is no way by which we can do it.
It is not a matter of Mr. Speaker's Conference simply passing a resolution. It is not even a matter of Mr. Speaker himself, if he wished to do so, saying that he will move the writ. He is not empowered to do so.
Mr. William Hamilton: If the whole House were to agree that the Government should be enabled to issue the writ during the recess, would not it be possible in one day to repeal the legislation which prevented the Government from doing so?
Mr. Michael English: I realise that the right hon. Gentleman is trying to assist the House, and I take his point that the writ must be issued as soon as Mr. Speaker's Warrant is issued. That is understandable. It is a secondary document. But I thought that it would be possible for a motion to be passed in this House
746
authorising Mr. Speaker to issue his Warrant at a later date. In other words, because of the terms of the motion, the Warrant would not be issued until that later date. Then, as soon as the Warrant was issued, the writ would be issued.
Mr. Prior: The point raised by the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) is a possibility that I have investigated. I am advised that it is not possible, and I must accept that advice.
On the point raised by the hon. Member for Fife, West, of course it would be possible to take a Bill through the House of Commons in one day, but I am not certain that their Lordships would take it through in one day. In any event, I do not believe that we should get ourselves into a situation of that kind on this matter, and I hope that the House will not press me to do so today.
As the right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) said, this is an issue which has been put to Mr. Speaker's Conference. Every day that goes by shows that there is a growing recognition that our procedures at the moment are not correct in this situation. I think that the sooner that they can be changed, the better, and I have no doubt that Mr. Speaker's Conference will be wishing to do so.
Mr. David Knox: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that this matter is going to Mr. Speaker's Conference? As I understand it, the leaders of the parties must agree before such a reference can be made to it. We have been told that the two Chief Whips agree. But do the leaders of the parties agree that Mr. Speaker's Conference should consider it?
Mr. Prior: I can now confirm that the leaders of the parties agree to it. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister wrote to the Leader of the Opposition some time ago. I know that the Opposition agree that it should be put to Mr. Speaker's Conference. I know that the Liberal Party agrees. I can confirm that it is going to Mr. Speaker's Conference.
The hon. and learned Member for Lincoln made his point, and I have given him today a full explanation of the Government's view, as I did on 10th July. I accepted his main general point on 10th July by saying that we would put this

747
matter to Mr. Speaker's Conference, and the House then decided to move to the next business.
I am puzzled to know, frankly, why the hon. and learned Gentleman has felt it necessary to raise the matter again today. Although the House has quite enjoyed the debate, the hon. and learned Gentleman is taking up the time of the House unnecessarily. On the previous occasion 1 felt that he was raising a constitutional point of some importance rather than seeking to make any political capital. I find it rather more difficult to take that view on this occasion. I hope that I am wrong about that, because I do not believe that the electors of Berwick-upon-Tweed would easily understand why the hon. and learned Gentleman should seek to make a political issue out of this case.
In any event proceedings of this kind clearly cannot be repeated indefinitely. I remain anxious to avoid a situation in which the Government could not move the writ during the spill-over period or if Parliament were to be recalled for any reason during the recess. I assume that the hon. and learned Gentleman also is anxious to avoid that situation. Therefore, I beg to move, That the debate be now adjourned.
Mr. Taverne: There are two questions at issue here. The first is the general one concerning what our procedure should be under the constitution. The second is the particular case of the electors of Berwick-upon-Tweed.
On the general issue, what the Leader of the House said today even more firmly than before, and supported by the Opposition Chief Whip, certainly is satisfactory. But that does not meet the particular case with which we are concerned, where it is a choice between an inconvenient election in August and disfranchisement for between five and six months. Accordingly I shall oppose the motion for the adjournment of the debate.
Mr. Prior: May I point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman that the only effect of what he is doing now is to put off the date when the by-election can take place by a further three weeks and possibly more? In view of the assurances which have been given, I do not believe
748
that the hon. and learned Gentleman is doing his own case any good by carrying it to the extent now of denying to the electors of Berwick-upon-Tweed the possibility of an election at the earliest possible date.
5.10 p.m.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Could I bring the House back, for I think it is an important point, to the point raised by the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Proudfoot) about the period of validity of registers. There is no doubt that many hundreds of thousands of people are, at each General Election, local election or by-election, disfranchised by our present system of annual registers compiled in October, brought into operation the following February and having a duration until the following February.
This is a matter of great concern to hon. Members such as myself who have constituencies where there is a considerable amount of slum clearance and new building. In my constituency there is a large number of houses, perhaps as many as 1,000, in course of construction, many of them almost ready for occupation. It is a moot point whether all of them will be occupied, because of the problems of bringing people into occupation of large new estates by 10th October. If the thousands of people concerned are not in residence on that estate by 10th October they will not be able to vote in the constituency for a further 15 months and, unless special arrangements are made to find them, they will be disenfranchised at the next General Election.
I greatly hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take full account of the extremely important point made by the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough. This is a form of disfranchisement which is not a matter of controversy between the parties. We should consider finding some new arrangement for allowing people to vote other than this hard-and-fast single annual register.
5.12 p.m.
Mr. John Mendelson: I should like to make two simple points which may have some slight influence on the hon. and learned Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taverne). The point he made today was that he committed

749
himself to raising this matter in his election campaign. I think this is a matter to be treated with considerable respect. He gave a reason for raising the matter the second time. The argument put forward in a friendly way by the Leader of the House was that he could understand why it was raised the first time, but he found it a little difficult to understand why it was raised the second time. An hon. Member who commits himself to bringing forward a matter feels bound to go on with it though he does not succeed the first time.
The hon. and learned Gentleman should bear in mind, on the other side of the argument, that it is now fully and publicly agreed, though until today there has been some doubt about this, that the parties are referring this matter to Mr. Speaker's Conference. Today as a result of this second debate there is a new fact established on which there was some doubt, although perhaps there should not have been.
This is something which the hon. and learned Gentleman can report to those to whom he gave his undertaking, people who are not necessarily of any political party. In view of the danger that these electors may not be able, for a full period of 12 months, to exercise their right and as there is now a reference to Mr. Speaker's Conference—public debate has been advanced by what has been done in these two debates—he would serve best both his own undertaking and the interests of his electors by withdrawing the motion so that a vote need not be forced this afternoon.
The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that on the last occasion he introduced this matter many hon. Members took no part in the debate and did not seek to allege motives or to raise the temper of the debate. I say this in the same spirit today. I think he would serve all the interests he has in mind best if he would withdraw the motion now, so that we can proceed in the manner suggested.
5.15 p.m.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: I wish to descend from the grander horizons, on which there seems to be general agreement, to the interests of the electors of Berwick-upon-Tweed. Do I interpret aright the remarks of the Leader of the
750
House a few moments ago that, were there to be a recall of Parliament in September, he would then move the writ for the election at Berwick-upon-Tweed? If that is the case, I should not like to be party to any action this afternoon that could possibly delay that happy outcome.
5.16 p.m.
Mr. Prior: This, in fact, would be the effect—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): The right hon. Gentleman must ask for the leave of the House.
Mr. Prior: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I have leave to speak again?
The effect of allowing the hon. and learned Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taverne) to move his motion this afternoon—even if it were defeated—would preclude any chance of moving the writ until the new Session, which would probably mean November. I should not like to give a specific undertaking that if we were recalled in September, we should move the writ, because it would depend on when we were recalled. But, if there were a recall, I think it most likely that the writ would then be moved, but one hopes that the chances of being recalled in September are remote.
Mr. Taverne: Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify this a little? He says that if the House were recalled in September he would consider—he would not give an undertaking—moving the writ. He is not suggesting, I take it—though I wish that he were—that he would consider recalling the House, as, I think, one of his hon. Friends suggested, for the purpose of moving the writ.
Mr. Prior: I do not think that I should be very popular if I did that. What I am suggesting is that if, this afternoon, we followed the course of voting on this issue, we should preclude the writ being moved not only in the event of a recall of Parliament but also in the overspill as well, and we could not move it until the new Session. I am certain that, having made his point, the hon. and learned Gentleman does not wish to deny the electors of Berwick-upon-Tweed the possibility of having a Member as soon as possible. I think that he has made his point. The Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) has said this,

751
and so has the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson), and I hope that, in the spirit of the House of Commons, we can pass on to other business.
5.18 p.m.
Mr. Michael English: I think that we all agree on the points about the electoral register and so forth, but I suggest that the entirety of these two debates is based on a fallacy. To the best of my knowledge and belief, hon Members opposite were criticised for issuing the writ for Ripon—in the view of local people—too early. I suggest that many people who live in Berwick-upon-Tweed are not quite as keen as some hon. Members are that they should be faced with a by-election at the present time.
Question, That 'the debate be now adjourned, put and agreed to.
Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made and Question proposed,
That this House do meet on Wednesday, 25th July at Eleven o'clock, that no Questions be taken after Twelve o'clock, and that at Five o'clock Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without putting any Question.—[Mr. Prior.]
5.19 p.m.
Mr. David Crouch: I am concerned that the House should be asked to rise as early as is proposed. There have been occasions when we have found that the pressure of matters to be considered by the House at this time of the year has taken us certainly up to the end of July, and even into the beginning of August.
This has been a busy Session. A number of matters have required a great deal of thought, debate and decision by the House. However, the matter that I want to put before the House concerns my area, and, more generally, the whole of the South-East. One of the reasons that we need to have longer for debate, consideration and decision is what is happening in the South-East, and in particular to the change that we might be creating in the environmental conditions in the South-East.
A number of major decisions lie before us. There is the question of Maplin, the Channel Tunnel, new oil refineries to be situated in the Thames Estuary and the lack of roads in the South-East. I shall
752
not bore the House by going over all these questions in detail. We have had debates on all four matters.
However, we are in danger of losing some of the valuable countryside in the South-East. We are in danger of losing fresh air, the green fields, a large part of the seaside for pleasure purposes, the beaches and, above all, our peace. We are a small enough country in all conscience, and it falls upon us as representatives of the people to think much more widely of the national interest than surely in economic terms. We must all the time take into account environmental considerations.
A Member of Parliament has a duty to consider the national interest at all times. A Member of Parliament today more than ever has a responsibility to speak up with a loud voice for his constituents and the matters that concern them. This applies particularly at a time when the major parties are wielding great party political power to drive through decisions to achieve Government action. However, as Governments do that, either with the acceptance of the Opposition or not, it is still up to individual Members of Parliament to speak with a small voice in this House about the problems which face their constituents.
The problems that I and my constituents face today concern what is happening to the environment of Kent and of the South-East. We are gravely concerned about it.
I do not propose to go into detail about Maplin.
Mr. Charles Loughlin: This is out of order.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): The hon. Gentleman may notice that there is a general Question on the Adjournment about to come. The House may wish me to put the Question on the first subject immediately, to dispose of that and to come to the general subject later. If that is the wish of the House, I shall put the Question now.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House do meet on Wednesday 25th July at Eleven o'clock, that no Questions be taken after Twelve o'clock, and that at Five o'clock Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without outline any Question.

ADJOURNMENT (SUMMER)
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House at its rising on Wednesday 25th July do adjourn till Tuesday 16th October.—[Mr. Prior.]
5.25 p.m.
Mr. David Crouch: I do not know whether I have already referred to this as the silly season, but I think that it is. If I have been out of order, I am glad to have been called back to order. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin), who is always such a good guide in these matters.
The subject of Maplin has already been debated at great length and I am grateful to the Government for having given us so much time to debate it. I do not propose to go into it again. All I want to do is to leave the House the thought that Maplin hangs over us in the South-East as a subject of grave concern.
The Government know the feelings of the majority of people in the South-East on this question. The majority are against Maplin because it is an attack on the environment, especially by noise. On the other side of the estuary, in Essex, it is an attack on the environment on the surface by the great industrial development and the road development which will be necessary.
I have been worried in recent weeks by an apparent assumption by some people that the decision on Maplin is a foregone conclusion. The Port of London Authority already assumes that the seaport at Maplin will be developed and built. In fact, it is a matter to which we have given inadequate consideration. We have discussed whether there should be a third London airport. We know that the matter is being examined, and that expert evidence from the Civil Aviation Authority and others is being studied by the Government. We should have more time to express our anxieties about the development of a major seaport in the Thames Estuary, a seaport that would be both an oil landing port the size of Rotterdam and a container port probably bigger than Rotterdam. These are important economic considerations, but they are also of great national importance. It would probably be right to carry out such de-
754
velopments from the economic point of view, but they will have a catastrophic effect on the environment.
The Maplin Development Bill has not yet been passed, and we may have an opportunity to make a decision when we return after the recess. But alongside the possible developments at Maplin there is the decision that more oil refineries should be established in the estuary, on Canvey Island. I make no apology to my hon. Friends from Essex for taking an interest in their constituents' concern in the matter. I have been lobbied by them because I am a neighbour across the water. I am concerned that we are beginning to see industry not creeping but rushing into the South-East with an inevitability that is disturbing. We should have time to think about the environmental change that is taking place.
The other major project on which we have not had sufficient debate is the Channel Tunnel. We had a whole day's debate on a Friday, but because the Parliamentary Press was on strike at the time we had inadequate reporting. I do not think that HANSARD has yet appeared for 15th June when that debate took place. In consequence, notwithstanding the report of the debate in the national Press, on radio and television, there has been inadequate consideration and debate on the Channel Tunnel and its implications.
The Channel Tunnel project does not present a question of economic achievement versus damage to the environment. I have severe doubts about whether it has yet been proven that there is any economic advantage either in the short or the long term. I spoke in that debate and I did not say that I was wholeheartedly against the idea of the tunnel.
I recognise that we are trading with Europe, that we are a member of the EEC, that the European trade route is across the Channel, in one of several places, and that it could not be denied that there will be an increasing flow in traffic of people and freight in the years to come. It would have been irresponsible of me, in a national position, to have ignored the importance of the European connection and the European route.
But people in Kent feel that their views have not been sufficiently aired in the House of Commons, and I have been

755
asked to speak today to express their concern at the grave change that will occur in Kent if the tunnel is built. They are demanding protection for their way of life and environment.
They are not demanding that the tunnel should not be built. They are demanding to know whether it should be built and whether the economic case is proven. If that argument can be shown and expressed clearly by a majority in the House, they demand protection for their environment. As I see it, a tunnel can be built providing that we do not ignore its effect on all those who live around the tunnel portals and the routes to the tunnel.
I acknowledge that the Minister for Transport Industries has been generous with his time to the House, during Question Time and in that debate, and in meeting Members privately to hear their representations. I acknowledge that but I feel that we have never had sufficient opportunity for a full study of the problem. We seem to have been rather rushing into a decision on the tunnel. Earlier today I was glad to read that there was to be no decision before we went into recess about the next stage of financing the tunnel. At least the Government are giving themselves sufficient time to satisfy themselves that the financial arrangements are sound.
There are many people who want to be completely satisfied, first, that the tunnel will be a success and, secondly, that if it is decided in economic interests to be necessary there will be sufficient safeguards to protect us.
Those who argue for the tunnel—the Minister for Transport Industries has expressed this quite clearly—as planned, a rail tunnel, claim that it will prove to be the salvation of freight in this country. It will take freight of the road back on to the rail. That is a brave consideration and there is surely no one in this House who would be against such a proposition. I should like to stress again to my right hon. Friend that this argument requires a great deal of study, argument and presentation to make it clear, as far as possible, that there will be a transfer of freight from our roads. If this can be promised, I think the people of Kent will say that that is a promise which has
756
a benefit for the nation, not only economically, but environmentally. But we must be sure that this bonus is there and is in no way a doubtful one.
I would therefore plead that this is a matter for which we must have more time for consideration. If we have to go into recess as early as has been decided, it is to be hoped that after the recess we do not rush back into a quick debate. Facts must be presented to us. A one day's debate is not sufficient. We need a further Green Paper on this subject, not just another statement from British Rail, but real conviction that the tunnel will work.
The House will have noted that I have not once said that we should not afford this scheme. I have not once argued that the expenditure of £800 million or £1,000 million, split between this country and France, paid mainly by the private sector with Government backing, should not be undertaken. But I have said that we must be convinced and know exactly what it means before we embark on this major development, this major economic and transport decision, which will have such serious environmental effects. I believe that we have had insufficient time to consider it.
The whole question of what is likely to happen in the South-East in the next 20 years merits a great deal of thought by the House. The relationship of the South-East with the other regions must be considered. As we take such decisions, airport decisions and seaport decisions, with the concomitant industrial development which will follow as night follows day—as we turn Thameside into another greater Teesside, with greater wealth opportunities for everyone in the area, but with a changed environment—as we do these things, we change the balance between the South-East and the North-East, Scotland, the North-West. Wales and the South-West.
We must not forget that the decisions on the seaport and the airport and on communications across the Channel will all have the effect of creating a magnet to turn the South-East into a great industrial area.
I see with some dismay the creep of concrete into Kent. When I read—I believe that it was in an American report looking at this country, and sometimes people looking from the outside can see

757
what is happening more clearly than we can—that by the end of the century the South-East of England, and especially that little quarter that is essentially Kent, will be 50 per cent. covered in concrete, buildings and roads, I begin to worry.
One hundred and fifty years ago, when Frenchmen travelled across the Straits of Dover and landed at Dover, they were amazed at the change they saw on their 22-mile journey. They left a land in the Pas de Calais which was poorly farmed, without rich farm houses or cottages, and they came to rich farm country, with rich cottages, rich small houses and even bigger houses, all the way to London. The prospect on landing in England in those days for a Frenchman was one of delight, and England in the South-East, in Kent, truly had the garden of England at its front door. I must speak today for those who live in the garden of England and who are determined that that garden shall not be ruined.
5.38 p.m.
Mr. Jack Ashley: I believe that the House should not adjourn without debating the freedom of the British Press. Yesterday's judgment by the House of Lords that the proposed article by The Sunday Times on the thalidomide affair would be a contempt of court has created an astonishing and intolerable situation.
But, first, the interpretation of the law by various judges has been bizarre, and it has, I believe, undermined confidence in the judicial process. By definition, one set of most distinguished judges has given a judgment wholly at variance with, or diametrically opposed to, justice. Because two different sets of judges have given opposite rulings. One set of judges, in the Court of Appeal, ruled unanimously, in effect, that black was black, whereas now the House of Lords has said that black is white. Or, alternatively, the Court of Appeal said, in effect, that black was white, and the House of Lords has said that black is black. Between them, therefore, our highest judges, I believe, have undermined public respect for the judiciary by that their diametric opposition on the basic question whether the proposed article was or was not in contempt of court. I should
758
have thought that the relevant law was a little clearer than that.
But the most astonishing and intolerable consequence of the latest judgment is that we are now faced with a series of ironic paradoxes—that British law, designed to ensure justice, creates injustice; that British law, designed to preserve free speech, restricts freedom of speech; that British law, designed to defend honesty, defends dishonesty.
The message from the House of Lords judgment is loud and clear to all those perpetrating injustice. If they issue a writ, or institute proceedings, they will be carefully and legally protected from exposure by the British Press. From yesterday, the Press of Britain is significantly censored, and, remarkably, the simple trigger mechanism which will spark off that censorship is available to any shyster who uses the law of contempt.
The odd thing is that, had yesterday's judgment been made before the initial article by The Sunday Times about thalidomide last September, the thalidomide children would have been condemned not only to a lifetime of disability but to a lifetime of penury. There can be no greater injustice than that.
As The Times pointed out today, the scandals of Mozambique and of My Lai, or any other scandal for that matter, could have been buried had that judgment been given earlier, because the British Press would not have been allowed to report those scandals if anyone had simply instituted proceedings or issued a writ. This is an unacceptable situation for the British Press, especially when the world Press is free to report these issues.
I believe that one mistake that the British Press makes is to say that the success of the thalidomide campaign and the better reward given to the children was due entirely to the Press and the parents. The Press and the parents were indispensable, but ultimately the decisive voice in the thalidomide campaign was the House of Commons and public opinion. It was these two which induced Distillers to raise its offer from £34. million to £26 million. There can be no doubt about that. I am convinced that on this issue of the law of contempt the decisive influence will be the will of

759
the House of Commons and public opinion.
No one is advocating trial by newspaper or interference in fair trial. Fair trial will be safeguarded if the Press is not allowed to comment once a case is set down for trial. But before and after the trial the Press should be allowed to comment. The issue of a writ, or the institution of proceedings, should not be allowed to prevent discussion. In a dormant case, such a procedure can continue for many years and stifle discussion.
The Government's failure to take urgent action on the law of contempt may create the impression that, while talking of open government, they favour closed minds. By the ill-advised initiative of the Attorney-General, an impression has been created that the Government do not favour freedom of the Press. That impression can be rectified in public only by the Government taking urgent and decisive action. The Prime Minister and his colleagues ought now to recognise that the Press of Britain is not as free as we thought and that the Press of Britain is not as free as it ought to be.
The Government must ensure that the Phillimore Committee reports at once and they must arrange a debate as soon as possible, not only on the Phillimore Report, but on wide-ranging issues affecting the law of contempt. Although the Leader of the House has said that there will be a debate, it should be brought forward as a matter of urgency. In the meantime, the Government should ensure that the House has the fullest information possible.
Yesterday's judgment, that the proposed article by The Sunday Times on thalidomide would be in contempt of court, was an astonishing judgment, and the time is now ripe for the Government to make it clear—by action, not words—. that they axe no longer prepared to tolerate a law which so grossly distorts and gags the British Press.
5.47 p.m.
Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: There are two reasons why the House ought not to agree to the proposal for its recess without further consideration.
First, the House should know firmly that the Government propose to proceed as rapidly as possible with the building
760
of Maplin Airport in order to save my constituents from the growing nuisance of more and more aircraft noise over Hampstead—that is the major reason. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) is not here to hear me contradict him, but in the interests of my constituents I want Maplin built swiftly to stop the nuisance to them.
Mr. Clinton Davis: During the recess!
Mr. Finsberg: If possible, yes.
Secondly, the House ought to do something about the deteriorating standard of postal deliveries, particularly in Greater London. The work of the House is suffering from the Post Office's failure to deliver first-class letters within one day of posting.
It may be amusing to one Opposition Member, who was not here earlier, but if the House were to be recalled and Members relied upon first-class mail, they would receive the letters after the House had been recalled. Thus, this matter should be considered.
Let me give my right hon. Friends one or two facts. A letter from Waterloo Bridge House, which is the headquarters of the Post Office Users National Council, was sent to me, as a member of the council, on 28th June by first-class mail. It told me of the Post Office's proposals for tariff increases. Waterloo House is across the bridge, in SE1. The letter did not get to the House of Commons in SW1 the next day. That is clear evidence that the postal service is deteriorating rapidly. The Leader of the House should be able to give us some sort of assurance in that respect.
The delivery of letters on a Saturday is becoming worse. The North-West London District Postmaster has confirmed that deliveries on Mondays include a significantly higher proportion of letters that should have been delivered on Saturday. He said:
"Four out of 29 First Class letters, and 19 out of 75, Second Class were so delayed. So it seems we do have a Saturday performance weakness to answer for."
In the Christmas Recess Adjournment debate, I discussed the failure of the North Thames Gas Board to progress with conversions. As a result, I received a flood of letters and the board stopped

761
its conversion work. The chairman investigated matters and there has since been considerable improvement. People who use gas heating can switch to electricity, but if one uses the first-class letter post, one cannot do much by switching to pigeon post. Therefore, this subject should be looked at before the House rises.
A letter was sent from the House in a white envelope under official-paid first-class mail to a WI district. That letter posted at three o'clock on the 14th, did not arrive the following day, namely, Friday the 15th. The South Western District Postmaster said:
"The enquiries made have revealed that the delivery office concerned had acute staffing problems on 15th June, and unfortunately a certain amount of correspondence due for delivery on that day was delayed."
The Leader of the House will be aware that the whole purpose of a two-tier mail system is that the Post Office guarantee delivery the next day for first-class mail. It is failing to do so and its figures and those produced by the Post Office Users National Council do not coincide.
The Post Office Users National Council has always considered that the Post Office is failing to carry out its duties. In certain circumstances, if it were private industry, it would be liable under the Trade Descriptions Act for failing to carry out its guarantee of delivery the next day.
The House would have a problem if a recall were necessary during the recess—and the famous special delivery letters that go out from both sides of the House frequently arrive after the normal first delivery the next day. A letter from the North-West London District Postmaster says:
"Overnight Friday 29th June to Saturday 30th June, my own District Office was short-staffed and did not clear all the mail due for Saturday delivery."
The Leader of the House ought to tell his right hon. Friend the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications that the situation is unsatisfactory. If one takes this matter up directly with the Chairman of the Post Office he shuffles it off on to one of his deputies, and sometimes he takes longer to reply than one or two Ministers! He should be shaken up. The replies that one receives from the North-West London District Postmaster are swift and courteous and I acquit him per-
762
sonally of any responsibility, because it is from higher up that this problem stems.
The major argument used by the Post Office is that it is short of labour. This recurs time and time again in its letters and excuses. One of the steps which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House could take, in consultation with his right hon. Friend, is to tell the Post Office that it is time it ended the cosy arrangement that has existed for too long with the Union of Post Office Workers—particularly in the London postal region—restricting the employment of female labour. There is no question of discrimination on pay. It is no use hon. Members opposite bleating. It is a fact. There is a restriction on the use of female labour until the establishment has fallen below a certain level. I maintain that the service should come first.
My right hon. Friend knows, I am sure, that when there have been debates in the House on anti-discrimination, none of the Bills so far introduced would have got anywhere had there not been bi-partisan support. The hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) knows that well, and he should not always claim sole responsibility for introducing those Bills. But if any Bill should become law, the Transport and General Workers Union, for example, will have to allow women bus drivers in London, which so far it has refused to do, as have its members.
My reason for raising this matter today is that I am extremely worried that my constituents are not receiving the service for which they have paid, and this House is not getting the service for which it has paid, namely, guaranteed delivery the next day of first-class mail.
When my right hon. Friend sums up on this somewhat strange collection of debates, I hope that he will give the House an assurance that this matter will not merely be taken on board by him or by his right hon. Friend but that something will be done. I hope that action will, if necessary, be taken in line with the recommendation of a CBI committee that the jobs of chairman and chief executive should not necessarily be held by the same man, as is the case now in the Post Office.
5.58 p.m.
Mr. Arthur Davidson: Like most hon. Members, I can think of

763
many reasons why the House should not adjourn, but I do not intend to give them unless I am pressed. I associate myself, however, with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley). I agree that it would be wrong for the House to adjourn without giving hon. Members an opportunity to debate the implications of that most important judgment affecting the Press, that is, the judgment on the Sunday Times thalidomide article case. The Leader of the House has only to read this morning's newspapers to know that it makes the law of contempt much more rigid than it was previously thought to be.
I speak with some experience in the matter. When I was a lawyer in Fleet Street, I always understood—and most newspapers acted on this basis—that one would never publish an article which might prejudice the conduct of a trial or prejudice the possible outcome of a trial. But most newspapers did not act on the basis that an article could not be published at all, whether or not it was calculated or likely to prejudice the outcome of a trial or hearing. Unless we have misread the judgment from another place, that is what it asserts, that it does not matter whether an article is likely to prejudice the outcome of a hearing—it must not be published.
I do not expect the Leader of the House to go into the legal arguments today. We expect him to do many things, but that would not be fair. But he must realise, even as a layman, that the judgment is important to freedom of expression in publication and is a restriction. In a limited sense, it means that the public cannot know why that killer drug was marketed, because the article in the Sunday Times—which would have gone into the steps taken by the company and why the company decided to market the drug—can never be published until after the case has been settled.
The case has already gone on for 12 years. Settlement may be in sight. But it may take several months yet before a settlement is reached. In a narrow sense, the public are being denied the facts, and they are being denied the truth, because the truth cannot be printed.
764
In a wider sense, it means that any newspaper must carefully view whether it publishes an article in these circumstances. All that we need now is for a writ to be pursued vigorously, or, worse, issued maliciously, and an article cannot be published. It is impossible for an editor or for a lawyer advising an editor to know for certain whether a writ is issued genuinely because a person wants genuine redress, or whether the sole purpose of issuing the writ is to stop the facts from being given to the public—facts which the public have a right to know.
Even more important, the judgment of the Law Lords seems to suggest that one must not publish any article which may affect a possible settlement. How on earth can one tell whether one party or another is making a genuine attempt at a settlement, or whether the negotiations are purely a facade, as they may well be?
In those circumstances, when perhaps one party is opening negotiations purely in the hope that the matter will drag on and on and that ultimately the newspaper, the public or the other side will get bored with it and forget about it, if the Law Lords' judgment is correct, a newspaper will not be able to publish. That means that for years a subject involving fraud, some kind of malpractice, or a public scandal, could not be revealed. The House should know just how important this judgment is to freedom of publication and, the most basic freedom of all, freedom of speech.
The Leader of the House should inform the Attorney-General of the concern that the House must feel. I have already tabled a Question to the Attorney-General, which I hope he will answer on Monday.
It may well be that the Government ought to introduce legislation amending the law of contempt. The law of contempt has not been satisfactory for years. The criticism that was formerly made of it was that it was too vague and too imprecise. In making the law of contempt more precise, the Law Lords—though I am not criticising them; they have made a considered judgment and no doubt they thought that they were acting in the public interest—have made it difficult for a layman to understand how facts

765
are not able to be published when knowledge of those facts must be in the public interest.
During the election campaign the Government made great play with their desire to have a more open society, but they have sheltered behind committees. They have sheltered behind the Franks Committee, whose report, after a lot of pressing, was debated only on a Friday afternoon. They have sheltered behind two other committees—the Phillimore Committee, looking into contempt, and the committee looking into the law of libel. It is imperative that the Phillimore Committee report immediately, and certainly take on board this decision by the Law Lords.
I hope that the Attorney-General will shortly be able to assure the House that that has been done. In all the circumstances, I hope that the Leader of the House will take this matter seriously and that at the earliest oportunity we shall have a statement of the Government's intentions about the decision by the Law Lords.
6.6 p.m.
Mr. John Biffen: The advocacy of the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson) loses nothing by its moderation and he has touched upon a subject which, I am certain, will pre-occupy the House increasingly over the coming months and which has already been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Fowler). It would provide a useful subject for debate in the House at the earliest moment when the executive has had a chance to reflect upon the Law Lords' decision. That is one reason why the House should not adjourn on Wednesday 25th July until Tuesday 16th October. However, I am opposed to the motion for other reasons. They are related to the development of the European Community during the period between July and October, while the House will be in recess, and will touch upon developments of intimate and vital concern to the House.
First, there is no doubt that our experience of Community membership itself is requiring a constant monitoring of the developing relationships between the law-making authorities on the Continent and the law-making authorities
766
here. A constant monitoring is required of the economic balance sheet of advantage and disadvantage in the experience of Community membership.
I do not make my remarks in any sense as a committed, hostile partisan to Community membership, because the arguments of yesteryear—though they may be helpful as a guide to the future—can perhaps be left to yesteryear. But the arguments we now have to consider have plenty of topicality.
The Shropshire Star, which is a rapidly growing provincial newspaper—[Laughter.] It is easy enough for hon. Members to laugh disparagingly, but I feel that it must be appreciative and not disparaging laughter, because it is precisely this kind of provincial newspaper which is displacing national dailies in many provincial areas.
The Shropshire Star carries a report—it has a good Lobby team serving the House—which says:
"Britain may be approaching a Common Market crisis if some Whitehall predictions turn out to be accurate. Senior Ministers say privately that the next six months will be critical. For Britain's representatives in Brussels it is likely to be one long dispute after another. Whatever the attempts to conceal it, the driving force, according to Ministers, is specific—Britain needs changes in EEC policy."
The article goes on to some greater length, but the attribution is interesting, coming in a paper which is not known to be particularly partisan against the idea of Community membership and which cannot be assigned to one of the Beaverbrook stables. Therefore, I hope that neither my hon. Friends nor Labour Members will lightly dismiss the comments which have appeared in the Shropshire Star.
The House must address itself to the immediate desirability of a debate on the Common Market and food prices, but not in a strictly narrow and partisan sense. I certainly have no wish to see a repetition of the atmosphere of yesterday's debate, which in some ways was more suitable for a Celtic-Rangers football match than for serious consideration of a major political issue.
What is without doubt developing, and quite properly should command our concern, is whether we will be enabled to retain zero rating of value added tax.

767
Zero rating of value added tax on food was a matter to which the Conservative Party committed itself in its election manifesto of 1970. It was in a sentence which I strongly recommend for re-inclusion in the "Better Tomorrow, Mark II", whenever that is to be published. It is the kind of guarantee that I should like to see in the face of developing evidence that Ministers are being approached in Brussels and from within the Community with a view to reconsidering the whole question of zero rating of value added tax and, above all, zero rating of value added tax on food.
Indeed, the Financial Times on 21st June stated:
"The European Commission will shortly have to make up its mind whether Britain should be allowed to have zero rates of Value Added Tax after 1975…. The problem is becoming acute, because M. Henri Simonet, the Commissioner in charge of tax harmonisation, plans to make initial proposals soon on harmonising the incidence of VAT in the nine member states. This has to be done by 1975."
We know that there were discussions between M. Simonet and the Government. We know that parliamentary Questions were remarkably unsuccessful in eliciting very much of what had been concluded. As so often in these affairs, one has to turn to the Financial Times to inquire and elucidate exactly what is happening. On 21st June Mr. Reginald Dale, the Financial Times correspondent in Brussels, under the heading
"UK given temporary reprieve on VAT rates",
said that
"neither the United Kingdom nor any other member State would be able to introduce new zero rates in future … those countries that have them"—
those countries which at the moment have zero rates—
"will be required to submit a report on their functioning and the continued need for them every two years."
In answer to a Question of mine which was put down on 23rd May, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food indicated, on the specific and rather contentious issue of butter, that within the Community there was a VAT rate on butter on 7 per cent. in France, 51 per cent. in Germany, 4 per cent. in the Netherlands, 6 per cent. in Belgium, 5 per cent. in Luxembourg and in Italy,
768
which had just introduced a VAT on butter, 1 per cent.
Unless we are to be so pre-eminently successful at evangelising all the other Community countries to adjust their tax patterns to fit our practice, the indications are that economic and monetary union, with its concomitant of fiscal harmonisation, will result in a requirement on this country to apply VAT to foodstuffs.
That seems to be the clear and inescapable logic of the Community as now constructed and the commitment to economic and monetary union that has been undertaken. Therefore, in the months ahead and in the period covered by the recess, if this House is to be vigilant and perform its premier role, it should be seeking to elucidate from the executive far more information than has so far been made available on this subject.
But a debate on the Common Market and the price of food, not as it now is but as it is in prospect, would be incomplete without consideration of the common agricultural policy. Of course we are under immediate inhibition, because the proposed recess will eliminate agriculture Questions which would have been top of the list next Thursday. That opportunity is lost. Today a record of 15 Questions on Northern Ireland took 45 minutes, so that agriculture Questions which came second were not reached. That is life. But it is no consolation for many hon. Members who believe that the reformation of the common agricultural policy is one of the most important tasks that await any Government, and the present Government in particular.
Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) put a request to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that as soon as we return we should address ourselves to this problem. It is much more important, however, that we should know the Government's attitude in advance of the September meeting of the Council of Ministers. We do not know very much about the Government's attitude to the review of the common agricultural policy which, we are told, will take place this autumn, probably whilst the House is in recess.
We know from statements made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of

769
Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that he welcomes the review. However, he has given greater elaboration of his thinking on the review of the common agricultural policy to a conference on Europe's food and drink industry, convened by the Financial Times, than he has to this House. Indeed, so often are ministerial statements on the development of European policy being given at functions of that kind that one wonders how long it will be before the Fees Office will give us a season ticket to conferences organised by the Financial Times in order that we may be updated on ministerial thinking.
At the Financial Times conference my right hon. Friend said:
"So far as possible improvements in the common agricultural policy are concerned, the Commission is now engaged on a thorough review of the system, and we shall be making our full contribution to the search for solutions. I have no ready-made panacea to offer, but I will venture one or two lines of thought."
Thereafter the thoughts followed. They can reasonably be summarised in the sentence in my right hon. Friend's speech in which he said:
"This suggests that some measure of support for producers could be diverted away from end prices into more direct aids that do not raise consumer prices."
It seems that my right hon. Friend is beginning to question the very principles and mechanism by which the common agricultural policy operates. Certainly that seems to be the view of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. When my right hon. Friend answered a Question on 4th July in the context of the common agricultural policy, he said:
"Principles, mechanisms and systems can be reviewed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th July 1973; Vol. 859, c. 507.]
We might go away on 25th July reassured that a wide-ranging and critical reassessment of the common agricultural policy will be undertaken. I have reservations about the implied optimism of such reassurance.
My right hon. Friend is not the only agriculture Minister who is summoned by the Financial Times to grace its conferences. Another such Minister is M. Chirac. At the same Financial Times conference to which I have referred M. Chirac, the French Agricultural Minister, said:
770
"But CAP, as established, was not open to negotiation."
M. Chirac stressed that neither the principles nor the machinery of the common agricultural policy should be negotiated. He said:
"It would be both a political and economic error to allow CAP to be challenged again. It would be a political error because the Policy was one of the most valuable of the Community's achievements."
Against such conflicting evidence, and on a matter of such overwhelming importance and transcendental significance to the House and to Britain in its relationships with the Community—it does not matter whether one was a partisan for or against membership in times past—it is clear that decisions of such a character should not be proceeded with behind the back of the House. These are decisions which touch upon the viability of Britain being able to have happy and harmonious relations in partnership with sister States in Europe.
It is because I regard that as being of such central importance that I hope my right hon. Friend will feel that the House should be far more fully informed on these matters than hitherto. A start could be made by adjusting our proposed Adjournment to ensure that we have a full day's debate before the September meeting of the Council of Ministers.
6.24 p.m.
Mr. Gavin Strang: I have been following with great interest the remarks of the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen). The common agricultural policy is a subject which interests me greatly. I remember very well when the Labour Party last year published certain proposals, which were the outcome of an NEC sub-committee of which I was a member. They were proposals for the reform of the CAP. They also set out the Labour Party's renegotiating position. I remember the outcry from the media and from the National Farmers Union. I remember the attempt which was made to portray those proposals as being unrealistic and not to be taken seriously.
I read with great interest Nora Beloff's column in the Observer last Sunday. After Peregrine Worsthorne and Ronald Butt, she must be one of the three best-read opponents of democratic Socialism on a Sunday. Nora Beloff said that the Government were taking the reform of the

771
CAP very seriously. She said that Heath was taking a heavy line. I smiled when I thought of the things which the same Sunday Press had said a year ago about the Labour Party's proposals, which have been restated in its latest policy document.
The hon. Member for Oswestry is right to draw attention to the fact that major agricultural decisions are now being taken in Brussels. Of all the areas of government, there is none on which Whitehall has less say than agriculture. While listening to the hon. Gentleman I was reminded of the speeches which my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) used to make from the Opposition Front Bench on the importance of parliamentary control. I hope my hon. Friend will not be offended if I say that while I tend to agree with him on most things, I used to have a sneaking suspicion when I listened to his speeches that his attitude on parliamentary control reflected to some extent his love of this institution and did not derive entirely from his strong views on the need for democratic control. I have changed my mind during the past year or so. I have changed it not just because of what has happened in Strasbourg and Brussels —that charade of democratic control—but because of the sort of things we see happening in this House.
I have come to believe that we should not cast aside the long-established practice in this country that, if there is to be a change in policy, a Minister must come to this House of Commons and justify it.
I believe that the House should definitely not adjourn before we have had a statement from the Secretary of State for Scotland about his proposals for the reform of crofting tenure. These proposals are important for the Highlands. To the crofting communities they are absolutely vital. The future of those communities depends on what this Government or a subsequent Government decide on these matters. The Government's proposals were announced in reply to a planted Written Question of 4th August 1972. The proposals were presented in a rather vague form. They immediately posed a number of important questions. At the time I assumed that they would be followed by a fuller statement of the Government's intentions.
772
We did not have a fuller statement. However, a debate started in the Highlands. The Crofters Commission, which is appointed by the Government, began to take a leading part in the debate. I thought that the Government had decided to have a debate in the Highlands and that after a while they would give some substance to their proposals. I thought that they would provide answers to some of the fundamental questions which the proposals posed.
A debate went on for some time and the annual conference of the assessors to the Crofting Commission took place in Inverness earlier this year. I went to that conference to discuss these matters with the crofters because this is an issue to which the Labour Party attaches great importance.
I could not attend the actual conference sessions, but one of the crofters from Shetland kindly gave me a grubby typescript sheet which the delegates had been given, which gave more information about the proposals of the Secretary of State for Scotland. It is supposed to have been produced—at least, this was what it said at the bottom of the page —by the Crofters Commission in March 1973. I was informed that the typescripts had been prepared by the Depart. ment of Agriculture for Scotland and were simply being issued by the Crofters Commission. It was said that that had to be the case because the proposals had emanated not from the Crofters Commission but from the Scottish Office.
I thought it was rather a sad reflection on the Department of Agriculture and on the junior Minister who is in charge of that Department that such a typescript should be allowed to emanate from his Department. That is assuming that my information is correct. That was some time ago. Since then a lot of things have been said and there has been a lot of coverage in the Highlands of this issue. It is a big issue in the Highlands.
One of the major questions is the price the crofter will have to pay for his croft. In order to understand the importance of that question, it must be remembered that in 1968 the commission published proposals for the reform of crofting tenure which would have given the crofter ownership of his croft on payment of not more than his annual rent,

773
which is virtually a nominal rent. He would have received his croft for an annuity.
The initial reaction of the crofters to those proposals was favourable because they expected to be able to buy their crofts at a price they could afford. From the outset many of us were concerned at the way the proposals were framed and we wondered whether that would be the case. It has become clearer as the debate has ensued that possibly very few crofters will be able to purchase their crofts under the Government's proposals.
If anyone is in doubt about that, let him read the last report of the Crofters Commission. In paragraph 5 this Government-appointed body states:
"In areas where land values have risen sharply because of the pressure of tourism or North Sea Oil it might well be impossible for crofters to purchase their crofts at all, but if we have interpreted the Secretary of State's intention correctly the price in many crofting areas should not differ greatly from the capitalised value of a current fair rent."
Months after publication of the Government's original proposal, the Crofters Commission is saying that it is not sure whether it knows the Government's intentions. That implies a serious situation. I tabled 20 Questions on this issue last month and some of the answers were useful, but on the key issues—with the exception of one—I received virtually no information. On the key issue on which I received information I was told that the Government were not prepared to give crofters the greater security of tenure which they need in view of the recent "resumptions" by the landlords.
We debated this matter in the Scottish Grand Committee last week. The Minister had prior notice that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) would raise the matter. The Minister knows perfectly well what the key questions are. The people in the Highlands are crying out for answers but the Minister last week gave no answer but merely a brush-off. I hope I am wrong, but I am becoming very suspicious about the Government's intentions. I am worried that a Bill will be sprung upon us without adequate prior discussion on the basic contents of that Bill. We have not yet been told that we are to have a Bill next Session. I hope even at this late date that, if the Government intend to introduce legisla-
774
tion next Session, they will nevertheless be prepared to publish a White Paper on the subject so that we can thrash out the issues and arrive at proposals which are acceptable to the crofters.
I hope that my suspicions are wrong. When I originally saw the proposals I interpreted them as a sell out to the landlords. The situation in the Highlands is that there is immense pressure on land, not just from the wealthy people in the South-East who want holiday homes but above all because of North Sea oil. The oil can benefit the Highlands and the crofting communities, but the effects of the oil developments could also destroy those communities and it is important that there should be proper protection and control for them. I suspect that the Government might be tempted to put the interests of the land developers and speculators before the interests of the crofting communities. I hope I am wrong and that the Government will make a statement about these matters before we adjourn showing that I am wrong.
6.35 p.m.
Mr. John Farr: I want to take up one or two of the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) before moving on to one specific reason why the House should not adjourn on Wednesday. I do not normally engage in these debates because, like other hon. Members, I am almost exhausted at this time of the year and I look forward to the relaxation. But, apart from what my hon. Friend said about the CAP and some of the critical decisions which are to be taken about it within the next few months, I have a special constituency reason why I should like the House to adjourn on 1st August. In that extra time we could have a couple of useful debates which would be of great value to hon. Members on both sides.
I, too, share the concern which my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry expressed so adequately about the workings of the CAP. Critical decisions are to be taken in the coming months while the House is in recess. I do not completely support his criticism of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food because I am sure that my right hon. Friend is seized of the urgent necessity for a reappraisal of the CAP. If we had another week we could

775
engage in a useful one- or two-day debate on the subject and we could express our views, which I am sure my right hon. Friends the Leader of the House and the Minister of Agriculture would be interested to hear.
There are other matters concerning the CAP which my hon. Friend did not mention and they are the sort of things we should have been discussing. Very shortly a decision has to be taken by this country about our Christmas turkeys and poultry. According to the EEC regulations it is forbidden for us to sell our turkeys in the traditional way. They now have to be plucked with their guts removed and placed down their gullet. That is a hygienic way of doing it and unless we do something about it that is how we shall have to prepare our poultry.
Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend says that that is the hygienic way of preparing poultry and I am sure that is so, but lest anyone thinks that the New York-dressed method gives cause for concern about hygiene may I put on record that replies to Questions which I have put down have revealed that no instances of salmonella were traced to New York dressing.
Mr. Farr: I am glad my hon. Friend has placed that on record.
Another point that we should be discussing in the next week or so is how we can reconcile the decisions taken in the House last week about the export of live cattle with the conditions under which we joined the EEC. We are forbidden under Community regulations to ban the export of live cattle, which the House has done recently on a temporary basis. A useful debate could have taken place next week to reconcile the decision to suspend the export of live cattle with the obligations we assumed when we joined the Community which took away our sovereignty in controlling the export of live or dead animals to other member nations in the Nine.
An important point in relation to the Common agricultural policy is the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. One of the arrangements reached by the Government before we joined was that after 1974 there would be continuing access to this country for 1·4 million tons of Commonwealth sugar from the underdeveloped countries of the Commonwealth. It is important
776
that the arrangement should be honoured and that this annual quantity of sugar should continue to come in from some of our less prosperous Commonwealth members, such as Mauritius and many of the West Indian countries.
There is no doubt from what my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture said in the House yesterday that it is likely that the other members of the Nine will honour the agreement after 1974 and, although perhaps with reluctance on the part of France, will permit us to continue to honour our obligations to the Commonwealth in that way. What disturbs me, however, and why I believe that a debate would be useful, is that my right hon. Friend spoke yesterday of being able to secure for another year the cane sugar refiners' margin of £4 a ton. What will happen after that year has expired? If refiners need another £4 a ton to make the job economic now, surely they will continue to need that subsidy indefinitely.
Some of my hon. Friends and many Opposition Members never envisaged that the Commonwealth sugar quota to the Nine was to be tapered off or to expire. We regard it as an indefinite obligation of 1·4 million tons per annum. Those companies which refine Commonwealth sugar should be assured of the necessary financial margin to enable them to do so profitably.
My real reason for not wishing to adjourn, apart from wishing to join in any debate which my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry might be able to arrange next week, is that I should like to raise the question of a circular issued by the Department of Health and Social Security which reached my constituency on Monday of last week. I do not know whether it is a national circular or whether it is confined to Leicestershire, but it has caused a great deal of anguish in Leicester and in the county. It relates to the ban on the construction of new health centres. A health centre serves city areas and country areas alike. In country areas in particular it is a centre from which a number of doctors grouped together operate their practices. That is purpose-built for the housing of doctors, their staff and some, if not all, ancillary equipment which goes with a practice or practices.

777
For many years doctors have been managing with surgeries, not purpose-built but perhaps part of their house. In some parts of the country, particularly in fast-growing parts like the East Mid-lands, and certainly in Leicestershire, which has one of the fastest-growing populations in the country health centres have become an absolute necessity.
I have in my briefcase a letter from a doctor who has a practice in my constituency in a village called Countesthorpe, where five or six years ago he was able to provide single-handed the medical facilities and treatment for the village and its district. In the past five or six years the village has grown out of all recognition. So rapidly has it expanded, with a very large house-building programme, that the doctor has had to take on two partners. Now instead of, as formerly, managing the practice with his wife as part-time help and with one paid assistant, he has no fewer than 14 full-time and part-time staff and assistants to help him out. His house, which was formerly a family home, is turned into what might be called a factory or an office.
People in such positions in the rapidly growing parts of the country cannot be expected to continue without having a chance to have purpose-built health centres. A few years ago the Government recognised this and encouraged local county authorities to establish new health centres with the aid of Government financial assistance. Leicestershire did this, and has already constructed and completed quite a number. Eight centres remain uncompleted, with plans in an advanced state. Last Monday we had the circular saying that further progress in the construction of these much-needed centres had to be suspended until further notice. Througoht the usual channels I have put down Questions and I have written to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. If we sat for another week I should definitely seek to raise the matter with him, as I suspect, would many of my colleagues.
I support the request for a further week or even two weeks so that matters of the type I have discussed, international affairs such as those my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry mentioned and, more important, local affairs such as the need for health centres in rapidly grow-
778
ing parts of the East Midlands, may be properly discussed.
6.48 p.m.
Mr. Thomas Cox: The House has had a long and tiring year. Many hon. Members, including myself, look forward to the Summer Recess. However, I would be failing in my duty to my constituents if I did not seek to raise one local problem causing a great deal of concern, which will be very familiar to other hon. Members.
Sir John Langford-Holt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member started by saying that ha wants to discuss a matter before dealing with what he wants to discuss next week. Is it not an accepted principle that we may briefly indicate what we wish to discuss and that that is the reason why we wish the motion not to be passed?
Mr. Speaker: I do not disagree with what the hon. Member has said.
Mr. Cox: I wish to refer to problems in my constituency and to say that we should not adjourn next week, because it would be of benefit not only to my constituents but to the constituents of many other hon. Members if adequate time were found during the proposed recess to discuss them.
The problem is the lack of road safety provisions. Despite all the attempts I have made in the House by Question, letter to the Secretary of State for the Environment and correspondence I have had with members and officials of the Greater London Council and the London borough of Wandsworth, there has been no improvement locally in the provision of either zebra crossings or traffic lights.
Consequently young mothers with children, disabled people and elderly people, of whom there is a large number in Wandsworth, face the almost impossible task at certain times of the day of crossing roads in safety. Such is the problem in part of my constituency, about which I have received no satisfaction from the Secretary of State, that mothers are now, week after week, demonstrating in an effort to get adequate safety provisions for their youngsters to cross the roads.

779
I am speaking particularly of the Bedford Hill area of Wandsworth, which takes traffic out of South London. Hon. Members familiar with that part of Wandsworth will be aware of the vast amount of traffic using this road every day. The mothers are forced to sit down in the roads week after week in order to stop traffic, running the risk of arrest, fine or imprisonment, simply because they are doing what we would all do—seeking to protect the safety of their children when they have to cross busy roads to go to school or to play on the local commons.
My point in objecting to the Summer Recess is that if we were able to debate this subject we could perhaps get the Minister for Transport Industries to explain who is ultimately responsible for giving approval for traffic lights or zebra crossings to be installed in areas with large volumes of traffic. In many of our large cities there is an ever-increasing volume of heavy motor vehicles and cars. I am sure that if we could debate the problem we would be able to clear it up, which would bring great satisfaction to my constituents, to the GLC and to many other local authorities which arc bewildered concerning their powers in deciding such problems.
Much as I should like to go into recess next week, as this is a matter of great importance to many people in my constituency 1 believe it to be my duty to try to secure a debate on the subject. I do not want to see anyone I represent sent to prison. I do not want to have to say to my constituents "There is nothing I can do for you until the middle of October because we are going into parliamentary recess. If you get into trouble while protesting against inadequate safety provisions for your youngsters, that it is too bad. As we are in recess, I shall have to wait until Parliament reassembles to do anything about it."
This highlights the point made by the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) that it is the duty of hon. Members to raise matters of great importance to their constituents. We discuss many important problems, but a matter such as this is of equal importance to rising prices or unemployment in other parts of the country. Week after week in my advice surgery
780
and my postbag I receive this kind of complaint, as I am sure other hon. Members do. One has only to consider the number of Questions put to the Department of the Environment. The vast majority of them centre on traffic problems.
To go into recess from next week until the middle of October is far too long when we have such problems to sort out. That is why I object to the motion. Time should be allocated for a debate, and I hope that the Leader of the House will tell us that he is prepared to recommend one.
6.55 p.m.
Mr. Sydney Chapman: Before deciding whether it is possible for me to change my mind and support the motion, I want to raise an issue which is of tremendous interest to my constituents, although I fully recognise that it is not one of the great issues of State, such as employment or education or the environment or inflation or immigration. It has to do with the Erroll Report. It has to do with the whole question of the future of licensed premises and licensing hours.
This subject, apart from these great issues of State, has brought to me the biggest amount of mail and the largest number of visitors to my house in my constituency since the report was published. It raises deep issues and divides people very greatly, irrespective of their political views. I am disappointed that although the report was printed some months ago my right hon. Friend has not found time for the House to debate it, although the other place has done so.
I ask my right hon. Friend to give an assurance that, if he cannot find the time to debate the report next week on a revised time table, he will see that we debate it as soon as we return after the recess. It is certainly an issue that we should debate—the more so because it is in the minds of so many of our constituents. Indeed, if the report's recommendations were carried out it could change the social habits of so many of our constituents. I ask my right hon. Friend for an assurance about a debate on this most important report.
6.57 p.m.
Mr. Clinton Davis: I do not think the House should adjourn

781
until a statement is made by the Home Secretary about the 36 cases of illegal immigrants which he is currently considering following our debate on immigration in June. The way in which he makes his determinations in these cases will be of considerable consequence to a substantial number of immigrants—those who came here illegally but were under the impression, now held by the House of Lords to be mistaken, that, having been here for a period of six months and escaped prosecution, they had achieved some immunity both from prosecution and deportation.
In the debate and in answer to a Private Notice Question I put before it, the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State spelled out the criteria which they said would guide the Home Office. It was stated that all the decisions affecting this category of illegal entrant would be made by a Minister. That in itself is helpful. In reply to the debate. the Under-Secretary of State said:
"We shall look, for example, at the length of time they have been here, at the strength of their connections here, at their domestic circumstances and their health records. We shall look at any special compassionate features there may be. We shall look particularly at any representations that may be received from Members of this House."
He then said,
"Of course, it must be normal practice when someone has been found here illegally to send him away."
The Under-Secretary of State explained that there would be a substantial measure of uncertainty as a result of this situation. I emphasise that I am dealing with this limited band of illegal immigrants who came here between 1968 and 1971. I am not seeking to assert that illegal immigration is a good thing or that it should be supported, but I feel that the way in which the Home Secretary has gone about this matter is wrong.
I am sorry that the Government opposed the amnesty proposal made by the Opposition for this group of immigrants. What the Government are saying is that the normal practice is that when a group of immigrants are found here illegally they must go home. It would have been far more compassionate and humane if the Government, in rejecting the amnesty proposal, had said, "We believe that this group of people in the normal event should be permitted to remain here provided that they have established them-
782
selves and their families and have shown a good work record as useful members of the community."
In other words, I believe that the burden should have been the other way round. That would have enabled illegal immigrants to have gone forward to the police and surrendered themselves with a greater measure of hope that they would be permitted to remain.
Although the Secretary of State said that there will be no witch hunt or harassment, the fact remains that a large number of these people must inevitably feel that to surrender themselves to the police would invite a return to the country of origin. If they have established themselves in the way I have indicated, this surely is not the correct way to deal with them. There is no doubt that those who are involved in community relations are expressing grave doubts and anxieties about the situation and the damage which the Government's interpretation of the judgment will do.
When the Secretary of State, whose good faith we accept, says, "There will be no witch hunt", he cannot speak for every police officer or for every official at the Department of Health and Social Security, to whom passports now have to be produced to obtain benefits. He may give certain instructions to senior police officers, but what is the duty of a police officer to be in these circumstances?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. The hon. Gentleman must try to relate what he is saying to why we should not rise on Wednesday. He will understand that there are a large number of people who are waiting to take part in this debate. I have waited for five minutes for him to come to the matter which we are supposed to be debating.
Mr. Davis: I said at the outset of my remarks, Mr. Deputy Speaker, perhaps before you took the Chair, that I was adverting to the crisis which had arisen on this matter. I said that the matter was urgent and that the House should not adjourn until the Secretary of State has made a statement on the totality of the situation, and in particular on the case involving the 36 illegal immigrants. Perhaps with respect, Mr. Deputy

783
Speaker, you did not hear that, but that remark governs what I am saying.
I was saying to the House that despite what the Secretary of State said, there is a real risk in the minds of many of us that these people are still subject to the possibility of a witch hunt or harassment. A case was recently reported in The Guardian involving three people who were picked up by the authorities, one an illegal immigrant and the other two not. They were all detained and eventually two of them had to be released.
What is worrying people is the possibility of harassment and also of hideous mistakes. I ask the Leader of the House to give the House before we rise for the Summer Recess the assurance that there will be discussions with the Chairman of the Community Relations Commission and the Chairman of the Race Relations Board to ascertain their feelings. They have already expressed their views and anxieties, but perhaps it would be helpful if the Government would interest themselves in discussions of this nature, which they have always been unwilling to do on this issue throughout the passage of the Immigration Bill and later.
The Secretary of State said that there could be no amnesty. I hope before we rise for the recess he will consider the situation which has arisen in France, where the Minister of Labour Employment and Population announced in the National Assembly on 14th June,
"For humanitarian reasons and as an absolutely exceptional measure I have given prefects and local labour officials powers to regularise, case by case, the situation of immigrants who entered France before 1st June and whose situation is irregular. This operation must be completed by 30th September. Those who can produce a one-year work contract will in practice be given work residence permits whatever their skills and experience. Those not in work will be given three months' residence permits and will be able to use the services of labour exchanges to find a job so that a work residence permit may be issued on the lines I have indicated."
If it is possible to do this in France, why is it not possible to have the same arrangement in this country?
I do not suggest that the French Government is a paragon of virtue—far from it—but the Government seem to imitate them in certain respects. The French Government have made a decisive
784
move in this matter. They have not condoned illegal immigration for the future, but are to be quite rigorous in stopping it. However, out of compassion, they have decided that it is right that illegal immigrants who are in France at present should be given some relief from their desperate anxiety. This is a view supported by many well-known and authoritative bodies, among them the British section of the International Commission of Jurists, who have urged the Home Secretary to allow considerations of humanity to override the strict requirements of the law in regard to those groups of illegal immigrants to whom I have referred.
I believe that it is incumbent on the Secretary of State to make a clear announcement to the House on these matters, and in particular about why he is unable to follow the example of the French Government. This would at least avoid some of the difficulties, confusion and anxiety which are besetting many people in the immigrant community, and this would be a most valuable thing to do before the Summer Recess.
7.10 p.m.
Sir John Langford-Holt: For many years I have heard this type of motion moved at this time of year. It has always occurred at a time of acute parliamentary pressure. The Government rightly have to weigh the good that Parliament does after a long and tiresome Session against the old principle, which is always applied, that the House should not adjourn until wrongs have been redressed.
The date 25th July must be one of the earliest dates I can recall, if not the earliest, for the adjournment of the House. Normally the House of Cormmons rises on the Wednesday, Thursday or Friday before the August Bank Holiday, which was the first Monday in August. By that calculation, we would be adjourning this Session on 2nd or 3rd August. This means that by this motion we are, quite voluntarily, giving up six or seven parliamentary days. I will not go into the argument on the matter which I wish to raise. I will not touch on it at all except to say that it is a matter which affects my constituents, and I intend to raise it very strongly at the earliest opportunity.

785
It will be seen from the Consolidated Fund Bill that 32 hon. Members have put down matters which they want to raise. This is a device, a rather ancient one, used to raise matters which hon. Members should have been able to raise in some other way. I applied for the Adjournment debate for this week and for the Adjournment debate on 25th July, but I have not been successful in either case. I cannot agree that without the redress of wrongs we should depart six or seven parliamentary days earlier than has been normal practice for many years, and I cannot assent to the motion.
7.11 p.m.
Mr. Alfred Morris: I wish to raise three short points before the House is asked to approve the motion. The first concerns the implementation of Sections I and 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. We are expecting a statement from the Secretary of State for Social Services on the comparative progress made by local authorities in implementing these two important sections of the Act. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman for a definite assurance that we shall have this information from the Secretary of State before the House rises for the Summer Recess.
My second point concerns the mobility of severely disabled people. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that it was put to him last Thursday that serious concern had been voiced in the Press about the safety of the invalid tricycle. The right hon. Gentleman, in his reply, said:
"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."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th July 1973; c. 1794.]
As we now know that there is not to be a short debate this week, will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House of the outcome of his discussions with the Secretary of State? He will know that the report from the School of Automotive Studies at the Cranfield Institute of Technology is deeply disturbing. The findings of the Cranfield Institute give the impression that the disabled driver is at considerable risk when driving the type of tricycle which is provided by the Government. I am informed that some of the test drivers refused to take this tricycle
786
through the gust test more than once. The right hon. Gentleman has taken an interest in these matters in previous sessions. I hope he will make a statement this evening about the outcome of his discussions with his right hon. Friend and that, before the House goes into recess, we shall have a full statement from the Department of Health and Social Security on the report of the Cranfield Institute.
My third point relates to the judgment made yesterday in the House of Lords on the thalidomide article involving the Sunday Times. My hon. Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson) spoke in the language of moderation. Nevertheless, he made a very powerful speech. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will make a constructive response to the points raised both by my hon. Friend the Member for Accrington and earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent. South (Mr. Ashley). The right hon. Gentleman may know that I have been pressing the Attorney-General to advance the publication date of the Phillimore Report. This is a matter concerning the freedom of the Press. The right hon. Gentleman will not contest the importance of the submissions made by my two hon. Friends and I hope he will now reply constructively to the points they have raised.
7.17 p.m.
Mr. Wilfred Proudfoot: I am almost disappointed to be called to speak for the second time just before a recess to urge that we should not go into recess. The last time was before the Whitsun Recess and my topic then was exactly the same as it is now.
The Government have announced cuts of £100 million in the road programme and I wish to make a constituency point about this and bring it to the notice of the Leader of the House. Many Questions have been tabled on the topic in the last few weeks. I wish to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton) and my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Michael Shaw) for pressing for improvements to the A64. Since the last Adjournment it has been announced that the ancient city of York will be bypassed, but we in Yorkshire urgently need the Malton bypass which is

787
planned and should have started this December but was postponed to next April and is now in limbo. We need this route to the leisure areas on the Yorkshire coast.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment opened a central section of motorway with the result that there has been a dramatic reduction in traffic and an improvement in the environment. My constituents have been barred from the Yorkshire Coast and consequently they have been thrown into the hands of the enemy by being pushed to the Lancashire Coast by the M62 and to the Lake District, as both of these places are now within easy access. A party of constituents told me that they set out for the Yorkshire Coast from Brighouse and the journey took them five hours by bus to cover the 70 miles. The party were able to spend only an hour on the beach before they set off home. This is caused by congestion on the A64 at Tadcaster and Malton. I urge that before the House adjourns we should have a statement about the A64, with particular reference to the bypass around Malton.
7.20 p.m.
Mr. William Hamilton: I have sat in this House continuously from half past two, so I think that I have earned my place in the queue.
It is probably one of the most boring chores for any Leader of the House to sit through this kind of debate. It is even more boring for him than it is for back-bench Members such as me to have to wait five hours before being called.
I want to give three or four specific reasons why we should have three or four additional days for debate. If the Leader of the House succumbed to all the appeals made for various debates, we should have no recess at all. We have had requests for debates on Maplin, the Channel Tunnel, agricultural policy and some roads somewhere in the wastes of Yorkshire. We have had all kinds of demands for extra time, and the enemy of any Government is time—or it may be the friend.
Having either listened to this debate or read about it tomorrow people outside simply will not understand why we should go into recess for 11 weeks when there are so many pressing demands on our
788
time. It is entirely right to say that hon. Members deserve a holiday as much as anyone else. Of course they do. But they do not need 11 weeks. It is no good any of us pretending that we shall spend most of that time in our constituencies. I doubt very much whether there are many hon. Members who will spend the greater part—
Mr. Ernle Money: Rubbish. The hon. Gentleman should speak for himself.
Mr. Hamilton: I am speaking for myself I hazard a guess—and it is no more—that the majority of hon. Members will spend a considerable part of the time outside their constituencies, no doubt doing important political work. But the Government have their own good reasons for having such a long recess, I suspect. It is well known—and it was said by members of the present Government when they were in Opposition—that in a recess of this kind the Government of the day can say and do anything without criticism on the Floor of the House, and the public opinion polls automatically swing in favour of the Government while this House is unable to challenge them.
That apart, I want, as I say, to give three or four good reasons why we should have some additional debates. The Leader of the House might consider the possibility of having a motion like the present one and then an addendum saying that we shall have another week of half-day debates for private Members which can be balloted for by back-bench Members, in the course of which they can bring up specific matters in which they are interested and which cannot be adequately dealt with in the course of half-hour Adjournment debates. If we had a week for that kind of debate, all those hon. Members who were not interested could depart and all those who were interested in this House or in those problems could take part in 10 half-day debates.
That brings me directly to the specific matters which I have in mind, to some of which reference has been made already. I make no apology for coming back to yesterday's judgment in the House of Lords. The effect of it will prevent the Sunday Times publishing an article on the testing of thalidomide before it was marketed. It is inconceivable that that

789
article could prejudge any court decision. Moreover, it is clearly in the public interest that people should know to what extent thalidomide was tested or any other drug is tested before making it available to the public.
While this judgment prevails, no newspaper dare publish an article about how adequately or inadequately any drug is tested before it is put on the market. However, if that judgment is to continue in existence until publication of the Phillimore Report, there is some redress. I can go along to The Sunday Times or any other newspaper which fears that it is in contempt, and I can be briefed by it with a view to coming back to this House and saying on the Floor of this House what the newspaper is frightened to say outside. I can do that because I have protection here which does not exist outside.
If this judgment is to remain as it is, that is a course of action in which 1 should be prepared to participate and about which I should feel no guilt.
Mr. Kaufman: Is it not also right that another most extraordinary subterfuge can be used, namely, that the newspaper can supply my hon. Friend with the article that it wishes to publish, my hon. Friend can read it as a speech, and then the newspaper will be allowed to publish it quite legally as an article provided that it quotes my hon. Friend?
Mr. Hamilton: That is the very point that I am making. If the judgment stands, that is the course of action which I recommend to the newspapers. If they are to be gagged in this way by a judgment in another place, that is how this House and the Press can come together to thwart that kind of judgment which is quite contrary to the public interest.
It is argued that neither The Sunday Times nor any other newspaper should be allowed to exert pressure on the Distillers Company. But that company has exerted great pressure on the parents of the children to accept the various settlements that it has offered them, settlements which have accelerated from £3·5 million to £26 million. The offers have increased steadily because of the courage of the newspapers and because of the courage and persistence of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), and public opinion has
790
been outraged by the treatment meted out by the company to those parents. We have to make sure that that is put right.
I do not make the suggestion in a frivolous kind of way. If we had a week of debates, this matter could be a very valuable half-day debate, and those hon. Members who were not interested could disappear.
Another matter which cannot afford to lie idle is a debate on the Report of the Page Committee, to which I referred in my speech in yesterday's debate on inflation. The Page Report on National Savings appears to have been deliberately swept under the carpet by the Government. It gave irrefutable evidence of the continuous robbery of the small saver by successive Governments since the end of the war by appealing to their patriotism to buy national savings stamps, certificates and the rest, the value of which has been steadily eroded by inflation.
The facts and figures are given in the report. To take an example from Table 13 on page 154, if anyone bought £100 worth of national savings certificates in 1951, the cash value at the end of 1971 would have been £200. That poor small saver would probably think that he had done very well since his £100 was now worth £200. But in fact the real value in 1951 terms is not £200 but £96. During the whole of that period of 20 years he has forfeited the right to spend that £100 and at the end of the period he is worse off to the tune of £4.
The Page Committee said that we should scrap the National Savings Movement and that we should scrap this nonsense of national savings stamps. The Government, so far as I know not in this House—certainly they did not make a statement which could be questioned and challenged—said that they would not do it and that they intended to go on robbing the small saver.
It is intolerable that we have not had an opportunity to debate that report. I remind hon. Members that inflation will continue while we are away for three months, during which time small savers will continue to be robbed by the edict of the Government.
The third question which concerns me —and the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg) referred to it

791
is anti-discrimination. Whether the hon. Gentleman likes it or not, the Bill was opposed by the Government on successive occasions, despite all-party back-bench support for it. Some Tory Members opposed it and talked it out. However, if the will had existed, we could have had legislation on this subject this Session, but the Government were determined that we should not have it, and it is doubtful whether we shall get it in the next Session. The Government say that they are having consultations with education authorities, the trade unions, the CBI, and so on. They say that they intend to produce a White Paper, goodness knows when. By the time this process has been gone through there will be an election.
I forecast that the Conservative Party's consultative document will be produced with great panache at its party conference in October. The Government will then announce the legislation in the run-up to the election. They will woo the housewives, who are now completely disillusioned about the cost of living. They will say, "We intend to produce a Bill to protect your rights, and it will be called the Sex Anti-Discrimination Bill".
I end with a matter which I have raised with the Department of the Environment over a period of months. It does not concern my constituency but it is of increasing concern outside my constituency. It concerns the question of corruption at local and national level. It refers to the sale by British Rail of Bembridge harbour, in the Isle of Wight. I gave notice to the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Woodnutt) that I would raise this matter. He is not here at the moment. However, he is deeply involved in the manner in which the land surrounding Bembridge harbour railway site was sold to a syndicate of which he was a representative.
I demanded that the Secretary of State for the Environment set up an independent public inquiry to inquire into the circumstances of that case. It reeks of corruption and racketeering. The Department of the Environment has steadfastly refused to consider this matter. My right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) and my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd)
792
both signed a letter which I sent to the Department of the Environment on this matter. I warn the Leader of the House that I shall persist with this matter. I shall take it to any lengths until we get to the truth of the matter. I can send the right hon. Gentleman full documentation about it. I want to give him an example of how this matter has been handled.
A fellow came to me some weeks ago purporting to be a Mr. F. Wood, a writer for The Sunday Times. He said that he was investigating the Bembridge harbour question. On the basis of that, I handed Mr. Wood the whole of my file on Bembridge harbour which has been supplied to me by a well-informed person on the Isle of Wight. Mr. Wood took my file away and I have not heard from him since. That was two months ago. I have telephoned him on successive days and successive weeks, but I have not been answered. I rang The Sunday Times a few hours before this debate started. I was told that Mr. Wood worked casually for it and had never been concerned with the Bembridge harbour matter at any time.
Despite undertakings given by Mr. Wood to me that he would not divulge the terms of my memorandum on Bern-bridge harbour to the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight, I have reason to believe that he did just that the day after he had seen me. He gave the evidence I had about the dealings of the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight and my file was handed to him by the fellow who purported to come from The Sunday Times. I hope that the Leader of the House will take this on board with the Department of the Environment because I am determined to get to the bottom of it.
I have mentioned four matters on which I feel very strongly. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take them all seriously. I know the kind of answers we get at the end of these debates, although I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman is very tired. He will give us the brush-off, saying "I will write" or "Have a good holiday". But I assure him that he has not heard the last of any of these matters. If we do not come back until after Christmas he will hear more about these problems even then. I could say much more, but as I have delayed other people who have been

793
waiting five hours to speak I had better sit down.
7.36 p.m.
Mr. John Wilkinson: I wish to raise what I believe to be the most important equipment procurement decision concerning the defence Services that the Government have had to take during the Session. No decision on this matter has been announced and it will be serious if it is not announced before the House rises on Wednesday.
The House should not rise on Wednesday unless a decision has been announced about the proposed equipping of the Royal Navy through-deck cruisers with a naval variant of the Harrier aeroplane. It is the most important procurement decision of the year. The through-deck cruisers already ordered—the first is HMS "Invincible"—will be only partly effective if VTOL—
Mr. Loughlin: On a point of order. I, together with many hon. Members, submited to Mr. Speaker an application to raise a debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill. I have sat throughout this debate. There is a ballot for the Consolidated Fund Bill debates and we are lucky if we get to the top of the list, unlucky if we are at the bottom. I submit to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that it is a gross abuse of the procedures of the House if hon. Members who have subjects selected for discussion on the Consolidated Fund Bill raise those subjects on the Summer Adjournment debate as the hon. Gentleman is doing now.
If that course is to be allowed, then, by virtue of having sat here for the whole of the debate, I shall take the right accorded to other hon. Members to raise my subject, which I shall have to raise possibly at 12 o'clock tonight. I submit that it is out of order for any hon. Member to pre-empt matters in this way, because it is not only an abuse but makes nonsense of Mr. Speaker's rulings relating to the Consolidated Fund Bill.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am not quite sure to what the hon. Gentleman is referring. So far as I know, the hon. Member has not secured a place—
Mr. Loughlin: He has.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am so sorry; I have made a mistake. The hon. Gentle-
794
man has secured a place, and I understand that is the subject he wishes to raise. It is rather an abuse of the House, although, strictly speaking, not out of order. If he has secured a place, he would stand well with the House if he desisted from talking about those matters now.
Mr. Wilkinson: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for that ruling. It was my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) who secured the seventeenth debate in the ballot on the future of naval aviation, which is a wide subject. I do not—
Mr. Loughlin: On a point of order—
Mr. Wilkinson Mr. Wilkinson rose—
Mr. Loughlin: The hon. Gentleman cannot stop my raising a point of order.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the list that has been exhibited. Three hon. Members have put their names to the issue to which I hope to speak later—my hon. Friends the Members for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) and for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) and myself. The hon. Member's name is attached to the subject of naval aviation. He has—HANSARD will confirm this—been talking about naval aviation. He is abusing the privilege of the House. If he persists, I shall stand up immediately he sits down and, by virtue of having been here so long—
Mr. Farr: Too long.
Mr. Loughlin: Having been present in the Chamber so long, I shall ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to use your right to call me and I shall speak to the subject of the Bill.
Mr. Frederick Willey: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If we have a ballot, it is behaviour unbecoming an hon. Member who finds that he is placed low in the list of subjects to resort to this ungentlemanly stratagem. Surely this must be so, otherwise we could all make nonsense of the ballot and begin competing now to raise the subject on which we were willing to accept the result of Mr. Speaker's ballot.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are in a somewhat difficult position. I cannot apply the rules of order strictly in this case because the hon. Gentleman is not, strictly speaking, out of order. The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) was perfectly justified in raising the point, and he was supported by the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey). I think that the hon. Member would do better to consider himself rather in the way of an hon. Member seeking to raise a matter on the Adjournment without a Minister present.
One knows that Mr. Speaker has many times deplored the fact that an hon. Member should raise a matter on the Adjournment without a Minister being present. But Mr. Speaker cannot stop a Member doing that, and neither can I. I may appeal to the hon. Gentleman to heed the sense of the House and to stay up all night, as we in the Chair have to stay up, and take his turn.
Mr. Biffen: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would you take the opportunity of discussing with Mr. Speaker the whole question of the interpretation by the Chair of the disciplines contained within the motion?
It is within my recollection that, certainly under Mr. Speaker Hylton-Foster, one was much more obliged to relate one's arguments to the necessity of Parliament either not rising on 25th July or else returning earlier than 16th October. I fancy that there has been a degree of elasticity in that interpretation which has, perhaps, proceeded unnoticed but which has not reached the point where it is nearly absurd.
What is not acceptable is to have one set of rules for the interpretation of the Adjournment debate if it is to be followed by the Consolidated Fund Bill debate and another set of rules if it is not followed by the Consolidated Fund Bill debate. I am wondering, therefore, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether you would take the opportunity of considering this matter in consultation with Mr. Speaker for future interpretation.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I shall certainly consider what he has said. I have been somewhat uneasy in the Chair since I have been here because I find it difficult
796
to relate what hon. Members have been saying to the question of whether we should adjourn. There seems to be a tendency to prolong this debate and to raise matters which perhaps should be raised in the debate which is to follow. I take the point made by the hon. Gentleman and I shall discuss it with Mr. Speaker in due course.
Mr. Wilkinson: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your advice. It is because I wish to relate my remarks strictly to the motion and because my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council is present that I wish to make these remarks now. If I had wanted to discuss naval strategy, the future re-equipment programme of the Fleet Air Arm, the Russian submarine threat or anything else, I would have raised it in the Consolidated Fund debate later.
I wish to get an assurance from my right hon. Friend—it is a matter of great importance to the Royal Navy and the other Services—that the appropriate Minister, either the Minister of State for Defence or the Under-Secretary for the Navy, will make a statement to the House about equipping the Fleet Air Arm with the Harrier. The Times yesterday suggested that the Secretary of State, instead of making his statement in another place, should make his statement at a Press conference.
Mr. Willey: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is insensitive to the feeling of the House and is persisting. How can this be relevant to whether the House continues sitting after Wednesday when the hon. Gentleman, because he has been successful in the ballot, has the opportunity of discussing his subject today?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: It would be relevant only if the hon. Gentleman continued to show repeatedly that it was relevant to whether we rose on Wednesday. If he does that, he will be in order.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. James Prior): Further to that point of order. I believe that the House is about to get itself into a silly mess. The debate has ranged widely. Hon. Members are now coming into the House who have not

797
sat through the debate. Seeing the chance to get something off their chests, they are promptly doing so.
It is not often that we have an Adjournment debate followed by a Consolidated Fund debate. I hope that the good sense of the House will prevail so that we can now bring this debate to a speedy conclusion and hon. Members who have succeeded in the ballot will be able to raise their subjects on the Consolidated Fund. Otherwise we are in danger of abusing private Member's time.
Mr. Wilkinson: I fully accept my right hon. Friend's advice. I certainly did not want to detain the House. I should not have welcomed those interruptions if they merely prolonged proceedings. I am asking my right hon. Friend to give an assurance that, before the House rises for the recess, a Minister from the Defence Department will make a statement on the Harrier programme, because it is of immense importance to the Royal Navy.
7.49 p.m.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I should like to apologise to the Lord President of the Council for placing him at some personal inconvenience. I privately advised him yesterday that I would be raising a subject on this motion and he was good enough, in the light of that notice, to look into the matter and to prepare a reply to me on that basis. In view of a legal judgment made yesterday, it would have been inappropriate for me to raise the subject, as it was a matter dealing with the tenants of private landlords' houses in clearance areas. There was an important legal judgment in Nottingham yesterday about the Public Health Act which it made it unsuitable for me to raise the subject at this time.
That being so, and as I have not been able to be present throughout the debate, I raise one specific subject with the right hon. Gentleman because the House is adjourning on Wednesday rather than Thursday.
I had a Question to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for answer on Thursday, but a reply is not now possible. Although it has some jocose overtones it is a matter about which many people would like a Government statement before the House rises.
798
My Question was to ask the Minister whether he would resist any attempt from the European Economic Community to lay down standards for vinegar which will deprive British fish and chip eaters of that traditional condiment. I put down the Question and I am anxious to have a statement from the Government before the House rises next week because we are now told that it has been announced in the Press that the French Government have proposed to the Common Market that there should be a new Common Market standard for vinegar, with more wine content. That would help the French to use up their surplus wine production, but it would change the traditional taste of the vinegar that we use in this country on our fish and chips.
It may sound a humorous matter, but we are traditionally a nation of fish and chip eaters. It is one of our national dishes. In my constituency, we have large numbers of fish and chip shops which are well patronised because they provide extremely good fish and chips. The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Money) is no doubt proud of his fish and chip shops—we are all proud of the fish and chips that are fried in our own constituencies.
I say to the hon. Member for Ipswich and other hon. Members that one of the reasons why we all enjoy those fish and chips is the vinegar that can be sprinkled on them. We are asked, "Do you want salt and vinegar on them? "and many of us like these condiments.
Mr. Crouch: Better with French dressing.
Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) says that it is better with French dressing. Unless the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food puts his foot down, we shall get a variant of French dressing on our fish and chips.
I quote Mr. Harry Margray, the President of the Bradford and District Fish Fryers' Association, who has been interviewed on this matter:
"If some Continental bureaucrat, who has never had a bagful of decent fish and chips in his life, thinks he can tell us what to do, he has another think coming. We make the best fish and chips in the world. We do not want anyone from over the Channel telling us how to serve them."
He went on—and this is important, because it is relevant to the attempt by

799
the French to invade our national cuisine:
"Wine vinegar has no bite to it. It spoils fish and chips. There would be a rumpus if we began using it over here."
Over the next few weeks my constituents will be going on holiday. They work hard and they have a right to go on holiday to Blackpool. [HON. MEMBERS: "And France."] They certainly cannot afford to go to France even if they want to go. They will be going to Blackpool, to Scarborough, to other seaside resorts in this country. Quite rightly, they will be wanting their fish and chips and they will want the assurance that they can have on their fish and chips the vinegar that this country has enjoyed for 100 years.
The French are going to try to interfere with it, and I want an assurance from the Government that they will not have that at any price. The French, with their messy sauces, believe that they have some secret about how to eat. We in this country—I am a Yorkshireman who sits for a Lancashire constituency—have the secret of fish and chips in a way that no other country has been able to perfect. The perfection depends on having the right vinegar. The Minister of Agriculture ought to ensure that we have the right vinegar and not this silly French mess of pottage that the French are attempting to foist upon us.
As the Minister of Agriculture will be prevented by the early rising of the House next week from answering my Question on Thursday, I shall be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman—a distinguished ex-Minister of Agriculture with an interest in fish in his own constituency—if he will make a statement now or promise a statement next week to say that everything possible will be done to resist this Gallic invasion of our national culinary heritage.
7.56 p.m.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. James Prior): The debate has ranged far and wide. We started with a description of the beauties of the Kent countryside and have ended hearing of the fish and chips sold in Ardwick. I always thought that it was the newspaper that gave fish and chips their peculiarly provincial taste. If the constituents of
800
the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) continue to wrap up their fish and chips in The Guardian, they are bound to have a different taste from those wrapped in the Daily Telegraph or The Times.
The hon. Member's fears about the attitude of the French to one of our traditional foods are probably unfounded. I will ask my right hon. Friend to answer a Written Question on this subject, but I am certain that those of the hon. Member's constituents who go to Scarborough or Blackpool will find—at any rate this year—that they can have vinegar exactly as they have had it for the past 100 years; and perhaps those who go to France—I expect that there will be many who will go to France, or the Costa Brava, or some other place in the next few months—will be able to reflect on the benefits that Tory prosperity has brought to them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) started the debate by describing the beauties of the Kent countryside and the worry he would feel on environmental grounds if Maplin were built. I do not follow his argument one iota. The building of a third London airport at Maplin will prove a great environmental gain for Britain. There are good reasons for getting on with it as soon as possible.
The first is safety. Safety means that we cannot afford to have over-congested air corridors and overloaded landing facilities based merely on Heathrow and Gatwick. Increased air activity should be spaced out, not concentrated in two areas. There must be safety for those on the ground as well as for those in the air. Horrible at is may be to contemplate, the risk of accident will be greater with so many more flights and three times as many passengers landing and taking off.
Future aircraft must, as far as possible, be kept away from highly populated areas. Tens of thousands of people in their homes around Heathrow and Gatwick already regard the noise caused by aircraft as intolerable. In up to a million other homes the noise is judged to be a serious nuisance, and that is without the extra traffic. Therefore, I do not agree with the hon. Member's views.

801
With three times as many passengers, London's handling facilities will have to be three times as good to cope, even at the present often unsatisfactory level.
Finally, Maplin will enable stricter limits to be imposed on air traffic movement at Heathrow and Gatwick and will also enable the use of Luton, Stansted and Southend to be stopped or severely restricted. This will benefit many thousands of people around those five airports.
It is not possible in a modern society to build an international airport anywhere except on the coast. The Government have taken the right decision and it will help my hon. Friend's constituents.
I have announced today that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries will—probably on Tuesday—make an oral statement regarding the Channel Tunnel. My hon. Friend will then be able to question him on the next stages. It is important that the House should have full opportunities to debate the Channel Tunnel. We published a Green Paper in April, and we have had a debate. I hope that the HANSARD report of the debate will shortly be available. The printing is now up to 13th June for that missing period. My right hon. Friend has been publishing a great deal of information on the subject. He will tell the House on Tuesday that he has a White Paper in preparation that he intends to publish during the recess so that we shall be in a position to discuss the matter when we return.
Meanwhile, I recommend to my hon. Friend that those of his constituents who are worried should take advantage of the Channel Tunnel Company's presentation, which it is prepared to give to councillors and Members of Parliament. This will show that, far from increasing road traffic in the area of Dover and Folkestone, the tunnel could do a great deal to diminish it. I agree that it is important to get freight off the roads and on to the railways, but the longer the rail distance, the greater the possibilities there are of transferring freight from road to rail, and I am certain that the Channel Tunnel can make a contribution to this.
The hon. Members for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), for Accrington (Mr.
802
Arthur Davidson), and for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) mentioned the recent decision in the House of Lords on The Sunday Times case, and I have been asked to give an opinion on when the Phillimore Committee will be reporting. The Phillimore Committee was set up in 1971 and it followed a good deal of work that Conservative Members carried out in Opposition. It was set up in recognition of an undertaking given by my party in Opposition that there should be a full inquiry into what has become a matter of great public importance. It was a matter of public importance before, but it has been highlighted by The Sunday Times case.
I am certain that the Committee will give full attention to the case which has been mentioned today. The Committee is due to report towards the end of the year. 1 will discuss it with my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and the Lord Chancellor to see whether it is possible, in view of the great interest both public and in this House, for Lord Justice Phillimore to expedite his report.
Mr. Alfred Morris: We are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the emphasis he has placed on the importance of the matter. Can he go further and say that there will be a statement before the House rises for the Summer Recess?
Mr. Prior: I will certainly see whether there is some way in which my right hon. Friend can give further information to the House on this matter. I am the last person to want to see hon. Members and the House denied information, or, for that matter, the Press denied access either to information or to the ability to give news on matters of public importance. If anything further can be said about the Phillimore Committee in the next few days, I shall certainly make a note and talk to my right hon. and learned Friend about it.
Mr. Ashley: I am most grateful to the Leader of the House for saying that he will take steps as far as possible, but can he answer two questions now? First, do the Government accept that the existing law of contempt is highly unsatisfactory, in the light of this judgment? Second, will he assure us that the Phillimore Report will, if at all possible, be in the hands of hon. Members

803
before the end of the Summer Recess so that, after the recess, we may debate the matter with full knowledge of what Lord Justice Phillimore says?
Mr. Prior: I cannot give that undertaking, because I do not know how quickly Lord Justice Phillimore will be able to produce his report. We must make inquiries about that. It may be that he will take a bit longer as a result of the need to examine the latest Sunday Times judgment. As regards the hon. Gentleman's other comment, it must be clear that the Government are worried about the state of the law relating to contempt, otherwise they would not have set up the committee. But I do not think it would be wise or suitable for me to go further than I have this afternoon.
Mr. Arthur Davidson: I appreciate what the Leader of the House has said, and I do not want to put him in a difficult position, but will he bear in mind that the Attorney-General will be answering Oral Questions on Monday? Without going into detail about what the Government propose to do on the law relating to contempt—we could not expect to be told that—perhaps the Attorney-General might make a statement of the Government's intentions and give the House a more detailed answer about when we may expect the Phillimore Report.
Mr. Prior: I have noted the hon. Gentleman's question.
I turn now to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg), who is worried about postal deliveries in central London, especially in the south-west area. There is an admission that the postal service has not been as good as it ought to be. I understand that since the beginning of April there have been 20 bomb scares, one actually involving a bomb. All necessitated the evacuation and searching of sorting offices. Most of these threats were in London, two being made to the south-western district office. Undoubtedly this has not helped the smooth running of the Post Office.
My hon. Friend is saying, in effect, that the Post Office is short of manpower and that it is up to the Post Office to remedy
804
that. All I can tell him is that one must recognise that, the more manpower employed, the higher the wages bill, and therefore the more will the cost of the postal service increase. It is a labour-intensive business which quickly reflects the cost of increased wages and so on. We have to balance the need for an efficient service against the need to keep that service as cheap as possible. If we compare the record of the British postal service with that of other countries, in both cost and efficiency, we come out of it pretty well on the whole. I shall have further inquiries made, however, on behalf of my hon. Friend.
My hon. Friends the Members for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) and for Harborough (Mr. Farr) asked me a number of questions concerning the common agricultural policy. I only hope that the Shropshire Star will be as generous to my reply as it plainly is to the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry.
We have been working for the reform of the common agricultural policy, and I believe that some hon. Members are tending to get this slightly out of proportion. Many of the high prices which we used to criticise as ruling under the common agricultural policy have been overtaken by world prices. Now, with the possible exception of butter and milk products, prices in the Common Market ruling under the common agricultural policy are lower than world prices.
People must try to understand, although it is not easy to get it right, that milk production—and, therefore, butter production—is tied up with the production of beef. It is not easy to step up the production of one without increasing the production of the other. However, the Government share the view that the common agricultural policy needs reform.
As a member of the Community, we are able to play a significant part in bringing about such reforms. It is significant that the attitude has changed since we became a member of the EEC, with the pressure which we are now able to bring to bear on these issues. The common agricultural policy will have to take into account more than it has hitherto the various ways of growing protein, particularly vegetable protein, a subject to which insufficient consideration has been given.

805
My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough asked about the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement and the 1·4 million tons. I confirm what my right hon. Friend said:
"The important thing is that the Commission has said clearly that 1·4 million tons should be allocated for Commonwealth countries, and 1 am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will welcome that".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th July 1973; Vol. 860, c. 487.]
We have always said that there must be room for this 1·4 million tons of Commonwealth sugar, and we have every intention of seeing that that is carried out.
My hon. Friend asked also about the problem of New York-dressed turkeys and chickens. I shall ask my right hon. Friend to talk to him about that.
Next, my hon. Friend raised the problem of the new health centres in Leicestershire and elsewhere. I have not been able to establish the facts of the particular case to which he referred. It is true, however, that the construction of some health centres is having to be postponed for public expenditure reasons. I stress that, provided the schemes are considered satisfactory, this is a postponement, not a cancellation. My hon. Friend may like to know that annual capital expenditure on health centres is now higher in real terms than ever before.
Mr. Biffen: The Shropshire Star will have noticed that my right hon. Friend has not responded to my assertion that we were under pressure to harmonise the value added tax which would inveitably be levied on food.
Mr. Prior: I hope that the Shropshire Star will also do me the courtesy of realising that I am trying to get through as quickly as I can. My hon. Friend will have noticed the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary on 5th July in which he made it clear that there could be no question of the Community agreeing on a harmonised VAT, whether or not it involved the ending of zero-rating, without a unanimous vote of all the members. That position is unchanged, and I hope that the Shropshire Star will duly report that it would require a unanimous vote, and that the British Government have no intention for the moment to change from a zero-rating for food—
Mr. Biffen: For the moment?
Mr. Prior: We are certainly committed up to the election, as my hon. Friend knows.
Mr. John Mendelson: The Government need not worry beyond that.
Mr. Prior: It would certainly seem very unlikely, at a time when we are seeking to make changes in the common agricultural policy and to keep down prices of food, that we should agree to VAT on food. At least, we have been to a good deal more trouble to try to reduce taxation on food than hon. Members opposite ever did.
The hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central (Mr. Thomas Cox) was worried about his constituents not being able to cross roads safely. It is for the local authority to seek approval from the Department of the Environment for new pedestrian crossings and traffic signals. I cannot go into the details of his case, but I shall draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
The hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) was concerned about the whole problem of illegal immigrants, and particularly the 36 who are at present detained. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is considering every case personally and hopes to announce a decision soon. I shall bring the views of the House to the attention of my right hon. Friend, and, if he has anything to say before the recess, I shall ask him to bring it forward if he possibly can.
The hon. Member for Fife, West asked me several questions. He wants to change the procedure so that there are extra days, and I have some sympathy with him in wanting days for Members to raise their own topics, although I would not necessarily agree on the topics which he wishes to raise.
As for what the hon. Gentleman said about anti-discrimination legislation, if he had produced a good and sensible Bill it might have had more chance of getting through than the one he did produce. All I can tell him is that, perhaps, after the efforts of the Select Committee and after the Government have produced their White Paper, we shall have an anti-discrimination Bill which will be workable. If the hon. Gentleman will send me details of the case involving

807
Bembridge harbour, I shall study it carefully.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Sydney Chapman) seems to have had rather more constituents worrying him about the Erroll Report than I have had, or than other hon. Members have had, as I sensed the general feeling of the House this afternoon. It is a subject which we ought to debate in due course, but it has not been a subject on which I have been pressed as strongly as I have been on some others on Thursday afternoons.
I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson) that a statement on the matter he raised is expected early in the week. My right hon. Friend will make a statement to the House before it rises.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) asked about the possibility of crofters' legislation and the Government's attitude towards the crofting situation. The Government will not respond to the crofters in the way he suggests. I am having the matter looked into. Either my right hon. Friend will write to the hon. Member or, if there is an opportunity, make a statement or answer a Question before the House adjourns for the recess.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe asked about progress under certain sections of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act. The information he requested will be looked into and, if it is possible for a Question to be answered, I shall see that it is.
As regards the safety of invalid tricycles the hon. Gentleman will know that Baroness Sharp is in process of writing her report. My right hon. Friend would much prefer to await Lady Sharp's report before having a debate.
Despite all the unkind remarks being made about the tricycle, I hope that hon. Members will not carry this argument too far. I had a big group of disabled people over to my farm last Saturday, and they said that, while the tricycle may have certain disadvantages, they had been grateful for it over the years, and they were grateful also for the wider categories who may now have the tricycle. Although we want to move on to better and safer vehicles,
808
I hope that we shall not denigrate too much what has already been done.
Mr. Money: In the light of the serious safety implications of the Cranfield report, will my right hon. Friend ask the Secretary of State to ask Lady Sharp to be as quick as possible with her report? Second, will he ask the Secretary of State to consider not issuing any more three-wheeled vehicles until the report has been received?
Mr. Prior: I shall discuss that with my right hon. Friend. However, I believe that it would be a great mistake to stop the issue of these tricycles. They have been greatly appreciated by an enormous number of disabled persons, as I know from having discussed the matter personally with them. I shall ask my right hon. Friend whether Lady Sharp's report can be brought forward, especially in view of what the Cranfield report said, as reported in The Sunday Times.
Mr. Alfred Morris: Has the Cranfield Institute's report gone to Lady Sharp? Is she in possession of it?
Mr. Prior: I shall be very surprised if she is not, but I shall have that checked. Knowing Lady Sharp, I imagine that she would get hold of any relevant report very quickly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Sir J. Langford-Holt) complained that we were having much too long a recess, and said that we should not adjourn as proposed. In fact, the length of the recess will be about the average of the last 10 years. The 25th is not by any means the earliest date in July at which we have adjourned. We adjourned on Friday 24th July in 1970, on 25th July in 1969, and on 26th July in 1968.
People outside the House sometimes think we have long holidays. I believe that most Members of Parliament spend a great deal of their holiday time working in their constituencies. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Fife, West. I shall be in my constituency for the whole of the summer holiday, and I know that a great many other right hon. and hon. Members will be in their constituencies, too.
We have had a long Session. We have covered a great deal of business. It has been a not too bad-tempered Session, and

809
I wish to pay tribute to Mr. Speaker, Mr. Deputy Speaker and those who have presided over our business. I thank all the Officers of the House, in whatever category they may serve us, for the service which they have given. I wish hon. Members—if they pass the Motion—a happy holiday and a good recess, with a lot of work for their constituents during the next three months.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House at its rising on Wednesday 25th July do adjourn till Tuesday 16th October.

TONGA (GIFT OF A TABLE)
8.24 p.m.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. James Prior): I beg to move,
That Sir John Gilmour and Mr. James Hamilton have leave of absence to present on behalf of this House a Table to the Legislative Assembly of the Kingdom of Tonga.
The House will recall that on Monday 21st May this year it approved the presentation of an independence gift to Tonga. Today's motion, if approved, will give leave of absence to a small delegation to present the gift on our behalf. The House may wish to know that the composition of the delegation has been arranged with Mr. Speaker, and it will be accompanied by the Clerk of the House.
Question put and agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

  HOUSE BUILDING (DIRECT LABOUR)
  8.25 p.m.
  Mr. Frederick Willey: We are making the start of play rather later than I expected and I shall acknowledge my luck in the ballot by being as brief as I can. I advise my hon. Friends who are anxious to keep the House sitting to give an example themselves and I shall expect a sit-in to be staged here during August and September, but they will have my good wishes and not my attendance.
  The subject I am anxious to discuss concerns considerable, substantial but avoidable personal hardship to some of my constituents. But I want first to put it in its general context. The hardship is caused as the result of a particularly reactionary piece of Whitehall interference. Housing authorities can build for private sale for owner-occupation. My own authority and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier) is an authority that does so. In April we received a Whitehall directive which said:
  "Building for sale schemes should be carried out for the local authority by private builders. The Secretaries of State will not be prepared to approve such schemes if they are to be carried out by Direct Labour Organisations."
  Could we have a better example of "Whitehall knows best"? The directive said not that the Secretary of State would consider with the authority whether it was desirable or not, but "No". Is this what the Under-Secretary meant when he said that local government should be local, not giving local authorities any discretion or opportunity to put their case to the Secretary of State but merely giving a blunt ruling that in no circumstances could a local authority do this?
  It is believed—it is the only reason one can think of—that this was done because the Secretary of State and his Department

  811
  gave way to pressure exercised by private builders. This is particularly disturbing because when we think of prices we feel that far too often the Government give way to this sort of pressure. But when we discussed the matter at Question Time I said that, apart from the general considerations, it appeared particularly stupid to us in Sunderland.
  In Sunderland we have the fourth largest and one of the most efficient direct labour departments in the country. At the moment it is booming and making a substantial profit, which the ratepayers enjoy. But the Minister says that public works departments ought to concentrate on maintaining and improving council houses. The Sunderland public works department has a programme running up to a £3½ million on improvements. The Minister says that we should concentrate on council housing. We are at the top of the league for council housing and we have been since the war.
  So we satisfy the Minister's criteria, and in doing so we have built up in the public works department undoubtedly and unchallengeably the most efficient building force in the town. I pay particular tribute to the public works department. In Sunderland we have had over the past few years a very depressing time, with high unemployment. The public works department gave a lead because it recognised that within the tragedy of unemployment was the tragedy of the young unemployed. Indeed, it doubled the normal rate of taking apprentices. This was an excellent example to the town. If other builders had followed this example we should not be suffering from the shortage of skilled trades to the same degree that we are today.
  The public works department tendered for and is now building 20 three-bedroom houses which will be sold for £6,500 each. As the Minister will recognise and accept, that is well below the market price in the neighbourhood. But, even more important, the cost of construction is less. This point is conceded by the builders' federation. The only comparative figures that it can produce are four years old, and they are exclusive of land, roads and sewers, all of which are included in the figure I have mentioned. Therefore, we may take it that the costs of construction of these houses are lower
  812
  than any figures that private industry can produce. This is confirmed by the fact that the public works department is building similar houses as council houses in three particular schemes. The tender for each of those schemes from the department far lower than any that came from private builders.
  It is not surprising that the public works department, which was meeting all the requirements for improvements and building all the council houses that it could be expected to build, also built and regarded as proper to build a number of houses for private sale.
  Let us consider why it should do that. There was a need to be fulfilled. This has been proved without question, because there were over 200 applications for the 20 houses to which I referred earlier. The public works department decided to build those houses because it recognised the need and also the fact that, if it did not do so, the need would not be met. In this instance there was no tender apart from that submitted by the public works department. Therefore, the houses otherwise would not have been built.
  The building of such houses is unattractive to the private builder. There is such pressure on the building industry at the moment that it is unattractive not only to build such houses but, with raging inflation in the cost of houses, to build speedily. A builder will not complete a house this month if he is not under pressure to do so if he knows that the price will be higher the following month, and he certainly will not build houses like these.
  Because the public works department was successful in meeting an obvious demand in Sunderland by building houses in an area of the town which was unattractive to the private builder, but an area with a tradition of owner-occupation, it decided to tender for the building of 26 houses on a site less than 50 yards away. Naturally enough it showed an interest to do the work. Any builder would do so. It had its equipment on the job nearby. It had a labour force which was completing the building of 20 houses nearby. It was then that the Department intervened. It said "You cannot build these houses." It did not say "We will discuss this with you. Is this fair competition?" It said "No,

  813
  under no circumstances can you build these houses."
  The position is that the public works department put in a tender for £156,759. Only one tender was submitted from a private builder. That was a tender of £193,584. The Secretary of State is saying to Sunderland that he will compel young couples, low-income people, who are bidding for the houses to pay £1,500 more to obtain them. The Secretary of State is saying "We will give you no option."
  When I raised the matter at Question Time the Minister said "But there can be considerable competition for contracts for direct sale." Of course there can, but there is not in Sunderland. In the first case there was no tender. The houses would not have been built if the Secretary of State had behaved as he is now behaving. In the case I am now describing, there was one other tender. That tender was far higher than the tender submitted by the public works department. There is no question but that that it would also mean slower completion. People who want to buy houses for their own occupation in Millfield will have to pay £1,500 more. That is heartbreaking not only to the people of Mill-field but to constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South. That is because there are two more schemes for which the public works department would like to tender.
  Does the Minister think that that makes sense? I thought that he believed in competition. Let us have competition. I put the matter back in its general context. The Government are in serious difficulty about prices. Their constant alibi is "We are subject to world prices and world conditions." That is not the real issue. They know that the real issue is whether the Government are doing enough, whether they are fighting hard enough to keep down world prices.
  People cannot be convinced when they know of the scandal of land prices and when we note the astronomical escalation of house prices which we have endured during the past year or two. Our constituents cannot believe that the Government are doing enough. Not only has the TUC said that, but so also has the CBI. How can the Government convince my constituents that they are doing all they can to reduce prices when they
  814
  are deliberately enforcing a price increase on these houses of £1,500?
  The people believe that the Government are too soft in dealing with land speculators and with the building industry. Of course the building industry will go slow when there is an escalation in house prices. The Government must react against that. When a public works department is willing to get more houses built more cheaply and more speedily, the Government should be behind it. Instead we find Whitehall adopting an approach of dictatorial interference with Sunderland local government.
  The Minister has spoken of heartbreak. This decision is bringing heartbreak to many families in Sunderland. They know that but for the public works department some of those who will be lucky in getting a house would have had no chance of getting a new home for themselves. They know that at best, if the Government persist in what they are doing, those who are lucky enough to get new homes will have to wait longer, will have to pay more and will have to pay more than they can afford. It seems stupid that we do not make immediate and effective use of this labour force in Sunderland, especially as it has the experience and the ability to build these houses.
  It seems stupid that we cannot take the opportunity of using the public works department to encourage competition in the town and to encourage the building of more houses for sale. Will the Minister say whether the Secretary of State is willing to meet a deputation from Sunderland? A local authority as important as Sunderland has the right to expect that he will and that, in the light of the circumstances, he will reconsider his decision and we shall be allowed to build the houses our people need.
  8.42 p.m.
  Mr. Gordon A. T. Bagier: I welcome the opportunity of speaking in the debate initiated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) and I congratulate him on his success in having the first debate on the Bill. I hope that I can impress upon the Minister the importance of the matter we are raising and I remind him that an Early Day Motion deploring the decision embodied

  815
  in the circular about direct works departments was tabled and signed by many of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
  Will the Minister withdraw this extraordinary circular? A Government who profess to be worried about rising prices and escalating costs should not deliberately obstruct a body which can provide houses more cheaply than the private sector merely because it is a public body. What other reasons and what pressures have been brought to bear on the Department for it to issue this remarkable circular? The public works department in Sunderland is one of the most efficient in the country and the fourth largest. If the Minister requires evidence, the latest figures covering the period between 4th March 1971 and 9th May 1973 clearly show that the public works department is doing an excellent job and in a competitive atmosphere is putting in tenders well below its competitors.
  The department's record is good. In building the saving on the contract price submitted by the department was £604,103·28. The difference between the contract price and the next lowest tender was £153,73343. The total saving to the corporation was therefore about £750,000. In civil engineering the saving on the contract price in the same period was £148,000 and the difference between the department's price and the next lowest tender was £217,000. The total saving to the corporation in civil engineering was £365,000. That represents a total saving to the corporation of about £1* million. It is a success story of the direct works department.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North said, it provides first-class employment in the town and has faced up to the responsibility of employing apprentices. It has discarded lump labour, one of the biggest cancers in the building industry outside. The direct works department functions in a proper up-to-date manner, as evidenced by the success stories it has to tell.
  In house improvements, in which most of our building competitors are active, the success story is probably even greater. When a modernisation contract was put out for private tender for 996 dwellings for the Ford estate in my constituency, the estimated cost by contractors averaged £2,600 per dwelling. The contract was
  816
  eventually let to the public works department at £1,972,569, an average cost of £1,980 per dwelling, representing a saving of £620 per dwelling. The contract was properly carried out and well supervised. It was won in complete competition with the outside sector.
  With that kind of success story I find it difficult to understand why, in a period when the building industry is extremely busy, when the private sector is working to full capacity and when it has difficulty getting certain skilled labour, out of the blue comes the circular from the Minister's Department which states specifically—with no question of consultation—that an elected local authority cannot build houses for sale.
  The paragraph in that circular quoted by my right hon. Friend read:
  "Building for sale schemes should be carried out for the local authority by private builders. The Secretaries of State will not be prepared to approve such schemes if they are to be carried out by Direct Labour Organisations They consider that in the housing field the purpose of such organisations, is to assist the local authority, where appropriate, in the discharge of its basic function of providing, maintaining and improving dwellings to rent".
  I assume that the Minister agrees with that section of the circular. What he is saying is that the direct labour department can compete to provide private houses for rent. It can maintain them after they have been built and it can improve them, all for rent. If the direct works department decided to build houses for rent, I assume that the Department would approve. 1 assume that if the local authority, in competitive tender, said that it was building houses for rent, it could go ahead. Would it then be wrong for the local authority to apply the principle which the Government are pushing that council houses should be sold to sitting tenants?
  How ridiculous a situation can we get? On the one hand one section of the Department is saying that a direct works department cannot build houses for sale to outside bodies, but on the other hand it is saying that it can build council houses for rent. Yet another section of the Department says, "You should be able to sell your council houses to the sitting tenants who want to buy". What a ridiculous intrusion into local government. I shall be interested to hear how the Under-Secretary of State gets out of it.

  817
  My local authority took the matter up with the Department. As my right hon. Friend said, the circular arrived at a particularly inopportune time—half way through a house-building scheme in a particularly difficult part of his constituency—and stopped the second part of the contract. When the clerk of the authority asked why this had to happen and why we could not continue and finish the scheme, he got this remarkable reply, dated 8th May:
  "I appreciate the problems experienced by your Council in trying to obtain competitive private tenders for the earlier competition but the fact that the Direct Labour Organisation is unable to compete in the next stage should go a long way to persuading private firms to submit competitive tenders for the next phase of the Council's programme for building for sale."
  What on earth does that mean? Does it mean, as I understand it, that, the main source of competition having been removed, the private sector can submit whatever prices it wants to submit? It appears like that to me.
  On the figures I have given of the results of the direct works department, the Government are deliberately cutting out a cheap building sector in Sunderland and bringing in the alleged competitiveness of builders who are, in fact, putting in higher prices. I do not want to be unfair to the private sector, because it has its problems. It is fully extended on schemes which are assisted by the Government to improve houses, and so on. Its work force is fully stretched and often the reason why it is tendering is merely to keep the names of the firms before local authorities' attention rather than a definite wish to get a contract, particularly of the size my right hon. Friend has referred to.
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman will react to our plea to meet a deputation from Sunderland, together with my right hon. Friend and myself, so that we can discuss this matter. I hope that he will not say that the circular, which stated in such unequivocal terms that direct works departments cannot build for sale, is not capable of having exceptions made to it. If he does meet us, and if there is any non-partisanship at all in this Government, I hope that he will accept the strength of our argument.
  8.54 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Reginald Eyre): I am
  818
  glad that the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) has enabled me to say something about our policy on building for sale by local authorities. I think it would have been rather fairer of him if he had sought to commend us for out initiative in developing a policy which encourages building for sale by local authorities. He was a member of the Labour Government who on occasions professed their belief in owner-occupation and the importance of the role of local authorities in housing. But today he appeared to have forgotten that under that administration local authorities were allowed to build for sale only in the most exceptional circumstances. Under a Labour Government it is unlikely that this kind of beneficial development would have taken place at all under the former rules which were laid down.
  I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's feelings about the keenness and aspirations of those in Sunderland, but I maintain that the policies of a Conservative administration—which are different from those adopted by our Labour predecessors—give extra opportunities for hope and for a successful solution of the kind of problem which he has been describing. These are the facts of the matter.
  It is sad that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier) confined themselves to criticism of a beneficial policy which did not exist during their period of office.
  Mr. Willey: Surely we should discuss this matter on the common ground that we are both in favour of owner-occupation. I have been in favour of owner-occupation as long as I can remember.
  Mr. Eyre: I have served on many Standing Committees in which the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North has established that. I agree with him on a personal basis and I shall be happy to continue our discussion on that basis. What we are doing is to encourage local authorities to come forward with building for sale schemes where this will meet a local need for lower-priced houses which is not fully satisfied by developers. We announced this policy in the White Paper entitled "Widening the Choice: The Next Steps in Housing", and we

  819
  gave advice to local authorities about our readiness to approve building for sale schemes in Circular 16/73 issued on 17th April, 1973.
  This initiative should be seen as furthering our objective of widening opportunities for home ownership. It gives local authorities a further opportunity to take the wide view of housing responsibilities which should extend to considering the overall housing needs of their area. This should seek to ensure that those who wish to own their own homes should be given every opportunity to do so. It should also be seen as complementary to the encouragement which we have given to local authorities to be prepared to sell their existing houses to their tenants. In other connections the hon. Member for Sunderland, South referred to this matter.
  These are two ways in which local authorities are uniquely well placed to help those who otherwise might be unable to realise their aspirations to own their own home. I am thinking of tenants who want to buy but who are interested only in buying their existing houses. We must also have in mind young married couples and others on housing waiting lists who would prefer to buy rather than to rent and for whom building for sale can be particularly helpful. In this respect we share the common ground to which the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North referred.
  Local authorities are free to sell their houses, whether existing or built for sale, in accordance with the terms of the general consent in Section 104 of the Housing Act 1957 and in Circular 54/70. This means that they can sell either at unrestricted market value or, provided that the costs are covered, at up to 20 per cent. below unrestricted market value where certain restrictive conditions are imposed. The right hon. Gentleman would agree that this can be very helpful to young couples and other groups in certain circumstances.
  In selling their existing houses and in building for sale local authorities can thus give to those who cannot afford the unrestricted market price of new houses available in the area an opportunity which they would not otherwise have of becoming owner-occupiers. The high figures of sales of council houses—over 45,000
  820
  house sales were recorded in 1972 by 621 local authorities—are relevant to the question of building for sale. It is the same kind of people for whom local authorities should be catering in sponsoring schemes of lower-priced housing for sale, people in housing need who might otherwise have to be provided for in rented accommodation which they would prefer not to have. The two policies are complementary and certainly not mutually exclusive. I hope that local authorities will take advantage of the Government's initiative in both these matters.
  I acknowledge that Sunderland County Borough Council is an authority which is doing both. I am glad that this authority is not among those which have so far set themselves against selling houses to tenants. I was glad to be able last year to agree, exceptionally, that Sunderland Council should be allowed to build houses for sale at Washington Street, even before the Government's new policy of building for sale had been announced. I am pleased that the council want to go ahead with a further scheme for building for sale at Potts Street, but I cannot agree with the council, and the right hon. Gentleman, in the wish to have the scheme carried out by the council's public works department Our policy on this is clear.
  The hon. Member for Sunderland, South referred to Circular 60/73, paragraph 4 of which clearly sets out the policy. We do not believe that building for sale is an appropriate job for a direct labour organisation. It is a job for the private builder who has both the experience, and the expertise, and we believe that it is right that where local authorities provide houses for sale they should employ private builders to do the work
  Mr. Willey: I wonder why there has been a change of mind in this matter. The hon. Gentleman thought that it was in order in the first application and so he allowed the public works department of the council to build the 20 houses. But when it came to a further 26 houses he said: "No, it is a question of policy." Why was it right for the public works department to build 20 houses but wrong for that department to build a second batch of 26?
  Mr. Eyre: As I have explained to the right hon. Gentleman, that decision on

  821
  the first application was made before the policy had been formalised and it took account of the exceptional circumstances which the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South described so effectively during the meeting at which that decision was made.
  Mr. Bagier: My hon. Friend has just asked why there was a different decision on the two applications and the only answer which the hon. Gentleman has given is that there has been a change of policy and that this has been set out in a circular. We are simply asking what is the basis behind that change of policy. Would the hon. Gentleman say from where he gets the extraordinary statement that the lack of experience seems to be the objection to the direct works department building houses for sale? This department built a polytechnic in Sunderland.
  Mr. Eyre: With regard to the point made by the hon. Gentleman about the meeting I must, in fairness, remind him that there were exceptional circumstances which we discussed at the time. These were in respect of the timing of the rehousing of other people who were being moved from slum clearance schemes. The right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman know that ahead of the formulation of policy I tried exceptionally to take account of those circumstances at that time. This is the answer to the second point raised by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South. No local authority can have set up a direct labour organisation to build houses for sale.
  As I said, until recently building for sale by local authorities was actively discouraged by successive administrations. The basic purpose of the direct labour organisations in terms of housing is to help in the provision, maintenance and improvement of the authorities' stock of dwellings to rent, and it is far better that they should concentrate on those tasks where their own experience lies. I was very glad to hear the tribute which the hon. Member for Sunderland, South paid to their efficiency in this respect. They can also be used to good advantage in carrying out conversions and improvements to existing private houses. In older houses it is often difficult to foresee what defects will need to be remedied, and problems of this kind which arise as work
  822
  proceeds can be more easily dealt with by men who are thoroughly experienced in this type of work.
  I understand, for example, that in the case of house improvement the Sunderland County Borough Council's total programme for the period 1966 to 1974 was for 7,134 dwellings to be improved. So far, 6,159 have been improved, almost all by the direct labour organisation, and it is undertaking the remainder of this very substantial contract. I understand, too, that there is much similar work to be done in adjoining areas. Hebburn Urban District Council and Houghton-leSpring Urban District Council have been mentioned to me, and I remind hon. Members that they will be amalgamated with Sunderland on 1st April 1974.
  I have taken note of what the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North said about the tender received as compared with the figure at which he says the direct labour organisation would do the work. Without seeking to doubt his figures, I make the general comment that it may not be wholly realistic to make a straight comparison between a firm tender and an estimate. There is a significant difference between the two. One leaves the risk with the contractor who enters into a contract on the basis of a tender, and the other leaves it with the client. I understand that the Sunderland direct labour organisation has done good work in the past in terms of its normal activities and that it justifies the tribute to which I have referred. I am sure that there remain similar tasks on a similar scale for it to perform in the future.
  I was asked whether I was prepared to meet a deputation. In this request the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North was supported by his hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South. I should like to consider that request carefully and to reply to it before the House rises for the Summer Recess.
  The hon. Member for Sunderland, South referred to the house-building performance of Sunderland and claimed that it was the champion in the house production league. I mention in passing that that would probably be questioned in Birmingham.
  I ask the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North to acknowledge that 02

  823
  this new initiative that we have taken in changing the previously restrictive attitude to building for sale is a virtuous one. It will lead to widening opportunities for people who wish to enter into home ownership. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not confine himself merely to one aspect of criticism.

  EUROPEAN SPACE CONFERENCE
  9.9 p.m.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: 1 am a regular old soldier in debates on the Consolidated Fund Bill. I know what it is like to endure long speeches from those hon. Members lucky enough to be drawn high in the ballot for whom the debate seems to have a timeless characteristic. For that reason my speech will be in inverse ratio to the difficulty and complication of decisions to be made on 31st July at the reconvened European Space Conference.
  I had hoped that the Minister would see fit to take part in the debate, but that is no reflection on the Under-Secretary. It is simply that the Minister is doing the negotiating. I would have thought that the Granada programmes we are about to see, and a number of other commentators, were right to point to the fact that Ministers should pay more attention to the House of Commons in general. This is one opportunity when the Minister for Aerospace might have done so, since he himself did the legislating.
  In 1968 when Dr. Thomas Paine, then Director of NASA, first came to Europe to offer participation in the post-Apollo and Shuttle programmes, I padded round my senior Cabinet colleagues urging them to say "snap" there and then. I was met by some ribaldry and I remember that the opening sentence of one formidable member of the Government was "So you've come along to advise me to embark on another Concorde!", whereupon he raised his eyes to the heavens. Now, as then, be the Government Labour or Conservative, any sane man must be shy about advocating what seems to many MPs to be an open-ended commitment.
  824
  I understand the legitimate misgivings of the Minister's Cabinet colleagues, haunted by the escalating costs of a supersonic airliner, haunted by Maplin and the Chunnel, and haunted particularly by the size of the public sector borrowing requirement, which is now more than £4,000 million. But before the notion of United Kingdom participation in the post-Apollo programme is put to a slow death by the groans of the Treasury, the antagonisms of economic Ministers and the collective shudder of the Public Expenditure Sub-Committee of the Cabinet, we should pause, because there is a double-barrelled reply.
  The first barrel is that here and now Europe as a whole already spends at least one-sixth of American expenditure on space. It is doubtful, to put it charitably, whether we get one-sixtieth of the American results. The reward for existing expenditure has been appalling. Secondly, are we so sure that we want to opt out of a whole sphere of high technology? At the very least, this is a decision that should not be taken without mature reflection.
  I do not want to put it too dramatically, but I am not sure that 31st July 1973 and 15th August 1973 will not come to be seen as some kind of technological equivalent of the Treaty of Messina, which was the genesis of the Common Market. The costs of not joining the Americans could be great indeed over the next 100 years, and 15th August will be a parting of the ways.
  To turn to the guts of the debate, I should like to register extreme unease about the proposed European Space Agency, at any rate, in its present form. As the Opposition see it—he will tell us should we be wrong—the Minister's right hon. Friend is hell-bent on a European integrated aviation industry, and his public utterances would, I think, substantiate that generality.
  But let us study this from the point of view of the British national interest, which may not be paramount but at least is important. First, there is no indication that we should do well out of a European integrated aviation industry or a related integrated space agency. Secondly, three years ago we had not only by far the largest industry, but we were the only

  825
  country in Europe with complete all-round aviation capacity. With Anglo-French work sharing, this has been wittled down and down and it is now fair to say that we have no worthwhile design leadership opportunities of which to speak, because, as British industry is falling, European industry is rising. We should not be under any illusion but that a European space agency would reinforce that tendency.
  I have a further objection to this European Space Agency. It is a marvellous excuse for yet another white elephantine bureaucracy which, in the Byzantine conditions of Euro-technical politics, would spawn and spawn. May I be politely, but perhaps deeply, offensive to the hon. Gentleman the Minister for Aerospace? My view is that there is a species of able, thrusting, honourably but intensely ambitious politician who wants to erect memorials to himself, or herself. Tinged with romantic delusions, that can be jolly dangerous and lead to mind-boggling silliness. I do not make a party point of this because I could give chapter and verse in the Macmillan Government and in the Wilson Government. My suspicion is that this particular form of European Space Agency has become the right hon. Gentleman's baby, or part of a Pharoahonic tendency to be remembered, a yearning to be famous. This European Space Agency will, however, be less like a pyramid of Egypt than a Tower of Babel, which will collapse about our ears.
  The European Space Agency is, in the opinion of some of us, built on foundations, not of rock, but of sand—the sand of French self-centredness. The conclusion that I draw from Friday 13th July, which by Press accounts seems to have been a fiasco of a conference, is that as long as the French want to pursue the L3S—invented as a launcher by the Americans about 18 years ago—and as long as the alumni of the Ecole Polytechique want to pursue their own course, there is nothing that we can do about it. They will go on "doing their own thing "with rocket launching in Guyana and other activities. This is not to say that an agency is not essential, if only because the Americans have said that they will deal not with individual Governments but with a coherent European effort. One can understand their point of view.
  826
  But I say to the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine), "If you must have a memorial, make it a right one". The Germans will do the space laboratory, we will do the maritime or GTS satellite, and it may have to be without the French. Could the Minister confirm that the costs for this kind of proposition would be approximately 300 million dollars over eight years? I should like an estimate. Although I have given the Minister only a few hours' notice of my points, which may not be adequate, it is a question I wanted to raise.
  Time is not on our side. We must make up our minds by 10th October to allow five days for the paperwork on the American side. The British space industry has been in despair for some time at the lack of decision. We must have some idea of the plan for a maritime technology satellite to replace the original plan for a geostationary technology satellite.
  As I see it, there are two options. First, we could wash our hands of the whole space business and say, "Space is not for us. We will concentrate on cancer research, on new fields of energy, such as fast-breeder reactors or fusion, and put everything into Dounreay and Culham." That would be a reasonable point of view, but I would not take it myself.
  The trouble with that kind of argument is threefold. First, you cannot just transfer resources by the wave of a nonexistent magic wand into fighting the energy crisis, any more than space engineers can immediately build hospitals, schools and homes. The expertise of men who worked on Black Arrow is devoted to doing contractual work on the Isle of Wight, not to jobs that some of my hon. Friends would like to be done. Secondly, for future communications technology we would be at the mercy of the Americans, with whom we had turned down partnership. Thirdly, I would guess—and it is only a guess—that the Chiefs of Staff would be a little uneasy.
  The alternative—and the Minister must be bracing himself for the resumed conference on 31st July—is to recognise that the European Space Agency in this form is a non-starter. In these circumstances, I would like to see the British Government tell the French that their maverick behaviour has made impossible a truly

  827
  Western European response to the Amercians. May I say in parenthesis that it is the same kind of attitude that has made the French pursue nuclear tests that has created great difficulty for any kind of rational coherent European approach to space that many would like to see on both sides of the Atlantic.
  Concretely, I would like to see the Government on 31st July propose to the Germans and to the Dutch, and for that matter to the Belgians and the Italians, but particularly the Germans and the Dutch, who have the capability, that together we should tell the United States that we are serious about accepting mutually agreed proposals with participation in post-Apollo, making sure that our interests in communications and in the earth's resources are safeguarded.
  Above all, whatever happens, British industry must be put out of the agony of indecision and we must ensure that we do not go on getting the worst of all possible worlds. The serious criticism of the Government is that over a three-year period they have put British industry in such a position of indecision that we are getting the worst of all possible worlds. A decision one way or the other would be better than no decision at all.
  The decision which the Americans and ourselves make on post-Apollo will benefit us or haunt us when Watergate and Poulson are topics for historical novels. This may seem an esoteric subject, but this is something which will live with us for the rest of this century, and that is why I raise it as a matter of urgency tonight.
  9.20 p.m.
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: We all owe the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr, Dalyell) a certain debt of gratitude for having chosen a subject such as the European Space Agency for debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill. Space is one of those subjects that have been neglected by Parliament and I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate.
  However, I do not share the hon. Gentleman's view of my hon. Friend the Minister for Aerospace and Shipping in
  828
  suggesting that my hon. Friend wishes to set up a number of memorials to himself by endeavouring to create either an integrated European aircraft industry or a European Space Agency. What I think my hon. Friend the Minister is rightly trying to do is to make Western European countries think in European rather than in national terms. As we are such a new member of the EEC, it is heartening to see the younger Ministers pushing forward with the concept of European agencies rather than struggling on with national concepts that do not, and cannot, measure up to those of our competitors, in particular our North American competitors.
  Space, as I have said already, has been somewhat neglected by Parliament. If it has been neglected on the Floor of the House, it was not neglected by the Select Committee which was set up between 1970 and 1971 to look into the United Kingdom space effort and whose findings were printed in October 1971,
  The Select Committee made five recommendations, but in my opinion the most important of those recommendations was that the United Kingdom should set up a single, independent space agency to be responsible to the Minister for Aerospace and Shipping for all the United Kingdom civil interests in space. To that recommendation the Government made the following observation:
  "The Government believes that until the decisions are taken on the space programmes which Europe will undertake in the next few years and the extent of U.K. participation in them, the need for an independent space agency or other organisational changes, can not be properly assessed."
  It is not unreasonable to suppose that that statement was an earnest of the thinking in the Minister's mind that perhaps we could leapfrog from a national space agency and go straight to a European Space Agency.
  However, as the meeting on 12th July in Brussels has surely shown, there is some way to go before a European Space Agency gets off the ground and, although we may still hope—perhaps my hon. Friend can confirm this—that the European Space Agency will come into existence on 1st January 1974, it is not unreasonable to wonder whether that date is now getting perilously close, as so little agreement appears to have been reached.

  829
  and whether we should not consider again the Select Committee's recommendation that a national space agency bears serious consideration.
  As my hon. Friend will know, at present no fewer than six Government Departments have an involvement in space. As the Select Committee pointed out, the way our space activities are divided up means that
  "… there is no provision either for draw ing up a balanced, coherent overall programme for space activities such as is normal in other fields or for the general supervison and evaluation of the totality of the space work which is being undertaken."
  In other words, Britain may have a number of separate projects in hand, but she has no overall space programme as such. As we are spending more than £30 million a year on space, one may wonder whether we are getting value for money.
  It may be unrealistic to argue for a British space programme which is separate from anything Western Europe is doing and, indeed, I am not arguing that proposition—but I cannot see any reason why, while we are trying to build up a European Space Agency, we should not be creating a national space authority of our own to co-ordinate the efforts of the United Kingdom space industry and to work with the European Space Agency when it is in existence. Such an authority would be responsible for creating a national space programme and for ensuring that space equipment being developed in the United Kingdom was of a type to allow us to get our share of international satellite systems—for instance, the earth resources and maritime technology satellite to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
  Turning now to the European Space Agency concept, the point made by the hon. Gentleman that one could have a proliferation of bureaucracy is right. Certainly, we do not want to set up an agency which would grow—I think it is called Parkinson's Law—without there necessarily being anything for it to do. As we know, so often to our cost in this country, bureaucracy has a self-propagating ability which, if allowed to get out of hand, can be extremely costly.
  Equally, this is a moment to consider what we think the European Space Agency should be about and what should be its terms of reference. Do we accept
  830
  the concept that all European civil space projects should be handled or coordinated by a single agency; and do we think that member countries should commit their entire civil space budgets to it? That seems a fairly tall order. If, perhaps, we question whether that is how it should operate, do we think that nations should contribute on a GNP-related block sum basis, or do we think that they should make pro rata contributions only to those programmes in which they are involved? I gather that the general European view is that individual nations should receive back at least 70 per cent. of any contributions they make in contracts placed by the agency.
  Then there is the question whether nations should be asked to specialise in certain types of space equipment, even though they have at this moment a global capability in the sense of making other sorts of equipment, and whether, if there is that type of control from a centralised agency, those countries will not be placed totally within the control of the contract-giving part of the agency thereby preventing those countries' industries from being able to maintain a capability which might allow them to involve themselves in contracts placed outside Europe and to which they now have access.
  However, those I have spoken to in our industry generally give the concept of the ESA a welcome, even if it be a qualified one. They see it as absorbing the work being done by ESRO. They see it taking under its umbrella the technical activities of ESRO—I believe that ESRO has a considerable technical facility in Holland—but I believe they wonder to what extent the ESA will be given powers to have a firm direction over Europe's space activities and thus to be cost effective. Certainly they see that nothing is to be lost by co-operating with the agency as regards informing it of national projects. They also think that the co-ordination of programmes within Europe is to be welcomed.
  However, there is concern that the agency might be set up and given teeth too quickly and that a transition period will not be allowed in which national and European projects will be allowed one to run down and the other to start up. Obviously, therefore, there is a need for a transition period. One may argue that since the agency is not yet in being,

  831
  to talk about a transition period is perhaps rushing one's fences, but the point is worth making.
  We shall have to assume that a European Space Agency could probably not take military space under its wing. It is difficult to see how it could involve itself in the research and development necessary to the production of military satellites, but I imagine we have already assumed that the European Space Agency will be for civil projects only.
  Then there is the question of the great inter-continental communication systems such as Intelsat. Since Intelsat 5, in particular, will be built by a consortium which will undoubtedly consist of at least one major American aerospace company, will it be for the European Space Agency to select the American Partner on behalf of Europe, or will it be for the European companies to make their own terms with the American companies concerned and then for the international Communication Agency to decide which of the competitors it chooses? I believe that the European Space Agency should handle only regional communication systems and it would, therefore, have to leave a measure of flexibility in national industries, which is to be welcomed.
  Lastly, I want to touch on the vexed question of launchers. It was probably right in 1968 that we should have withdrawn from the European Launcher Development Organisation, because I understand that ELDO was plagued with a history of overspend. On the other hand, I find it difficult to see how Europe as an entity can operate a total space programme without having a total space capability, and if we are to say that Europe must rely on American launchers to have that capability it follows that Europe will not have the total space capability that I am talking about.
  In effect, while Europe will be able to offer satellite equipment the USA will be able to provide a complete satellite system including the launching vehicle. This means that Europe will not be able to compete on a comparable basis with the United States industry. I do not find it surprising, therefore, that the French and the Germans are now considering a launcher programme. What
  832
  I do find surprising and disappointing, however, is that our own first stage rocket launcher, Blue Streak, is about to come to the end of its active life after only 11 firings. As I understand it, five or six rounds are still in existence.
  Blue Streak has proved itself to be an extremely effective vehicle and it has proved that it can be fired successfully and is, therefore, cost effective.
  But at this time work on the remaining five Blue Streak rounds still in existence has ceased entirely. Two of those rounds, No. 15 and No. 16, are in a 75 per cent. to 90 per cent. completed state, yet, although they are there and could be used, they are to be broken up. Those working on the project are to be found alternative employment, and the facilities are to be run down.
  As we know, the Spadeadam rocket engine testing plant is to be run down, too. No research or development work is being carried out in this country, not even by the RAE and, as far as I am able to find out, the only space launcher now left in Western Europe is the French Diamant rocket which, I am informed, can lift a small satellite of up to 150 kg.
  At the same time as Blue Streak is coming to the end of its life and all that know-how is being broken up, the French and the Germans, as the hon. Gentleman stated, are going ahead with the L3S. But the L3S, which I understand is a three-stage launcher, is roughly comparable to a Blue Streak plus a second stage and will be able to lift a satellite no heavier than that which Blue Streak with a second stage could lift. It can lift a 750 kg. satellite into a geostationary orbit.
  I find this a sad tale to tell, and I wonder whether even now those Blue Streak rockets have to be destroyed, and the team with them. If Europe is determined to have a launcher programme, I wonder whether there is not some way by which the Blue Streak at least might find its way back into that programme and be used again.
  I believe that the Minister for Aerospace is right in his attempts to create a European Space Agency. Perhaps because space is such a new industry, it is the first that can be set up on a European basis. I wish the Minister all success on 31st July when he returns to Brussels.

  833
  I hope most sincerely that he will be able to make real progress this time, and that those countries which were unable to comment at the previous meeting will find that this time they can say where they stand on the concept. I find the whole thing an exciting enterprise and I wish him well.
  9.38 p.m.
  Mr. E. S. Bishop: I wish to intervene only briefly because I know the number of debates which have to follow. I do not apologise, however, because the subject before us is of great importance and all too rarely does the House have the opportunity to debate matters such as these. On another Consolidaed Fund debate I managed in the early hours to open a debate on the future of our aerospace industry.
  This is an exciting project, as the hon. Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson) said. Last year I was privileged to take part in a two-week defence tour of the United States, seeing Apollo 17 before launch at Cape Kennedy. I visited Huntsville Missile Centre as well, and went to the White House to discuss aerospace with some of the British firms represented in Washington. We recognise that the urgency of tonight's debate is due to the fact that in a few days' time the Minister will be meeting his counterpart in Brussels to discuss the future of British participation in this important industry.
  Over the last year or two, the Government have missed a number of opportunities when they could have given a lead in respect of post-Apollo. In the light of the collaboration on Concorde and other projects with European co-ordination, we must have learned some lessons which could be of use to us now. We should be seeking a partnership with the United States, not merely as sub-contractors for some American projects, but as equal partners and sharing in the know-how.
  The House is indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) for this opportunity to raise these questions. I should like to make a few brief remarks before posing some questions which I hope the Minister will answer. The industry in this country has been delayed to some extent and there has been real concern about the lack of any firm sense of direction which should come
  834
  from the Government in these important negotiations. The record of procrastination goes back to last July when we were asking questions to which we got no answers. There was a delayed meeting in September and another in December when the future of ELDO and ESRO were being considered with the future of the new European Space Agency. These matters are still being discussed when action should already have been taken.
  It seems that Europe is still looking for a space identity, for it still does not know what role it should have and what part its members should play. The Government have been quick to tip us into the EEC, but, having done that, they have not taken the initiative that we expect of them. They have followed the "lame duck "policy which seems to have been discarded in other directions.
  We are in the EEC. If we have to accept this kind of marriage, it is not good enough for the United Kingdom not to take a lead in these important matters. Before it can do that it must know what is wanted for the United Kingdom, what our industry wants and the needs of those who have a stake in it, whether management or workers.
  Many people will not be able to see the relevance of putting men on the moon, but in this matter we are not concerned with such ambitious enterprises. However, there is an enormous spin-off of high technology from post-Apollo projects and the Government and the industry must spell out the benefits of space participation in terms of medicine, biology, counter-pollution measures, meteorology, weather forecasting, telecommunications, crop control and many other aspects which will help not only the developed, but the under-developed, countries. This is a job for the Government and industry. They must spell out what they mean by space and the benefits that can flow from it.
  We must also recognise the contribution made by some of our own industries. We know of the £10 million geostationary satellite contract for BAC and of the very successful 3 million dollar Intelsat IVA satellite contract for the same firm. We also recognise the contribution made by BAC and other firms in this country to satellite communications providing 24-hour telephone and television service

  835
  links over the Atlantic, the Pacific and the Indian Oceans and many other places. This is just touching on what could be the exciting possibilities of space development.
  I close by asking the Minister some questions. Is it the Government's policy that the ESC should be set up with sensible entrepreneurial and commercial terms of reference? Is the United Kingdom likely to join Germany and the rest of Europe in the post-Apollo space laboratory? What is the Government's policy with regard to each country making a minimum contribution to each project? Should contributions go only to the projects in which a country is particularly interested?
  I think that the Minister will agree that our contribution is rather low compared with our responsibilities. Does he think that our contribution of only 10 per cent. to the overall European space effort is enough, whereas our GNP share should be about 23 per cent.?
  Finally, I ask the question that many people in the industry in Europe and elsewhere are asking: will the Minister stop trying to lead from behind?
  These are important questions. I recognise that the kind of thinking, policy and action that the Government take at this time will determine the spin-off of high technology to Britain's role in space in the next 10 or 20 years. When some of the present projects are ending, thousands of people employed in the space and electronics industry will be looking for the kind of work-load which our policies can provide for their security of work in future.
  9.45 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Cranley Onslow): Like the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), I can claim to be something of a veteran on these occasions. I dare say he will remember, as I do, that there is no discourtesy to the House in the fact that Under-Secretaries of State come more commonly than Ministers on these occasions. I do not think that the point the hon. Member made against my hon. Friend the Minister for Aerospace and Shipping is well conceived or well taken. If at the end of the day I leave the hon. Gentleman dissatisfied, that will be no
  836
  novelty in a Consolidated Fund debate. I shall do the best I can for him.
  The hon. Gentleman made three main points. First, he said that the American offer on post-Apollo collaboration should be carefully considered as it will be crucial to Europe's future in space. Secondly, he said that Europe has not received good value for money for its expenditure in space so far. Thirdly, he said that our proposals for a European Space Agency would create a new bureaucracy which would be detrimental to the United Kingdom's industrial interests and that it would founder in any case because of the continuing serious differences of opinion on European space policy. He said that the result would be a proliferation of people and staff.
  The hon. Gentleman argued from those premises that when the European Space Conference reconvenes on 31st July the United Kingdom should forget about the new agency and should go ahead with the Spacelab with whatever partners it can find, irrespective of any wider consequences for European co-operation.
  There is no dissent on my part with the hon. Gentleman's assertion that Europe has received poor value for the millions which have been spent on space in the last decade. It is precisely in recognition of that that we have proposed the setting-up of a new space agency. That is being done in the hope that there will be an improvement in the cost-effectiveness of Europe's efforts in the decade ahead.
  Much has happened in the decade since ESRO was established. The emphasis has shifted from using satellites for scientific observation to using them for commercial services in communications and related spheres—namely, the shift from science to applications. As a result, the industrial significance of space activities has increased; so has the importance of being able to offer users like the PTT authorities the basis of a cost-effective system. Of course these changes have not gone unnoticed in ESRO, which last year drafted a revised convention to take them into account.
  There now seems to be general agreement in Europe that a more radically revised approach is needed. That is why the United Kingdom has stressed the need for the new agency to have terms

  837
  of reference which make clear its commitment to giving its customers good value for money and to have an industrial policy on a European scale which will enable it to meet that aim.
  I do not accept that the new agency, with a coherent and integrated industrial policy, will do damage to our industrial interests. Indeed, if it achieves its aim of increasing Europe's effectiveness on a world-wide scale it will have done far more for our industry than we could have hoped to do ourselves. Nor do I accept that the European Space Agency will be an obstructive agency. It will replace effectively two organisations with one organisation.
  I now deal with our attitude to post-Apollo. I agree that the original American offer which was made to Europe in October 1969 to take part in building a wholly new space transportation system was a significant new development in international space activities. There had been no previous offer of partnership on that scale with the world's leading nation in space technology. However, the offer faced Europe with some difficult choices. Areas of work had to be found in which Europe had the relevant basis of technology. They also had to be reasonably self-contained so as to minimise management difficulties. Above all, they had to be capable of development within Europe's limited space budgets.
  Those problems, together with differences of view on the priorities for Europe's space efforts, delayed Europe's collective response, though European studies of the space tug and a space station were carried out and European firms joined United States contractors in studies of the shuttle. By June 1972 the American authorities had effectively narrowed down the area of co-operation to the development of the sortie module which is now known as Spacelab. Europe's decision, therefore, now turns on whether to undertake this task, at an estimated cost of £125 million or, as the hon. Gentleman said, 300 million dollars.
  Mr. Dalyell: Is that over an eight-year period?
  Mr. Onslow: Yes. From the technical viewpoint, what is now on offer to Europe is considerably less challenging
  838
  than was the original American proposal. Nevertheless, Spacelab would provide Europe with direct knowledge of the techniques required for manned space flight and would represent a significant contribution to the American programme which the American authorities have said they will welcome. For these reasons this country has taken a 10 per cent. share in the European studies of the project to date.
  Our attitude to participating in the fat more expensive development phase depends on a number of factors. First is the total cost estimate which emerges from the current studies and the content of the programme to which it relates. Second is the existence of real agreement within Europe on the new attitude to space activities, turning our backs on the mistakes of the past. We see the European Space Agency as the key to this new approach. Third is the availability of funds and expenditure limits on our space expenditure so that the work it can do on developing Spacelab must depend on the provision our partners can make to the cost of the maritime satellite which we have proposed. We should like to take a share of up to 10 per cent. but the exact figure now depends on them.
  I hope I can say to the hon. Member for West Lothian without offence that he is making the mistake of looking at the post-Apollo operation in isolation of the wide range of problems which lay before the European Space Conference. The December 1972 resolution of the conference covered four points affecting both the ESA and its future programmes. These four points are obviously not of equal interest to all member States, but this country's attitude to them was expressed by my hon. Friend the Minister for Aerospace and Shipping at the ESC meeting on July 12th, which I would certainly not accept could be described as a fiasco. In broad terms he said that on the European Space Agency we are pleased with the progress towards setting it up as it is embodied in the draft convention and that we want to see the work of the officials continue with all urgency so as to allow the target date of 1st January 1974 to be met. I confirm to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson) that this is the target date.

  839
  On the L3S, our sincere difference of view with the French over the need to develop a European launch vehicle cannot be ignored. We remain of the opinion that the expense of developing a heavy launcher in Europe, when the United States perfected the technology many years ago, cannot be justified and that we cannot contribute towards developing L3S. We hope that this difference will not preclude co-operation in other areas. I shall come later to the argument about the merits of European launchers which my hon. Friend deployed.
  On Spacelab we took the view that, provided there is general agreement on the ESA framework for Europe's future space co-operation, we should be prepared to take a share of up to 10 per cent. in the project. Because of the ceiling on our space expenditure, we can take a share only in so far as we are relieved of the cost of our maritime communications satellite by contributions from other member States. On the maritime satellite we have proposed to our European partners that the geostationary satellite which is currently being studied in the United Kingdom industry should be adopted as an experimental maritime communications satellite to meet the recently defined European requirement.
  In return for contributions to the cost of development we would subcontract up to 25 per cent. of the project, which is close to the full development phase, outside British industry. This offer has met with some criticism within Europe as offering too limited a scope for wider industrial participation and as appearing to duplicate some of the technology of ESRO's OTS satellite. It has been suggested that it would be more widely acceptable if the United Kingdom took an industrial share in a maritime derivative of OTS which goes under the acronym of MAROTS. If a satisfactory agreement could be reached on the ESA framework and the financing of MAROTS, the United Kingdom would be willing to give up its GTS proposal in favour of MAROTS in the community interest.
  However, other countries see things differently. Our conclusion is not that we should abandon all attempts to reach a mutually agreed position, as the hon.
  840
  Member for West Lothian was suggesting, but that we should accept that differences of emphasis can be accommodated within a properly co-ordinated European space programme. In our view countries should be free to contribute to optional programmes according to the degree of their interest. This applies equally to L3S, Spacelab and to the maritime satellite.
  To be more precise about the terms of reference of the European Space Agency as we see them, we propose two important changes from ESRO practice. The first is an essentially à la carte approach to financing the ESA's major programmes, with countries taking a share reflecting their individual interests rather than their relative gross national product ranking, and a procedure bringing national activities under ESA co-ordination, in the hope that wasteful duplication can be avoided between national and European efforts and that cost and benefits on otherwise national projects can be more fairly spread.
  Mr. Dalyell: Can we take it that the hon. Gentleman's use of the phrase "à la carte approach "means that the problem that dogged ELDO for so long—the feeling that orders had to be placed in a particular country according to the percentage contribution of that country—will be changed? That was a system that we know very well created great difficulty.
  Mr. Onslow: I cannot answer, much as I should like to, because I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman what the outcome of the conference will be.
  Mr. Dalyell: Is the matter on the agenda?
  Mr. Onslow: The agenda is wide and embraces every possibility.
  Meanwhile we have noted the other views expressed at the initial meeting on 12th July of the ESA and about the three programmes under consideration. Like our partners, we shall consider whether there is anything more we can do to assist towards a positive outcome at the resumed meeting on 31st July. However, given a fixed ceiling on expenditure, there is inevitably little scope for going beyond the position outlined by my hon. Friend on 12th July, nor is there any case for raising that ceiling.

  841
  No one could claim that Europe has had good value for the money spent on space activities in the past 10 years. Until there is evidence that things are better under the new ESA, an increase in the United Kingdom's expenditure on space cannot be considered.
  I cannot say that I share the Old Testatment pessimism of the hon. Member for West Lothian about the situation. I welcome rather the expressions of good will from my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East. It is certainly nobody's desire to get the worst of all possible worlds. It may be beyond our achievement to get the best of all worlds, but I hope the House can at least join in hoping that there will be a successful outcome to the resumed meeting, because there can be no doubt about the importance of space in the lives of us all.
  My hon. Friend took up the cudgels again on behalf of the formation of a national space agency. We have taken the view, as the Government's reply to the Select Committee makes plain, that the ESA concept is a larger issue. It has a higher priority. I do not know whether my hon. Friend saw the old Hungarian proverb quoted by this year's chairman of the SBAC, Mr. Roy Sissons. If so, he will remember that there is some merit in the advice about not seeking to ride two horses with one backside. I think we have our priority right, and I hope for a successful outcome.
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Does my hon. Friend agree that there would be an interface between a national space authority and an ESA? The French have a space authority and we have in the RAE a space division which serves the six Government Departments,' so that in embryo at least such an authority just exists.
  Mr. Onslow: I do not necessarily dispute that but, if I may offer another hackneyed piece of advice, I remind my hon. Friend about the old phrase "maintenance of objective". The formation of a European Space Agency in preference to a national one is an objective that we should and will maintain.
  It might be as well to set out the Government's view about a European launcher. There is no economic case for an independent European launcher. Launchers are the most expensive and
  842
  least profitable items of space technology. Satellites, on the other hand, are relatively inexpensive and their applications in commercial ventures offers the best prospects of commercial return. The resources available in Europe are, by common agreement, small by comparison with those of the United States, and the Americans have an impregnable lead in launcher technology, while there is good prospect that Europe can compete successfully in satellites.
  As it is today, we have to face the fact that a European launcher would still take some years to develop and would offer no advantage over existing American launchers. Its useful life span would be limited by the far more economic American recoverable launch vehicles —the space shuttles. Morever, the American launchers will have had a far greater number of firings and are likely to be much more reliable than any European launcher. This is of crucial importance in that failure generally means the loss of the payload as well as the rocket, as we have learnt to our cost.
  Mr. McNair-Wilson rose—
  Mr. Charles Loughlin: Oh, no.
  Mr. McNair-Wilson: Would not my hon. Friend agree that, if we rely totally on American launchers, we are to some extent in the hands of the Americans as to whether they give us that facility? Indeed, is there not a possibility that we might find ourselves being forced to join, in return, a certain system which we might not otherwise wish to join?
  Mr. Onslow: I realise that this is essentially a debate for the younger generation and I am sorry that the older generation below the Gangway is getting impatient. But perhaps it matters more to us to get this matter right than it matters to the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) to get the matter he is raising right.
  We must stress that the only argument for developing a European launcher is the possibility that Europe might be denied the use of launcher facilities developed elsewhere. In practice that means the United States or, let us say, the Soviet Union. Our view and our decision is that the enormous premium

  843
  which some Europeans seem prepared to pay to insure against that risk is not worth paying. The United Kingdom's view is that, under American policy, Europe is unlikely to be refused a launching for any satellite of interest to us. If we are in the space shuttle programme through Skylab, we will have the same terms for our satellites, which in any case would need to be less sophisticated in many respects than those we have now.
  It has to be understood that space is an international scene. The more inter-
  844
  national co-operation we can achieve, the more all of us will be able to benefit from the results. I was fortunate enough to be at Cape Kennedy to see the launching of Apollo 17. It was as memorable an experience as I have ever had. It has left me in no doubt about the importance of space to everybody on this small planet, and also about the opportunities which it presents us with for extending our reach, if not our grasp. I share the hopes which have been expressed that we shall get our decision right. I see no reason to suppose as yet that we shall get them wrong.

  SECURITY SERVICE
  10.4 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Loughlin: As youth stumbles away into space, I, as one of the old boys, will try to bring at least the Government down to earth.
  In raising the issue of the Norma Levy case and the subsequent Diplock Commission, I want to make absolutely clear at once my attitude to sexual morality, because there has been a suggestion that some of us are seeking to exploit sex scandals for political ends. I do not believe that I have the slightest right to judge any man or woman in the generality of the population. The defects in my own character are such that I would be presumptuous if I were to judge people solely on the basis of their sexual morality or immorality. There is, however, a clear distinction to be drawn between the generality of the populace and those of us who have chosen of our volition to enter public life.
  I believe that when we enter public life we have no right to assume that we can have a private life. No matter what sphere of public life we enter, whether at local or national level, public figures should be beyond suspicion in terms of corruption, graft and immorality. But there is even more need for those of us who are fortunate to become Ministers in Government to be as moral in our sexual lives as we are in any other moral aspect. We all know that prostitution has for a long time been used as a basis upon which people can be recruited in secret service work. The agent of a foreign Power, no matter what Power that may be, will grasp at any weakness of any Minister and will exploit that weakness, particularly in regard to peccadilloes of a sexual nature, to suborn him from his responsibilities to the nation he serves.
  In this case there were two Ministers involved. One, unfortunately, was Tony Lambton. While he was in this House I respected him and indeed had an affection for him, and we had a friendly relationship as Members of this House. I recall on a number of occasions having to go to his office to deal with my constituency cases. I was given by him the
  846
  best possible treatment, and indeed he was one of those Ministers who did not necessarily accept departmental advice. I shall return to Lord Lambton a little later.
  I want first to deal with the second Minister involved in this affair, Lord Jellicoe. I understand that Lord Jellicoe has a war record of which he can be very proud. I am not trying to suggest in any way that he is disloyal to this country. I believe that he won more medals or recognitions than virtually any other man in the war. Therefore, I want to be absolutely clear that in dealing with Lord Jellicoe I am not for one moment suggesting that he in any way jeopardised the security of this nation.
  He was, however, a Cabinet Minister and thus he had the greatest possible responsibility to see that his conduct was such that he could not in any way be used, be blackmailed by anyone or become a tool of anyone while he was a member of the Cabinet.
  The Prime Minister was right to accept the resignation of Lord Jellicoe, and I believe that the Diplock Commission's implied rebuke to the Prime Minister that there was no need for Lord Jellicoe to resign was wrong. I reject that rebuke, because the Prime Minister was quite right in accepting the resignation of Lord Jellicoe who, it is admitted, was engaged only in activities with call girls. But the fact that he was engaged in activities with call girls of any kind meant that he was a security risk. We cannot afford to have a Cabinet Minister engaging in activities in which he becomes a security risk.
  I wish to refer to the Statement on the Findings of the Conference of Privy Councillors on Security, Command Paper 9715. That conference was charged with looking at the entire question of the kind of steps that might be taken to ensure the nation's security. Paragraph 10 of the statement states:
  "Some of the recommendations of the Conference deal with what may be called the relation between security risks and defects of character and conduct. The Conference recognise that to-day great importance must be paid to character defects as factors tending to make a man unreliable or expose him to blackmail, or influence by foreign agents. there is a duty on Departments to inform themselves of serious failings such as drunkenness, addiction to drugs, homosexuality or any

  847
  loose living that may seriously affect a man's reliability."
  That document was prepared in March 1956 and was presented to Parliament by the Prime Minister by command of Her Majesty. It was a document ensuing from a conference of Privy Councillors on security. Some people may have construed those findings as being applicable solely to civil servants. Some of the paragraphs in the document may give that impression, but if it applies to civil servants how much more should it apply to Ministers? Do we have double standards, one standard for civil servants, who may be in a lower category than a Minister in terms of access to secret documents, and an entirely different standard for Ministers?
  Mr. George Cunningham: On the same tack, will not my hon. Friend agree that, contrary to what is recommended in the report, it would be highly desirable for the positive vetting procedure to be applied to Ministers, not before their appointment perhaps but in some brief period after their appointment, in the same way as it is applied to civil servants?
  Mr. Loughlin: I shall be dealing in a moment with positive vetting as against briefing.
  I emphasise this point because it has never been retracted. It is still part of the manual. If it is the yardstick by which we ensure that civil servants are not exposed to temptation and if drunkenness, homosexuality or any form of loose living is among the matters taken into account, how can an association with call girls and with prostitution be other than loose living? How can it be argued that when a Cabinet Minister—or, for that matter, a Minister of any rank—associates promiscuously with call girls and prostitutes, it does not matter, but that if the permanent secretary, the deputy secretary, an assistant secretary or a principal in the Department does, it matters a great deal?
  Implicit in the document is the fact that civil servants should draw to the attention of their superiors defects in conduct such as those to which I have referred relating to other members of
  848
  their Department. If members of the Civil Service should be policing themselves and if the permanent secretary in a Department is responsible for the conduct of his civil servants, so too is the chief Minister in the Department. The present head of the Department concerned is Lord Carrington. Perhaps the Home Secretary can tell me whether Lord Carrington was so incompetent and so negligent that he did not see these character defects and allowed a Minister to carry on in the way he did. If the Home Secretary takes that view—I shall come to dates presently for the right hon. Gentleman's benefit—I want to know why Lord Carrington is still head of that Department and why he has not resigned because of his negligence and incompetence.
  I do not know what went on in that Department. I was only a very small fish but I know what went on in my Department. When I first became a junior Minister I was briefed and told how to conduct myself. A very charming gentleman told me about the pitfalls for which I had to look. I was never under any illusions. I knew what was happening. I knew that I was being briefed about the type of conduct which I should observe while I was a Minister.
  Like my own Minister at the time, Lord Carrington was responsible for seeing that Lord Lambton was briefed. Lord Lambton said that he did not know whether he was positively vetted or briefed. He was extremely vague about it, and he said so quite openly and in public. In my view, in a sensitive Department such as his there should have been no ambiguity. There should have been a very clear indication to Lord Lambton that he was being briefed and coached in some ways about the dangers inherent in the position that he was holding in terms of the nation's security.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. George Cunningham) asks me whether I consider that positive vetting would be possible with Ministers. I think that it would be extremely difficult. Any Prime Minister forming a Government would find it difficult positively to vet most of the people whom he had chosen within days of the Government coming to power, though I agree that my hon. Friend said

  849
  if not at the time the Prime Minister appointed them, then shortly afterwards.
  By and large, Prime Ministers know the people they intend to appoint. By and large—there are exceptions they know the character of the persons they wish to take into their administration. I go this far with my hon. Friend, and I shall illustrate it briefly. It is absolutely necessary that there should be, if not constant briefing, much more briefing than there is now. I see no reason for any Minister, be he senior or junior, not to have visits periodically from those who are responsible for ensuring that Ministers stay on the right lines. The senior Minister in the Department ought to do this with his junior Ministers.
  Mr. George Cunningham: Without remotely suggesting that the need for positive vetting of Ministers arises from the Lambton-Jellicoe situation—which it certainly does not—I wonder whether my hon. Friend agrees that, because one knows the man and one has known him for some years, one can have complete confidence in him as a non-security risk? It was exactly that approach which proved to be unsuccessful in the Lambton case, and, in an infinitely more serious case, proved a disaster by letting Philby get practically to the head of M16.
  Mr. Loughlin: I accept that, as regards Ministers, it is desirable to try to bridge the gap. I do not think that it is possible for positive vetting to take place either immediately before the forming of a Government or immediately afterwards. But some attempt must be made to ensure that a Minister has a clear picture of what he should and should not do.
  For the benefit of the Minister—it may subsequently be for the benefit of the Government let me quote my own case. In my first Department, as I said, I was briefed very well, and I have no complaints. I was briefed very courteously and clearly. But I was in two other Departments, one of which was much more sensitive. No one came to me in the other Departments. I was briefed in the first Department. In retrospect—I say it only in retrospect—I think that it might have been as well if they had come to me in the third Department,
  850
  where I had a sensitive area of responsibility. It would have been better if I had been given a further briefing then. I say that because it might be helpful to the Home Secretary.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Robert Carr ): I do not want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but that is one of the recommendations of the Security Commission which has already been accepted.
  Mr. Loughlin: I read the Security Commission's report, but I did not notice that it said that there should he briefing when a Minister passed from Department to Department.
  Mr. Marcus Lipton: It can be found in paragraph 37.
  Mr. Loughlin: My hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) corrects me.
  There has been so much speculation and there have been so many vague hints that other Ministers are involved that it is essential that there should be another full and public inquiry. There is no hon. Member who does not know the name of the alleged third Minister in the case. The Prime Minister told the House that he readily accepted the assurances of the third Minister that he had not been involved in any of the scandals and, therefore, had not placed himself in a position of being subjected to any form of blackmail by other secret services. I do not know what the Home Secretary is doing. He may intervene any time he wishes.
  Mr. R. Carr: I just do not like mud slinging. That is all.
  Mr. Loughlin: I shall do a bit of mud slinging if that is the attitude of the Home Secretary. I am trying not to do any mud slinging. I am trying to deal with a matter which may be politically embarrassing to the Home Secretary, it may be politically embarrassing to the Prime Minister, it may be politically embarrassing to the Government, but it is important to the ordinary people of this country.
  The Prime Minister accepted the assurance of the third Minister. However, what we have to remember—my hon. Friend almost got to it—was that

  851
  Macmillan accepted the assurance that Philby was not the third man. I wonder why the third Minister has not attempted to rebut by libel action the statements that have been made about him.
  I turn to the motion that I placed on the Order Paper. [Interruption.] The Ministers keep muttering. They will not stop me if they stay here until five o'clock in the morning; I shall still say what I want to say. The motion makes a number of charges. The Diplock Commission apparently took evidence from some witnesses. We do not know who the witnesses were. We know who were not called, but the Prime Minister is head of the security services in this country. It is an indictment that the Prime Minister had to confess that he did not know whether certain witnesses had been called. Why not? What kind of an inquiry is it that can keep from the head of the security services the names of witnesses called before it?
  But what is much more important is how the inquiry was conducted. As far as we could see, a number of prime witnesses were never called before the inquiry.
  First, there were Mr. and Mrs. Levy. 1 should have thought that if this case were to be investigated at all, the Levys were indispensable to the inquiry. Without them it was almost impossible to conduct an adequate investigation.
  We then had the journalists from the News of the World and the People—two newspapers that I never read. The truth is that these investigatory journalists found out a great deal more about this issue than anyone else. They had knowledge. They had carried out a considerable investigation. My information is that none of those journalists was called before the Security Commission.
  If the Levys and the journalists—prime witnesses—were not called, how can we possibly have any confidence in the Security Commission's report?
  I think that a brief glance at the history of the affair might be useful, because the name of at least one of the Ministers was disclosed on 28th March. It was disclosed by no less a person than Mrs. Levy. According to The Sunday Times, she was being interviewed at Scot-
  852
  land Yard not about prostitution or pornography. It may be that she was being interviewed about drugs. Anyhow, she let slip Lambton's name among the names of other prominent persons.
  By one of those little twists of fate, somebody at Scotland Yard knew somebody at one of the security branches, they happened to meet each other five days later, and D5 was told. The security people were very interested and concerned and they acted pretty speedily. They not only started their investigation on 3rd April, but they were able to tell the Prime Minister on 9th April that there were serious grounds for believing that some of his Ministers were involved in what was likely to be a scandalous situation, and he was given Lord Lambton's name on 13th April.
  The Levys had been under surveillance by Scotland Yard, if not by the security branch, during the whole of that time and subsequently up to 21st May, the day that Lord Lambton resigned.
  When Lord Lambton went to Scotland Yard on the day that he resigned he was interrogated by police officials. He was asked on that day whether Mrs. Levy had given him drugs. Lord Lambton said,
  "She has given me pep pills, but I have never taken them. I have in the past taken marijuana and opium in China."
  I want the Home Secretary to note the words,
  "She has given me pep pills".
  In other words, she had given Tony Lambton drugs.
  The detectives then showed him a photograph of himself smoking in Mrs. Levy's flat and suggested that he was smoking cannabis. Lord Lambton replied,
  "I would not deny that. Yes. I would not deny I have smoked marijuana."
  That is the report in The Times of 14th June 1973.
  All the time they were under surveillance and on 21st May Scotland Yard had corroborative evidence from Lord Lambton that drugs were being hawked in Levy's flat, that he had been given drugs by Mrs. Levy, and that he had smoked marijuana and cigarettes in Mrs. Levy's flat, indeed in the bed. I would have thought, as would any person with

  853
  the slightest common sense, that there was a substantial evidence for the arrest of this woman.
  Not long ago a case was reported in the newspapers of a young man who was found with drugs on him. When the case came to court it was stated that two grains of a drug were found in the ticket pocket of his jacket. That was the evidence on which the charge was based. He was found not guilty because he could prove that he had bought the jacket second hand and there was an element of doubt whether the drug was in the jacket when he bought it.
  The police could not succeed there, but here was a situation in which Ministers were involved—a situation in which security might be involved; a situation in which the police had tangible evidence that drugs were in the house and that this woman was trafficking in them. But they did not arrest her. Why? The Home Secretary has a responsibility to tell the House why.
  Mr. R. Carr Mr. R. Carr rose—
  Mr. Loughlin: The Home Secretary can tell us after I and other hon. Members have spoken. In view of the evidence adduced at the Lambton trial, why was Mrs. Levy allowed to leave this country three days later? I conclude one of two things. Either the police have failed in their duty—and I will not make a charge of that kind against them unless I have reasonable proof. Or I can assume that it would have been politically damaging to have had the woman arrested. I go further and say that in view of the drugs evidence, once the whole thing came out it was essential that the Government should exercise their right to extradite this woman and bring her back to this country. [Interruption.] There are continual mutterings from the Government Front Bench, but I understand that drugs offences are extraditable offences in most countries. If not, the Secretary of State can tell us.
  Mr. R. Carr: Surely the hon. Gentleman is aware that no Minister in this country has any power to direct the police or prosecuting authorities when or when not to arrest somebody. He has made false accusations about things being done for political convenience. If that is not
  854
  an accusation against the police and prosecuting authorities, I do not know what is. The fact is that when they had evidence they did not hesitate to bring a charge against a Minister. If they did not hesitate to embarrass the Government in that way, I hope the country will realise that they would not have hesitated to embarrass anyone else against whom they had evidence. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the police, with a Minister's connivance or support, can start arresting people against whom they have no evidence, he should be ashamed of himself.
  Mr. Loughlin: The right hon. Gentleman is getting indignant. I thought I had portrayed quite clearly the circumstances in which the evidence was readily available, because it was available on 21st May.
  Mr. Carr: It was not.
  Mr. Loughlin: The right hon. Gentleman says that it was not. I have quoted from the Lambton drugs trial reported in The Times on 14th June. His secretary can get him a copy of it. It is in the Library. I have quoted the evidence given at the trial. Perhaps I should give it in a little more detail. It said:
  "Mr. David Tudor-Price, for the prosecution, said Lord Lambton went to New Scotland Yard on the afternoon of 21st May, the day he resigned from the Government, and by appointment saw Deputy Assistant Commissioner Ernest Bond and Detective Chief Superintendent Albert Wickstead.
  He was asked if Mrs. Levy had given him drugs."
  Then follow the quotations I have already made. In other words, on 21st May he was asked either by Commander Bond or Chief Superintendent Wickstead about drugs.
  So it was known on 21st May and it would have been possible on the basis of that evidence, not oppressively to arrest Mrs. Levy but for any magistrate to swear out a warrant—there is nothing oppressive about that; magistrates do it every day—to search the Levys' flat and to make inquiries of Mrs. Levy with a view to establishing whether that which Lord Lambton had said was true. But they did not. She was away. I think they got her away.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mark Carlisle): Who got her away?
  Mr. Loughlin: I do not know. Perhaps it would be better to address that question to the Home Secretary.
  Mr. R. Carr: Disgraceful.
  Mr. Loughlin: I am saying that she was a prime witness in this investigation. Without her, there would be no real inquiry. Nor could the inquiry be complete. In addition to the absence of the Levys, there was the absence of those other prime witnesses, the journalists. 1 would like to know how the truth could be found out if the prime witnesses were not brought before the inquiry. I believe that the Diplock inquiry is meaningless. I believe that there is a need for a full public inquiry so that the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth is brought out.
  10.45 p.m.
  Mr. Marcus Lipton: I wish to address myself to some of the broader considerations involved in this subject. The Diplock Report has appeared and, by a coincidence, the current issue of the New Law Journal is reported in this morning's newspapers as saying:
  "Rarely can a government report on such an important subject as security have been so welcome to those who stand to gain by lax or confused security arrangements in this country."
  It continues:
  "It seems to us that the ranks of the establishment have come together with an almighty clang."
  In my view, that is a perfectly fair description of the Diplock Report.
  The Government must accept the responsibility for what is now recognised by many people as a most inadequate handling of the matter. It seems to indicate that the security arrangements of the Government, for which the Prime Minister is ultimately responsible, are not as satisfactory as they ought to be. It is quite clear, on information available to me, that as long ago as May 1972 names were being mentioned and the existence of a VIP call-girl racket was known. I repeat that that was in May 1972.
  How did the whole business come to light? It came to light purely as an accidental by-product of a raid on pornographic material in Soho. That raid took place in January 1973. In the
  856
  course of the raid, conducted purely as an anti-pornography exercise, documents were discovered in a secret safe in the flat which was raided. That was the first indication that something was wrong.
  What happened after that? There is a gap, and that gap is fully revealed in the report of the Diplock Commission. The Commission seems to accept that Lord Lambton began his deviation from the normal at some time in the late spring or early summer of 1972—that is to say, at about the same time as certain information became available to some Fleet Street journalists.
  I should like to know—I should like the Home Secretary to explain—what happened from 1970, when Lord Lamb-ton was appointed, to mid-1972. Are we asked to believe that his deviations or defects of character suddenly took place two years after he took office? I find that rather difficult to believe. The Commission surely should have examined a little more closely that aspect of the matter.
  The other aspect of the matter which disturbs me is the role played by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence. It strikes me as evident that neither the Prime Minister nor the Secretary of State for Defence carried out efficiently the duties of their office regarding security. The Prime Minister is responsible for ensuring that his Ministers understand and execute their basic duties. The Secretary of State for Defence is responsible for ensuring that his subordinate Ministers understand and execute those duties. That was made clear a long time ago in the Denning Report of 1963, which stated that responsibility for departmental security rested fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the heads of Departments. It does not seem that that was properly and adequately carried out by the Secretary of State for Defence.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) pointed out, it seems that Lord Lambton did not know the difference between vetting and briefing. That proves the direct failure of the Secretary of State for Defence to ensure that security procedures were being properly followed in his Department. My hon. Friend has

  857
  mentioned the report and the findings of the Conference of Privy Councillors in 1966. That conference was specifically called upon to deal with what he called security risks and defects of character and conduct. The report indicated that great care must be attached to character defects and factors tending to make a man unreliable or to expose him to blackmail or influence by foreign agents.
  Can the Secretary of State for the Home Department assure the House that the Secretary of State for Defence carried out his duties in the way that is expected of the senior Minister of such a sensitive Department? What happened when Lord Lambton had to be approached and told that the police wanted him? The Permanent Under-Secretary to the Ministry of Defence was given the job of telling him. Why did not the Secretary of State call Lord Lambton to his office and confront him with that accusation? Why did he depute that task to one of his civil servants? He may have been too busy looking after the Conservative Party. It strikes me as odd that, in a serious situation of this kind, the Minister responsible should depute his Permanent Under-Secretary to handle the situation.
  In paragraph 25 of the Diplock Report it is stated:
  "At some date in the late spring or early summer 1972 he was given the telephone number of a 'Madam' who controlled a ring of highly-priced prostitutes."
  The proposition seemed to be accepted without any further examination that until the late spring or early summer of 1972 nothing was wrong. There was no further probe into the background of the case.
  At paragraph 274 of the Denning Report, Lord Denning said:
  "I have had evidence which satisfies me that there is excellent co-operation between the Security Service and the police forces."
  Is the Secretary of State for the Home Department satisfied that that excellent co-operation is still as good as it was when Lord Denning referred to it in 1963?
  There are three elements in this kind of business—the Security Service, the Special Branch and the Serious Crime Squad. This third body did not exist when Lord Denning reported in Septem-
  858
  ber 1963. All three are involved. I should like an assurance from the Home Secretary that there is close co-operation between all three branches of the administration of security and prevention of crime. Is that co-operation as good as it should be? It seems to me that it was lacking and that, therefore, certain people for the time being escaped the net. An attempt is still being made to extradite from the Continent one of the people who could give very interesting evidence.
  All that has been said by the Diplock Commission was said a long time ago by Lord Denning. The Diplock Commission said at paragraph 37 of its report:
  "we recommend that any Minister should be given a further briefing by the Security Service whenever he is appointed to a post in which he will handle more sensitive information than previously."
  The obvious deduction is that some Ministers have not been briefed by the Security Service on appointment to a more sensitive post.
  The commission said at paragraph 34:
  "We might add here that we are aware of suggestions that other Ministers, besides Lord Lambton, may have been associated with the Levys. Our investigations have shown that examples of mistaken identity are common in dealing with prostitutes whose clients are generally anxious to preserve their anonymity. All suggestions that other Ministers have been involved with Norma Levy or other members of that ring have come from sources which we regard as wholly unreliable. We have come across no evidence worthy of credence to suggest that any Minister, other than Lord Lambton, was involved."
  I believe that further evidence has become available to the Government since 6th July, when the report was published. Is that evidence being examined and probed? If any Minister or anyone else connected with the Government is implicated, will the necessary steps be taken to clear up the matter?
  It is obvious to me that in recent days further evidence has become available, otherwise the police have not been doing their job properly. I refuse to believe that they are not doing so. All I want to know is whether the Government are taking heed of the additional evidence now available, and will take heed of more evidence that will become available in the not-too-distant future, before deciding what further action they should take.

  859
  The Diplock Commission suggested at paragraph 41 of its report:
  "We believe that the attention of Ministers should be drawn more directly to the potential security implications of scandalous behaviour and of other circumstances which might expose them to pressure by hostile intelligence agents. It might be more appropriate for this to be done by the Prime Minister, rather than by the Security Service, perhaps in a document to which Ministers would be required to refer on appointment and from time to time subsequently."
  The obvious inference to be drawn from that paragraph is that the attention of Ministers has not been drawn directly to the potential security implications of scandalous behaviour, otherwise it would not have been reiterated in this report. It merely repeats what Lord Denning said 10 years ago.
  I would recommend the Home Secretary to make the relevant sections of the Denning Report compulsory reading for all Ministers. It was a document written in 1963. I should like to quote from it the words which should be framed and hung up in Ministers' offices. The fact that these words are partially repeated by Diplock 10 years later indicates that Lord Denning's recommendations have not been observed as well as they might have been. Lord Denning said:
  "Public men are more vulnerable than they were: and it behaves them, even more than ever, to give no cause for scandal. For if they do, they have to reckon with a growing hazard which has been disclosed in the evidence I have heard. Scandalous information about well-known people has become a marketable commodity. True or false, actual or invented, it can be sold. The greater the scandal the higher the price it commands. If supported by photographs or letters, real or imaginary, all the better. Often enough the sellers profess to have been themselves participants in the discreditable conduct which they seek to exploit. Intermediaries move in, ready to assist the sale and ensure the highest prices. The story improves with the telling. It is offered to those newspapers—there arc only a few of them—who deal in this commodity. They vie with one another to buy it. Each is afraid the other will get it first."
  That could have been written by Lord Denning a few days ago. It is even more apt now. We have apparently made no progress.
  The Government must bear a heavy burden of responsibility in this situation, which is repeating itself 10 years after one of the classic reports on
  860
  security. The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence ought to be ashamed of themselves for allowing this situation to come about.
  11.3 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Robert Carr): We have heard two speeches, from the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) and the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton), which were delivered in the public interest. I am quite sure that the hon. Members have nothing but the public interest in their minds. Like all of us, they enjoy serving the public interest.
  I could not help noticing the subject heading under which the hon. Members wished to raise the debate. The subject heading on the list reads as follows:
  "The efficiency of the Security Service in the light of the Security Commission Report"
  I have not heard much about the efficiency of the security services.
  Mr. Loughlin: I think Mr. Speaker will bear me out when I say that in the letter I submitted to him I said that I wanted to debate the findings in the Security Commission's Report of July 1973. I asked for a debate on the findings in the report. The title to which the right hon. Gentleman refers was selected by my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Well-beloved).
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member who has the topic for debate has to relate his speech to a Vote. That is the reason for the title of the debate.
  Mr. Carr: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, just as I am sure he will accept that the only title I was given was that on the circulated list. I see one hon. Gentleman laughing. Perhaps I should not have been altogether surprised at some of the matters that were raised.
  Whatever notice was given of the title of the debate, and under whatever Vote the debate is taking place, the fact is that we heard speeches that were largely mischievious nonsense and I cannot help noting—I must say that I welcome the fact—that the two hon. Gentlemen appear to have no support from their Front Bench. Not only is there no vocal

  861
  support for them, but there is a noteworthy absence of anyone on the Opposition Front Bench. All of us here and people outside know what deduction to draw from that.
  The first point made is about the method of inquiry adopted by the Security Commission. As the House knows, any Home Secretary—any Prime Minister for that matter, and any Minister—is in an almost impossible difficulty in talking about security matters because it is impossible for me, as it has always been for my predecessors, to talk about the methods of the Security Service and its structure, let alone seek to defend its efficiency in any case.
  With regard to the method of inquiry, I can only say that the Security Commission is supported in its existence by the Leader of the Opposition. The right hon. Gentleman supported it when he was Leader of the Opposition at the time the commission was established, he supported it during the six years he was Prime Minister and he supports it now that he is once more Leader of the Opposition. I think it needs to be put on record that the Leader of the Opposition fully supports the existence of the Security Commission, its membership, its terms of reference and the fact that the method it adopts in any inquiry is entirely for the commission itself to decide in the light of what it believes to be appropriate in relation to the particular case that it is investigating.
  That does not, of course, make the commission right, but at least it does make clear that any suggestion that the Government are trying to use a body of men, a procedure or a method of inquiry to cover up something unpleasant to them is absolutely without foundation. The method, the body of men and the procedure are wholly supported by the Opposition now that they are in opposition, just as they were when they were the Government and before that when they were again in opposition. I hope that on a major charge I can leave it at that.
  I regret that in the speeches we heard, particularly the first one—I am sorry to use hard words but I think they are justified—there were a succession of smears. First there was the smear that to some extent we were setting one standard for civil servants and a lower and easier
  862
  standard for Ministers. There is no truth in that suggestion so far as concerns the moral standards of behaviour of Ministers and civil servants. The standards expected are high. They are higher than expected—and properly higher than expected, perhaps—of men and women who do not have those levels of responsibility. But they are the same for civil servants and Ministers.
  There is one important difference, and that is the difference raised by the hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. George Cunningham). That is the question of positive vetting. It is true that civil servants in certain positions are subjected to positive vetting, and Ministers from the Prime Minister down to the most junior Minister are not subject to positive vetting. There are many reasons for that, all of which, or at any rate the sum total of which, are accepted by all parties and were confirmed as being right by the Diplock Commission whose report we are concerned with tonight.
  That again, I suppose, is an arguable proposition as to whether that should or should not be so, but at least let us be quite clear that it is not a party matter. I am not suggesting that any hon. Member said that it was. To be absolutely fair, no hon. Member did so suggest. But I want to put on record for better or worse that it is a view held by the leadership of all parties that positive vetting of Ministers, for a totality of reasons—
  Mr. Loughlin: I said that.
  Mr. Carr: I know. I am not seeking to make it a party matter. I am merely stating the fact that it is not a party matter, and it is worth putting on record that the leadership of all parties has always believed, for a variety of reasons, that the positive vetting of Ministers would not be appropriate, and this is still confirmed by the Diplock Commission.
  The second matter with which I want to deal is the attack on my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.
  Mr. George Cunningham: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the point, may I ask him to confirm that the position is not quite exactly as he has stated it? In paragraph 42 of the report, while

  863
  the commission says that it thinks the difficulties are too great for positive vetting, or something like that, it goes on to say that in respect of any Minister who was not before his appointment a Member of either House of Parliament the Prime Minister ought to satisfy himself
  "that there is no character defect or other circumstance which would mean that the appointment of that person would endanger security."
  That seems to me to be a long way off describing positive vetting. What we are saying is that in respect of people who are already in Parliament positive vetting cannot be required, but that in respect of someone outside the House something which amounts to positive vetting will be required. I suggest that that is a proposition which is, at the least, open to question.
  Mr. Carr: I do not dispute that the whole matter is open to question. Clearly it is, and in the end it is a matter of opinion and judgment and not of proof. But I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman's statement is to some extent a statement of the obvious, and a very important obvious. Perhaps none the less, because of that, it is worth stating. There is no doubt that we who live in this House together, both as a community across parties and in separate communities within parties, get to know each other probably better than most other communities that I can think of.
  Mr. Cunningham: That is what they said about Philby.
  Mr. Carr: The hon. Member believes in the need for positive vetting of Ministers. I am old-fashioned enough not to. All I am saying—
  Mr. Cunningham: My God!
  Mr. Carr: This is a matter of opinion in which I differ from the hon. Gentleman. He—this does not make him wrong—is probably in a small minority, both in his own party and in the House. There may come a day when he will be able to say "I am right and I have been right all the time." All I am saying at the moment is that that is not the view of the overwhelming majority of any party. Anyway, it was not central to the matters raised today.
  864
  But it is important, in relation to my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, to make it absolutely clear that the procedures as they existed were carried out. There have been suggestions from the beginning that the procedures as they were under the last Government have not been carried out. There it no truth in that at all, and I do not think that either of the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken tonight seriously suggested that that was the case.
  Mr. Lambton, formerly the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, was briefed in the proper manner. Of course, had he not been, my right hon. and noble Friend would indeed have had something to answer for. But he was briefed. It is true that when Mr. Lambton was interviewed on television he did not seem very clear about the status of different forms of vetting, but I really do not see how my right hon. and noble Friend can be blamed for that.
  I would not try to blame Mr. Lambton either. When dealing with this matter in response to questions on an earlier occasion, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister referred—the House understood this—to the exceptional strain to which Mr. Lambton must have been exposed when he was being questioned on television. If any of us is prepared to stand up and put his hands on his heart and say that in equivalent circumstances, under equivalent strain, he would be clear about all these things, it might be wise if he showed more humility. My right hon. and noble Friend cannot be blamed for Mr. Lambton not knowing what sort of vetting took place.
  It is worth pointing out that since Mr. Lambton, perhaps mistakenly, was under the impression that he had been positively vetted, that was hardly evidence that it was a light and easy briefing that he had had. It was evidently a briefing which had sufficient effect on him to make him say, in those circumstances, "I have been positively vetted."He did not say "I cannot recall any vetting at all."
  Mr. Sydney Bidwell: I think the right hon. Gentleman is placing too much credibility on Mr. Lambton's

  865
  own words. In that television appearance, under questioning, did he not also say that, as far as he knew, the principal person in the situation, Norma Levy, was not aware of his situation? The right hon. Gentleman could not think that that was the case. Or is that what the right hon. Gentleman seriously thinks? The major point is that raised in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) concerning the disquiet which inevitably arose from the fact that the principal witness to the examination was missing from the country but is now back in the country and inevitably, in the sheer logic of the evidence, new light must be thrown on the whole situation.
  Mr. Carr: I will come to that issue in a moment, but it is not germane to the responsibilities of my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.
  The hon. Member for Brixton seemed to think that there was something blameworthy in the fact that it was the Permanent Under-Secretary to the Ministry of Defence rather than the Secretary of State himself who saw Mr. Lambton. That could have been arguable, and it would be a charge calling for serious consideration had anyone at that stage wanted to see Mr. Lambton about a security matter. But that was not what the police wanted to see Mr. Lambton about. The police wished to see Mr. Lambton not about a security matter but about inquiries they were making in apprehension of a possible criminal offence.
  I think it perfectly proper for the police to have spoken in that instance to the senior civil servant rather than seek to see the Secretary of State for Defence himself. But, of course, if they had wished to see the Secretary of State, he would have seen them. However, I must repeat that at that stage we were dealing not with a security matter but with the possibility of a criminal offence having been committed, about which the police wished to interview Mr. Lambton and about which they did in fact interview him, as a result of which a criminal charge was laid against him, on which he has since been tried, convicted and sentenced.
  Mr. Lipton: If a Minister in charge of a Department is told or gets to know that one of his junior Ministers is in
  866
  trouble, is it not his job to send for that junior Minister and find out what is going on?
  Mr. Carr: I wonder by what remarkable telepathic insight the hon. Gentleman imagines that he knows that my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Defence did not see Mr. Lambton. He seems to be suggesting that he knows that the Secretary of State did not see Mr. Lambton. That is a preposterous suggestion to make, and I do not believe that he has the slightest information, let alone evidence, on which to make it.
  Mr. Lipton: So he did see him?
  Mr. Carr: He was seeing him daily. Does not the hon. Gentleman know what sort of world we live in a Department? Does he imagine that a senior Minister never sees his junior Ministers? Does he not realise that a senior Minister is doing business with his junior Ministers day in and day out? The suggestion that my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Defence stayed in some aloof, distinct and remote position is without the slightest foundation or evidence.
  Mr. Cunningham: Can the Home Secretary tell us whether this matter was discussed between the Secretary of State and Mr. Lambton?
  Mr. Carr: Not offhand, no. It may be a matter of personal relationships between two men who have been not only colleagues but friends to discuss their private affairs, but it is not a matter of business for the Secretary of State for Defence to discuss with an Under-Secretary when a possible criminal charge is under investigation. Indeed, I suggest that it might well be held, had he done so, to have been an improper thing to do.
  I am aware, and I was aware from an early stage of this wretched situation, that while, as Home Secretary, I had serious responsibilities from a security point of view, not only did I have no responsibility, in relation to a criminal charge, to intervene but I had a definite responsibility to refrain from intervening. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear on 25th May, this was one of the reasons why we could not acquaint Mr. Lambton of some of the things we had heard, because to do so might have been to warn him of the

  867
  impending inquiries which the police and the Director of Public Prosecutions believed they ought to make into the possibility that he had committed a criminal offence. In those circumstances, it would have been entirely wrong and improper for anyone to give any warning to Mr. Lambton that such inquiries were pending or on foot.
  That was one of the reasons why, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made quite clear—not one of the reasons, but the reason—during the considerable period we could not acquaint Mr. Lambton of some of the allegations made against him. It was also why the police informed the Security Service at a very early stage. It was also why the Security Service immediately informed me as Home Secretary and, of course, the Prime Minister. It was why the Prime Minister immediately instructed the Security Service to make all the inquiries it could to discover whether in its view there was any security risk of which we should be aware. As my right hon. Friend reported, several times during that period these inquiries to the Security Service were renewed and each time the Security Service replied "We have no reason to believe that there is any active security risk". Therefore, the normal course of the law and of inquiry in a potential criminal matter had to be allowed to take its course without any interference from Ministers.
  Mr. Cunningham: I am sorry to intervene again, but that long answer conceals an inconsistency. The Home Secretary made to rebuke my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) for thinking that the matter had not been discussed between the Secretary of State for Defence and the junior Minister and he implied that very likely there had been such a discussion. Now he is saying that he does not know whether there was such a discussion and, indeed, that it would have been improper for there to have been such a discussion. It is a circuitous argument.
  Mr. R. Carr: I apologise; I did not think it was a circuitous argument. If it was, I did not intend it to be.
  There has been some suggestion that my right hon. and noble Friend somehow held himself aloof in all this. There
  868
  was no intention of that, but it would have been improper had my right hon. and noble Friend or any other Minister, in his official or his private capacity, warned Mr. Lambton of the charges which might be made against him and about which the police had expressed their need to inquire. It must be obvious to the House that, when such a thing is known, it would be totally improper to give the suspected person any warning, because that might pervert the course of justice.
  I pass to the demand made by the hon. Members for Gloucestershire, West and for Brixton that there should be another full public inquiry.
  Mr. Lipton: I did not ask for that.
  Mr. Carr: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I do not believe that the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West produced one scrap of solid evidence or argument to support such a request. He mentioned that there was or might be a third Minister. He mentioned that everybody in the House knew who that third Minister was.
  Mr. Loughlin: I must correct this. If I said that, it may be wrong. What I mean to say—I hope it will be corrected now in HANSARD—is that every Member of the House knew the name that was being bandied about as being the third Minister.
  Mr. J. R. Kinsey: No, they did not.
  Mr. Carr: I cannot tell what other hon. Members know. I can only say that the hon. Member seems to have more knowledge than I and some of us at any rate.
  The hon. Member for Brixton, even if he did not ask for a further public inquiry, definitely said that some further evidence had come to light—I think he said since 6th July. I can only deny that absolutely. If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence or if he knows anybody else who has any evidence, let such person come forward and provide that evidence; and I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that it will be as thoroughly, as impartially and as fearlessly dealt with as was the original information which led to this whole sorry affair.
  Mr. Lipton: What is the object of the lengthy police interrogation of Norma Levy since she returned to this country?
  Mr. Carr: It is not for me to know that. It is not for the hon. Gentleman to know it either. If I were to inquire of the police what they were doing, it would he wholly improper. If the hon. Gentleman began to suspect that I was doing that, I think he would be the first person to seek to raise the matter in the House, probably under Standing Order No. 9. I could not foretell how you, Mr. Speaker, would judge it, but I think you would not dismiss it lightly if somebody suggested that I as Home Secretary was inquiring into what the police were questioning someone about. It would be a wholly improper thing for me to do and a fatal step for any Minister to take.
  Mr. Lipton: The right hon. Gentleman completely misunderstood what I said. Further evidence is now available, and I hope that the necessary steps will be taken to ensure that heed is taken of it by the appropriate authority.
  Mr. Carr: The hon. Gentleman says with great confidence that further evidence is now available. I do not know whether the police are aware of further evidence. I can only say that I am not and the Government are not aware of it. If there is further evidence of which the hon. Gentleman is aware, providing it is evidence and not mere scandal mongering, I suggest that he gives it to the proper prosecuting authorities and it will be as fearlessly, fully and impartially dealt with as was the original allegation and evidence.
  Mr. Ronald Brown(Shoreditch and Finsbury): In this case all the names have been published of people who are supposedly concerned. Names have been bandied about in the Poulson affair. It is interesting that in the court case at present being heard which is called the Payola case reference is made to Mr. X, Mr. Y and Mr. Z. Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate why in the Payola case all the evidence is being treated secretly, with witnesses being referred to as Mr. Y and Mr. X, whereas speculative statements in Poulson—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for the Home Secretary. It is for the court considering the case. It cannot be raised now.
  Mr. Carr: I shall not refer to that matter, Mr. Speaker, but may I say without rancour that it is important for the House and the public to realise that under our system—it is one of the fundamental supports of our system and freedom in this country—Ministers do not, cannot and must not interfere in the course of criminal inquiries. That is absolutely fundamental.
  Mr. Lipton: I accept that.
  Mr. Carr: I hope that the whole House will accept it and act upon it.
  I can assure the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West that some of the things which he said are not embarrassing to me, to the Prime Minister or to the Government. I hope that they are slightly embarrassing to his conscience.
  The hon. Gentleman raised the question of the failure to arrest Mrs. Levy. There was some suggestion that the police did not arrest Mrs. Levy because it would have been embarrassing to the Government for them to do so. That is a scandalous, dirty suggestion to make without any foundation. It is a scandalous innuendo, not simply against the Government but against the whole Metropolitan Police, because it implies that they took instructions either from me as Home Secretary or from another Minister not to carry out their duty as they saw it. How can the hon. Gentleman make that suggestion when they had charged a Minister? If it was not embarrassing to the Government to do that, I think that we could have borne the embarrassment of Mrs. Levy being charged had the police any evidence against her. If they had had evidence against her at that stage, I am sure they would have charged her.
  The hon. Gentleman seems to think that the police should have charged her because Mr. Lambton or somebody else had said something at his trial. But does he suggest that because, say, my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State or someone else who may speak in this debate says that he knows that a

  871
  certain Mr. Loughlin who happens to be the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West has been partaking of drugs—no one has said so, let me make clear—it is to be regarded by the police as a reason for stopping the hon. Member from leaving the country or for making a charge against him? For heaven's sake! When that day comes, I hope that 1 no longer live in this country.
  Mr. Loughlin: I can understand the right hon. Gentleman getting a little indignant, but let me put again the two points I made. Evidence was available to the police on 21st May. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that I quoted from The Times and I quoted what was said by the two policemen who interrogated Lord Lambton. The first question was whether Mrs. Levy had given him any drugs, and he said "Yes". The second question related to a photograph that was shown to him by the police and which showed him smoking a cigarette, and Lambton agreed, according to the evidence at the trial, that that cigarette could have been marijuana. Two separate pieces of evidence were given to the police: one was a photograph and the other was a statement made by a Minister, the person being investigated. I should have thought that that would have justified the police in taking action.
  Mr. Carr: I have been a Member of the House for 23 years and, although I should require notice to name cases, I do not think that my memory is playing me false when I say that I have heard hon. Members stand up for the liberty of the individual and criticise the police when they have taken action on evidence far more substantial than that.
  I do not believe that the charge that the police deliberately turned a blind eye bears one moment of serious consideration or inspection. The hon. Member is forgetting how this matter arose. The information about Lord Lambton came to the police in the course of inquiries in pursuit of what they believed might be a criminal offence. They were in hot pursuit of what they suspected might be criminal offences. Any suggestions that suddenly they cooled in that hot pursuit and withheld action when they had evidence which they believed would justify it certainly does not bear examination.
  872
  In any case, the hon. Member seems to be unaware that Mrs. Levy—I think both Mr. and Mrs. Levy—had left the country on 20th May, which was the day before 21st May. The hon. Member must realise that, thank goodness, in this country we do not have the power to stop people from leaving the country unless there is reasonable cause to bring criminal charges against them. Once again I say that I hope I no longer live in this country if we ever reach the stage when the police have such powers. They do not have such powers, of course, and Mr. and Mrs. Levy had left by the time Mr. Lambton made the statement to which the hon. Member refers.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned extradition. I can pass over that quickly. Under the extradition treaty that we have with Spain, an old treaty dating back to 1878 or in that period, the only possible charges that might have been made against Mr. and Mrs. Levy were not for extraditable offences. There I must leave it, because Mrs. Levy is back in this country and has had a charge made against her, so that her whole case is sub judice.
  The hon. Member for Brixton said that the existence of a call-girl racket involving top-ranking personalities had been known since 1972 and that there was some earlier evidence at the beginning of 1973. If so, it was not known to me as Home Secretary. If it was known to the hon. Member or to any people he knows, why, in the name of all responsibility, did he or they not come forward with the evidence? I cannot repeat too strongly that we all have some duty, it evidence comes to our attention which we believe to be more than just rumour or scandal mongering and to have sufficient credibility of substance to be a serious matter, to bring such information to the notice of the proper authorities. People should not make charges of that kind unless they have done their duty as citizens.
  The hon. Gentleman also asked whether I could assure him and the House about the degree of co-operation between the security services and the police. I can indeed so assure him. I think that is proved not just by my assurance but by the very way in which this matter came to our attention. The

  873
  police, in the pursuit of criminal inquiries, came across this allegation and they immediately reported it to the Security Service which immediately reported it, as it should, to the Prime Minister and to me as Home Secretary. That is evidence of the close degree of co-operation between the police and the security services.
  It is also within my personal knowledge that from that moment onwards, under instructions from the Prime Minister and myself, the police the whole time kept the Security Service fully informed. It would not have been proper for the police to keep me as fully informed, because it could prejudice a criminal inquiry, but there was no doubt about the close cooperation with the security services.
  Mr. William Wilson: May I ask the Home Secretary one simple question? In the light of what he has just told us, it appears that the knowledge that the Government subsequently had about Lord Lambton came to them out of the blue. In view of what he said to us originally—that we in this House know one another and come to understand the characters of one another —how does it come about that such a matter as this did not come to light, ex-except out of the blue, when another entirely different inquiry was being pursued?
  Mr. Carr: That is unfortunately true. We know each other well, but we do not know each other fully. I have to admit that.
  Mr. Cunningham: All right.
  Mr. Carr: The hon. Gentleman slaps his thigh and says "All right". He can go on believing that Ministers should be positively vetted if he likes, and I will go on believing that they should not and that I have the vast majority of hon. Members of both major parties on my side. Perhaps we in the majority are wrong, but it does not stop us holding our beliefs any more than it stops the hon. Gentleman holding his.
  Mr. Cunningham: The right hon. Gentleman must admit that, in a serious matter like this, it is not good enough to go on saying that one person has his opinion and others have theirs. In para
  874
  graph 42 of the Diplock Report there is the sentence:
  "We have also had in mind that the Government Chief Whip of the day can be expected to be very well informed about any member of either House of Parliament who is a potential candidate for Ministerial office."
  Does not the right hon. Gentleman at least think it curious that that should be one of the principal conclusions of a commission arising from a Lambton situation where clearly his colleagues were not fully aware of the character and activities of the man? Whatever conclusion one might ultimately reach on the point, is not that a manifest weakness in the Diplock Report?
  Mr. Carr: The hon. Member can think so if he likes. I evidently cannot change his mind and he cannot change mine. We should remember that even positive vetting is not infallible. If I remember correctly, the Diplock Commission expressed the view that, even if the then hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed had been positively vetted at the time, these weaknesses or warning signs would not have been brought to light or would not have led to his non-appointment as a Minister. It is only a matter of opinion, but I think that was the view expressed by the commission.
  Mr. Cunningham: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is thinking of Lord Jellicoe. In paragraph 23, after referring to Lord Jellicoe, the report says:
  "If it had been disclosed in the process of positive vetting to which all civil servants are subjected before being employed on exceptionally secret work, it would not"—
  the "it" means his conduct—
  "in our view, have been treated as disqualifying him."
  The commission says that about Lord Jellicoe, not about Lord Lambton. If the Home Secretary knows the report so little as to confuse these two things, I am surprised.
  Mr. Carr: Perhaps I can tempt the hon. Member to turn to the last paragraph in the report, paragraph 43, which says:
  "In the particular case of Lord Lambton and, a fortiori, in that of Lord Jellicoe, we are satisfied that positive vetting at the time of their appointment would not have brought to light anything which would have suggested that they were unsuitable on security grounds."

  875
  The hon. Member referred to some of the recommendations which the Diplock Commission made about the future. He said that he drew the inference that the proper procedures had not been carried out. I do not believe that he can substantiate that charge.
  Mr. Lipton: Why did the commission mention it?
  Mr. Carr: Because it felt in the light of experience that in future we should have procedures which are even more stringent than in the past. That has been our practice through the decades. We have constantly improved and made more stringent our procedures. But there is no suggestion from the inquiries that the commission made that the standing procedures as practised by the last Government and as followed by the present Government were not followed. It has said that in future there should be even stiffer procedures.
  As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made clear, we are accepting that. It is always easy when new procedures are adopted to say that perhaps they should have been adopted earlier. But what sort of a country are we living in? I do not believe that we should attract into public service the sort of men and women we have always managed to attract, regardless of party, if we were to make the conditions of that public service too much like living in a police state.
  That is why we are right only to go on adding to our procedures when, alas, experience proves it necessary. Experience has seemed to prove that it would be wise, unfortunately, to add to those procedures. That we shall do, but we in this Government have honoured to the full the procedures as we inherited them.

  CLEAN AIR
  11.50 p.m.
  Mr, Neil McBride: Crises come and go in this Chamber, but it is held to be inescapably true that one of the best things in life and some thing of supreme importance is, to steal a phrase from the last debate, that we should have security of knowledge that we in this country are being aided by
  876
  the Government in preserving in all its purity the air we breathe.
  As one of the fundamentals which make life possible, the purity of the atmosphere should be constantly watched by the Government. Our people are concerned about the discharge into the atmosphere of gases, noxious and toxic. Our people, and the peoples of the world, are also appalled by the discharge of tons of pollutants of a non-gaseous nature in a combination of obnoxious qualities damaging to health and harmful to the environment.
  Many people in England and Wales, particularly in Swansea, East, are concerned about the emission of pollutants, whether gaseous or non-gaseous, individually or in combination, because of the harm to health, the surrounding environment, household goods, plant life and vegetation. It has been apparent for a long time that a fresh appraisal of the situation was greatly overdue, but the Government are singularly loth to take action. This debate takes place against the background of world interest in measures to combat air pollution. The Government have announced the introduction of legislation to deal with the problem of pollution in all its forms, possibly in the next Session, but in my submission it could have been done this Session.
  Two other factors have forced the Government to take steps. The first is the report "Publication of Information about Industrial Emission into the Atmosphere" by the Clean Air Working Party which considered the problem, and the other is my Alkali Inspectorate Bill which, despite the Government's declared opposition, was given a Second Reading and passed through Committee stage, during which the Government were defeated on a vote. The free will of the House thus demonstrated shows that the Bill should have been accorded adequate time for Report stage and Third Reading. But the Government have refused to grant time for it. It is an appalling decision.
  Another aspect of establishing purity of the atmosphere is the attitude and operational activities of Her Majesty's Clean Air and Alkali Inspectorate. These organisational civil servants work by choice off-stage. But a section of public

  877
  opinion wants this anonymous department to step out of the Whitehall shades and adopt a tough and modern attitude, keeping the public informed about its role by using modern methods of communication, realising that our people are intelligent adults and not precocious children who should be kept in ignorance.
  The Clear Air Working Party included in its membership the Chief Inspector of Her Majesty's Alkali and Clean Air Inspectorate, who has not always been regarded as a man anxious to take the public into his confidence in matters concerning purity of the atmosphere and the work of the department under his control. I draw attention to the non-inclusion in the working party's report of a minority report from this gentleman. That omission and the sections dealing with the desirability of the publication of information in non-technical language, especially in localities such as that which I represent, suggest that the gentleman concerned is travelling to an administrative Damascus. It is a great conversion for him.
  Hon. Members of this House, however, are not privy to any information about emissions into the atmosphere in their constituencies. Despite the fact that the report regards hon. Members as "responsible persons"—and I submit that back benchers in this House are responsible—the Government and the inspectorate appear to take a different view. This situation must change.
  These matters are regarded as important in other countries, particularly in the United States, for two reasons: first, because of the passing of the clean air legislation of 1970; and secondly, because the second annual report of the United States Council on Environmental Quality emphasised the importance of "the citizen's right to know".
  In legislative matters and in terms of information provided, the Government are failing to recognise that Members of this House are responsible people. The Government must be made aware of the importance of emissions of certain substances into the air in our constituencies. The public have every reason to be informed of the nature and extent of gaseous and non-gaseous pollutants discharged into the atmosphere of the areas in which they live.
  878
  Air pollution is due to fixed sources and emanates from industrial plant, including steelworks, chemical plants, petrochemical and other processes such as thermal power stations, central heating and waste incineration plants and from moving sources such as vehicles and aircraft. It is estimated that 60 per cent. of air pollution in the United States emanates from moving sources. I should like to know from the Under-Secretary of State what percentage of air pollution in the United Kingdom is due to emissions from these sources.
  We are now members of the Common Market, though personally I abhor our membership. Having been in Brussels during the last few weeks, I should like to quote to the House an extract from a resolution passed during the twenty-third ordinary session of the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe, Resolution 510/1972 on the reduction of air pollution from motor vehicles and exhaust gases. Paragraph 9 invites member countries as a first step
  "to put forward in their respective national Parliaments draft legislation used as a guide to federal standards of legislative provisions laid down by the United States for 1973–74."
  This includes the mechanical dinosaurs which are coming to this country in increasing numbers from the Continent.
  If the seas of the world are to be treated as dustbins for our planet, the United Kingdom must pass far-reaching legislation to ensure that air pollution in the localities of our country will not result in creeping clouds with poisonous content detrimental to health.
  Figures are easy to play with, but this subject is too serious for frivolity. Let me again refer to the situation in the United States—and let us remember the limited confines of our own nation compared with the vast areas of America. In the United States 390,000 tons of smoke carrying more or less harmful particles is released into the skies each day. In Los Angeles, the former dream capital of the world, 4 million vehicles consume 36 million litres of petrol per day and discharge into the sky above the city 1,800 tons of hydrocarbon, 500 tons of nitrogen oxide, which causes inflammation of the eyes, and 11 tons of carbon monoxide which causes serious anaemia. The coal- and oil-burning industries of the United States emit 24 million tons

  879
  of sulphur into the atmosphere. It must be realised that this emission will be doubled in the 1980s. That is the reason for the strict legal control of air pollution in America.
  I now come nearer to home—namely, the Common Market. Pollution levels in Cologne and Frankfurt are already as high as the levels in Chicago and Los Angeles. What is the total tonnage of air pollutants emitted annually in Britain? What study of the deposition of pollutants is being made in Britain relating to all areas of England and Wales? I hope that the Under-Secretary will forgive me if I say "especially Wales."
  Air pollution is robbing people of the assurance of the continuity of pure air. It is having adverse effects on the health of the public in addition to plant and animal life. Sulphur dioxide, chlorine and nitrogen oxides are often fatal to coniferous trees. What study is being made or contemplated into the loss of hours of sunshine per annum in the major cities of the world compared with the hours of sunshine in outlying suburbs because of the presence of pollutant dust which is inevitable in the industrialised areas of major cities? I am sure that the answer will be interesting.
  What consideration has been given by the Department of the Environment to the concept of total energy? I admit that that is a new term covering an old idea. The basic principle is self-containment of the production of energy in industrial plants. That can result in the use of 85 per cent. of the energy created and a much smaller emission of pollutants.
  The problems entailed in the United Kingdom and the industrialised Western world, particularly England and Wales, make these matters increasingly interesting to the people. There is no section of the people more interested in these matters than my constituents. The Minister is aware, no doubt, of the problems which exist in my constituency.
  We must consider whether the existing legislation in England and Wales is sufficiently strong to maintain the purity of the atmosphere. Is the organisation set up as a result of that legislation and the department which operates it—namely, Her Majesty's Alkali and Clean Air
  880
  Inspectorate—capable of maintaining cleanliness of the air? Is sufficient information given to the British people? I suggest that insufficient information is being given to the people.
  The basic principle of existing law is that industry must use the best practical means to control and eliminate emissions. That has been the position since 1863 when the first Alkali Act was enacted. I believe that modern conditions demand that there should be a statutory definition of emission levels. A long time has elapsed since 1863. The Alkali and Clean Air Inspectorate, which is financed by the taxpayers, does not take the British people fully into its confidence. Victorian reticence has no place in the present industrial world.
  Insufficient information comes from the inspectorate. That is in direct contradiction to the report of the Clean Air Council, which at page 12 of its report said:
  "Witnesses on behalf of the Newspaper Society told us that at present local journalists felt that they not infrequently had difficulty in obtaining information about emissions from manufacturers."
  At page 13 it said:
  "The combination of British industry's representatives emphasised that in their view a system of local reports could be more valuable than a central report because more detail would be available about what was of interest to people locally."
  Clearly, the inspectorate does not feel that to be very important.
  The liaison committees, of which the inspectorate proudly boasts there are 20, including one in my home city, are not an appropriate medium for the dissemination of information. In Swansea the committee is not highly regarded by my Port Tennant constituents. The alkali inspector said at page 13 of his 1971 report:
  "I have said frequently that pressures from an informed public help to get speedy improvement, raise standards and introduce beneficial legislation, but the problem of communication is important and is one that is being tackled. Unfortunately, there are extremists in the environmental movement who believe in the use of scare tactics based on unbalanced information in order to sway public opinion."
  That is a foolish statement. If one does not furnish information to the public, one is more liable to get unbalanced views.

  881
  My Bill aims to improve legislation and safeguard the position in the light of modern circumstances. It had its Second Reading on a free vote of the House. There has been an appalling failure by the Department of the Environment to table amendments in sufficient time. The Committee stage finished on 27th June, the Committee having first met on 20th June, and it took this administrative colossus, with its batteries of legal experts, 20 days to table amendments. They were tabled on 16th and 17th July, which is an assault on, and erosion of, the rights of back benchers.
  The Minister knows the identity of the legal experts whose advice is freely available to me.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths)The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) indicated dissent.
  Mr. McBride: The hon. Gentleman was in the Committee, and his attention was drawn to the two Queen's Counsel and the solicitor who were there. He must be deaf and somehow he did not see them. Do I have to spell out the names?
  Mr. Griffiths Mr. Griffiths rose—
  Mr. McBride: I hold the Floor, and as long as I obey the rules of the House Mr. Deputy Speaker will protect me.
  There was an inept failure by the Department to table the amendments in proper time. [Interruption.] I wish that the sycophantic chorus would keep quiet.
  The Government's proposals to maintain and preserve clean air for our people were not heard of before the framing of my Bill. Suddenly, they were announced. The Government were a little annoyed that a humble back bencher had stepped in where they feared to step.
  I ask the Government to adopt what is proposed in the report: a closer relationship between industry, local authorities and Her Majesty's inspectorate. In all major cities we see the effects of air pollution. In this country we possess the wisdom and wealth to eradicate it. The question is whether the Government have the will to engage the problem on a more intensive scale.
  I have been to the Council of Europe. I remember the Under-Secretary talking
  882
  of this. Knowing how difficult it is for Ministers to obtain information, I went and got it myself. I have read the report on Environment Policy in Europe, 1972. I commend it to the Under-Secretary for rereading. I commend also the two other reports. I have mentioned one of them. The other is Recommendation 659 of 1972, which states:
  "To establish in laws and decrees precise dates for the introduction of acceptable limits which would place tighter and tighter restrictions on the major pollutants and polluters."
  The Under-Secretary is bound by that. He cannot free himself from the bond of adhering firmly to that because of the Treaty of Accession.
  While it may be held that pollution in all its forms represents unity—I do not deny that—it is indisputable that the continuity of life is dependent upon clean air. In a world where Britain and other European nations are forced to purchase crude oil with a high sulphur content—the United States is clamping down on this oil of high sulphur content—one result, as the OECD estimates, is that 21 million pounds of sulphuric acid will be falling on the back yards of Europe in 1980. How much is falling on the back yards of Britain? No doubt the hon. Gentleman will tell us.
  The day has passed when this country will tolerate secrecy in this matter. There has been far too much secrecy. The day has passed when we can be fobbed off. Local newspaper reporters should be told everything. The evidence of the Newspaper Society backs me up. All the reporters can be trusted thoroughly. This matter should be speedily examined by the Government.
  With the skill and expertise collectively possessed in the constituent elements of our society, two results can flow there from. First, there must be new and tighter legislation to protect public health. Secondly, arising out of this we may be able to say that in Britain the public are better informed and that air pollution is steadily diminishing and we are proceeding towards its complete eradication.
  The Government now have a great opportunity in this non-political matter, which is of supreme importance to the people, to give true meaning to the words "fresh air".
  12.14 a.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. McBride) has covered a good deal of ground. I hope he will forgive me if I do not follow him as far as Los Angeles or, indeed, almost all the places in the European Community. I agree with him, however, on one thing. It is a truism that man does not live by bread alone. He most certainly needs clean air and clean water. I am therefore grateful to the hon. Member for raising the question of clean air.
  I want at the outset to state three main propositions. The first is the problem. More people, more motor vehicles and more industry mean that the potential for air pollution in this country is rising all the time. The second proposition is the record. In spite of the growth in the number of vehicles and of industry, air in Britain is steadily becoming cleaner. I shall document that presently, but I say right away that our air is the cleanest of any urbanised industrial nation and our progress in making it cleaner is the envy of the world.
  The third proposition concerns rising expectations, because, however much progress we may make, a new generation with higher standards will rightly demand that we go much further and faster. Sometimes these new demands can lead to excessive zeal, but my Department welcomes the public's impatience for cleaner air and cleaner water. We welcome it as a positive ally in our campaign for what we need most. We need more resources and we need more parliamentary time to tackle the remaining, and in some cases still very vexatious, problems that air pollution presents.
  We are in no way complacent. There are many intractable problems that still darken our air, and in each and every case I undertake on behalf of my Department to do my utmost to get to the bottom of those problems and, wherever possible, resolve them quickly. But it is important to get these problems into perspective, and that perspective, I can tell the hon. Gentlemen, is a success story.
  It is fair to say that we, the British, invented industrial pollution. Because we industrialised first using our native raw material, coal, we almost certainly
  884
  did more than any other country to pollute our air, to foul our rivers and to scar our countryside. By the same token, however, we in Britain were the first to tackle pollution on a massive scale, and we have done more, and we are continuing to do more, than any comparable country to keep our air fit to breathe.
  There are two measures of that. One is statistics and the other, perhaps more meaningful, is the day-to-day experience of ordinary people. I start with the statistics, and in particular those of smoke. In 1950, 2·4 million tons of smoke was emitted to the air over Britain, most of it from domestic chimneys but some from factories and railways. By 1970 that figure had fallen by two-thirds to 770,000 tons, and I predict with confidence that by 1975 smoke emissions will be down to less than 600,000 tons. That means that over the last 25 years three tons of smoke have been removed from the air for every one ton that still remains.
  That has been achieved in part by the smoke control programme launched by the Clean Air Act 1956. Five million homes are now covered by smoke control. Birmingham has 58 per cent. of all its houses under that control, Manchester has 45 per cent. and London has more than 90 per cent. The champion is Sheffield, with 100 per cent. covered. Sheffield now almost certainly has less domestic smoke in its air than any other industrial city in North-West Europe.
  Not surprisingly, progress has been slower in the coalfield regions. The Northern Region in particular has lagged far behind, with only 32 per cent. of its premises under smoke control orders as late as 1972. I therefore set up a northern panel of the Clean Air Council to promote smoke control in the North-East, and the results have been quite dramatic.
  Between November of last year and January of this year the local authorities concerned submitted a record number of smoke control orders. All the so-called "black" area authorities in the Northern Region are now either committed to or are actively considering smoke control programmes, and without exception they expect to complete 100 per cent. smoke control by the end of the decade. Within a year of the Northern Panel's report, 42 per cent. of the premises in the "black"

  885
  areas of the Northern Region were covered by orders. I am happy to say that half of all the orders received by my Department for smoke control were from authorities in the Northern Region, as were two further orders which were confirmed only yesterday.
  Against this background of steady progress on domestic smoke control. I ought perhaps to remind the hon. Gentleman that there was one awful moment, just over three years ago, when it looked as if the entire clean air programme in this country might come grinding to a halt. The snag was that in the last years of the previous Government the production of solid smokeless fuel fell to a point where there was literally no choice but to suspend smoke control in wide areas of the country, and the air in many places literally became dirtier for lack of smokeless solid fuel.
  I am bound to tell the hon. Gentleman that it took a great deal of time and trouble to undo the damage. With the co-operation, however, of the local authorities and other Government Departments and though this is ironic—by a decision which I had to take myself to allow a private Coalite plant to be built at Rossington in Yorkshire, with some polluting effects on the neighbourhood, we overcame that shortage of solid smokeless fuel, and we were therefore able in 1971 to advise all local authorities to go full speed ahead with clean air.
  I turn now to industrial air pollution and British industry's contribution. Here again I must tell the hon. Gentleman that there is a success story. Thanks very largely to the sterling work of the Alkali and Clean Air Inspectorate, this is what has happened. Let us take the example of cement. In 1958 cement plants emitted more than 200,000 tons of solid matter to the air. Last year that figure had fallen to 30,000 tons, a reduction of just over five-sixths, in spite of a massive increase in our production of cement.
  In the case of the electricity industry, in 1958 the emissions were no less than I million tons of particulate matter. Since then the supply of electricity has shot up by more than half, yet emissions to the air have fallen by 80 per cent. In the case of iron ore, in 1960 the solid emissions from blast furnaces totalled 85,000
  886
  tons. Last year they fell below 4,000 tons, a reduction of well over 90 per cent., in spite of a fourfold increase in iron ore production.
  This has been achieved by skill, hard work and good organisation and by a voluntary working partnership between British industry and the Government. Over the last 10 years British firms have invested close to £400 million on air pollution control, and these large sums have not been spent by Government diktat. Rather they represent industry's willing response to the inspectorate's application of the statute's wise requirement that, in the interests of clean air, industry must install the best practicable means of suppressing polluting emissions.
  The hon. Gentleman and I have on previous occasions debated the pros and cons of the "best practicable means "approach. I say only that the Government are quite confident that that is by far the best approach to controlling industrial emissions.
  Mr. McBride: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that this will continue in future legislation?
  Mr. Griffiths: Yes.
  I want now to measure some of the progress in much more human terms. I have given some of the statistics. What counts even more is the experience of ordinary people. Between December and February, the darkest months of the year, the visibility from the top of the Department of the Environment building in Marsham Street now averages 4½ miles. It was 1½ miles on average in the late 1950s. Midwinter sunshine in central London is now 50 per cent. greater than it was 10 years ago, and the weather has not got better. All that has happened is that more sunshine is getting through because the air is cleaner.
  The wild life certainly appreciates this. There are today many species of birds—for example, swifts and others—and many more types of butterflies in the London parks than there were 10 years ago. Trees grow more healthily and flowers which a generation ago had apparently become extinct in most parts of central London are now returning in large numbers to the city's gardens. People have fewer chest colds and there has not been a major

  887
  smog in London since the early 1950s, when, on one sad occasion, about 4,000 people died from the effects of air pollution.
  So it is that, all over the country, we are now able to clean historic and cultural buildings—St. Nicholas' Hall in Newcastle, the Free Trade Hall in Manchester, the Royal Liver Building in Liverpool, the Corn Exchange and the Minister in York and, of course, Whitehall, which is once again white. The reason why we can clean the buildings is that they will stay clean in the cleaner air.
  None of this means that we are in any sense complacent. There is of course the problem of air pollution from vehicles. The hon. Member asked me for figures and I will gladly let him have them. Nor are we complacent about some of those trace elements that are emitted into the air by more complicated industry. But the overall picture of air pollution in Britain is one of massive and continuing improvement. I believe that that will go on, that we shall be aided by the Alkali and Clean Air Inspectorate, strengthened by its new dust-testing schemes. I believe above all else that, given a vigilant public and a responsible interest in this House, we shall continue with what is and will continue to be a success story in clean air.

  BRITISH PATENT OFFICE
  12.28 a.m.
  Mr. Ronald Bell: I want to draw attention to the effect on the British Patent Office of the proposed European Patents Convention.
  The Statute of Monopolies of 1624, which was passed in the latter part of the reign of James I, is the basis of the patent law of the whole world. Patents developed and develop their complexities and characteristics in this country. At first people were given straightforward monopolies, without having to disclose the secret nature of their discovery, but from the time of Queen Anne they were required to register the nature of their discovery in return for being grained a monopoly in the use of it. From that time something in the nature of a patent office came into existence
  888
  as a register of those specifications, but the Patent Office as we know it today dates from the Act of 1883.
  It is, I do not hesitate to say, the outstanding patent office in the world. More patents issue from the United States office, which is not surprising in view of the population of that country. Numerically, France causes more patents to issue than we do, but the comparison is not a true one because in France one gets a patent for the asking, whereas one certainly does not in Britain. An application is scrutinised. A search is made to check its novelty. Applications may well be refused. Ignoring France, the numerical order is: the United States, Great Britain, Germany, and other nations thereafter.
  The Patent Office here is not only old but it is large and extremely important. There are in it at present about 520 examiners of patents, and the total staff is about 600. Around the Patent Office in London, now in the City, there have grown up 650 patent agents, with all the staff in their offices, and the practice which has developed in this community in Britain is eminently practical and efficient.
  To be granted a patent one has to provide proof of novelty, but the question of utility of the discovery is left, in our practice, to the operation of the market, which seems an eminently sensible way of doing it. About three-fifths of applicants are granted patents. There is a vast library of specifications and of patent lore.
  Germany, the country with the next greatest number of patents, following Britain—ignoring France, as I say—requires proof of utility as well as proof of novelty. This has resulted, and still results, in appalling delay in the consideration of patent applications and to what amounts to virtual breakdown of the system. One can imagine the impracticality of a system which requires a patent examiner, who no doubt acquires great skill in his particular work, passing judgment on the utility, commercial or industrial, of an invention. It is difficult enough for one person, however experienced, to have to decide on novelty. In Germany, in the end—and it is a long end—eight applications out of every 10 are rejected.

  889
  In Europe, therefore, the British patent system and the British Patent Office have primacy not only in history and in numbers but in facilities, accumulated skills and convenience and speed for the user.
  Under the present world system, patents are national and cumulative in the sense that, if somebody wants a patent, he applies for it in Britain, and if he wants one in other countries he applies there and gets separate letters patent in each. One can see, therefore, the attraction in any proposal for a unified patent system, if not for the whole world, at least for a particular area such as Europe.
  In 1969 a European convention on patents was held. It was called by the High Commission of the Six, but it was a general convention of 21 countries, with such bodies as the Council of Europe also represented. In 1972 in Luxembourg, three years after the initial convention, a conference of representatives of those nations drew up a draft convention or treaty. This not merely dealt with the substantive law of patents but also included the constitution, the siting and even the staff of a European Patent Office. That office, astonishingly enough, was to be in Munich.
  The draft convention comes up for final consideration, and probably for signature, at a diplomatic conference to be held in Munich in September. Therefore this matter, with all its implications for the British Patent Office, British patent practitioners and Britain's national interest, will all be decided before the House returns from its Summer Recess.
  Another agreement signed in Munich in 1938 has often attracted condemnation, though not from me. Any diplomatic defeat sustained then will be as nothing to what is to be apprehended this autumn in the same city. The national patent offices would be graciously allowed to continue for the issue of purely internal patents, but their decline and virtual extinction would be inevitable. Under the draft convention, searches would be delegated to an office in The Hague; so the Dutch would not suffer very much. Examination and grant would be in Munich. Thus applications for European patents, 60 per cent. to 80 per cent. of which are in the
  890
  English language, would be handled in Germany and Holland.
  There have been Questions about this in both Houses of Parliament. The ministerial answer is that it has been arranged that one-third of the work will be subcontracted to London for a period of 15 years; so the rundown here will be gradual. No such thing has been arranged. The draft treaty provides that the Munich office may—not must—delegate up to a maximum of 40 per cent. of applications for primary processing in national offices for a period of 15 years—not more than 15 years. As most of the work is in English—60 per cent. to 80 per cent. of patent applications are in English—30 per cent. of the applications might come here, but it would be entirely up to the Munich office how much was farmed out. Anyway, it is provided that the amount so subcontracted or delegated should fade out in the last five years of the maximum period of 15 years.
  Therefore the business of processing and granting predominantly English language patents would be done in Germany, it having been handed to Germany on a plate by agreement. The consequences of this for applicants for patents are that their applications drawn in the English language would go to be considered in Holland and in Germany, often by people whose mother tongue was not English and who were considering documents of extreme technicality and usually of great precision. Judgment upon the merits of those applications would be passed, and on the whole passed finally, by individuals who did not speak as natives the language in which the applications were drawn up. That would be the fate of not just a majority but an overwhelming majority of the applicants for patents in Europe.
  They would also be subject to far greater delays than they have experienced in London. I do not suggest that the consideration and issue of patents is a process noted for its celerity anywhere. There are delays, but delays in London are as nothing to those which have been experienced in Germany and which, one would assume, if it is to take over the consideration of patents in a foreign language, will be surpassed by the delays to be experienced in future.

  891
  Then there are the consequences for the staff of the Patent Office in London. Probably 300 of the 520 long-skilled examiners will have to be faded out. It will probably be suggested that by this process of delegation from Munich the running down of the British Patent Office can be achieved by natural wastage, by not replacing people as they retire. Even if that was so, I would find it cold comfort. But these events cast their shadows before them. The 520 people, seeing what is about to overtake them and their historic office, will naturally be making such other arrangements as they can. Promotion in future in the London office can hardly be what is has been in the past.
  There is a continuing growth of patent applications. The office is desperately short of staff because it is losing staff and cannot recruit them. One may see advertisements in the Press—almost desperate advertisements—for honours graduates with the right skills and experience who are being offered by the Patent Office a seven-year engagement with no prospects beyond that. Nothing is said about promotion prospects because there can be none beyond that.
  It is said that Munich will want at least 100 English-speaking patent examiners—but not for two or three years or any other short engagement. That does not do for this kind of work. The examiners examine and decide matters with not much in the way of an appellate procedure. Patents are very important matters; sometimes they are of immense value. Therefore, what the staff are being and will be offered in Munich is a life engagement, and very few of them—only 10 so far, I am told—want to leave Britain, set up home in Munich and live there throughout their working lives, with their children growing up as young Germans. Yet that is the prospect being calmly offered to this matchless staff which has been built up in Britain over the generations in the home of patents.
  Finally, there are the consequences to this country. It is useless to say, and I hope that it will not be said, that it does not matter that the unified patent office will be in Munich and that people can apply to Munich. Life does not work
  892
  like that. Geography matters; propinquity matters.
  There is all the difference in the world between slipping across the way from a patent agents' office to the Patent Office in London, talking things over with the examiner and then dealing with the application, and, on the other hand, taking an aeroplane to Munich and seeing the examiner there—and perhaps he will not be an Englishman anyway—and then coming back. There is the fare; there is the time; there is the impediment to all involved as distinct from slipping across the road.
  It is futile to suggest that the centre of patent issuing, patent examination and patent processing, all of which is highly skilled work and of immense value, will not pass from London to Munich, and, unless something is done, pass irrevocably. Nor is this a matter only for those involved in that kind of work. I say in passing that I am not involved in that kind of work. I have simply come to hear of it and thought it right to take it up.
  There is more to it than that. It may be of great national significance that the centre of patents should be in Germany and not in Britain. In modern industrial life patents are extremely important, and in the years before the Second World War the Germans made tremendous play with patents, in which they acquired a particular position. Certainly in Europe they are our principal industrial competitors, as they are in many other world markets. We cannot fail to lose, and lose materially, if the metropolitan place for the issue of patents is no longer London but is Munich.
  I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, and through him the Government, that our representatives should go to Munich in September and, to put it bluntly, put up a better fight than they have before. It is not a criticism aimed at the present Government. The first scheme was made in 1969 by their predecessors. But this is not a matter for making party points. A great national interest is at stake, and in Munich in September we should refuse to sign the convention unless certain changes are made in it.
  It makes sense on the merits that the principal Patent Office should be in

  893
  London when about 70 per cent. of the applications that will be considered are drawn in English and come from the United States or elsewhere in the English-speaking world, or from countries such as Japan for which the international language is English. If that is beyond the negotiating capacity of my hon. Friends, the very minimum they should seek is the existence of a permanent sub-office of the European Patent Office in London where at least the English language patents could be processed, even if the ultimate issue of the grant were deemed to come from Munich. That is the only thing that would provide a continuing career in London for expert patent examiners and patent agents who are so highly skilled and all of whom represent a major invisible export for Britain. A very big revenue which comes in this way is about to be thrown away.
  Those are the targets and the prizes for the negotiations at Munich in September. I hope my hon. Friend will tell the House that our representatives will go there with these matters in mind and that they will not be satisfied with any loose arrangement-not undertaking-for some kind of delegation for a maximum of 15 years, but that the primacy of the British Patent Office will be preserved permanently through the insistence of the British Government.
  12.50 a.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Peter Emery): I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) on drawing the attention of the House to a problem which both he and I know, whilst having limited public appeal, has created a considerable amount of concern among people within an old and honourable profession who have been dedicated to a certain line of work in ably pursuing their calling.
  I also congratulate my hon. and learned Friend on the historic background that he spelt out in his speech. I found it most interesting. Indeed, it went further than some of my own briefing. I also join him in paying tribute to the British Patent Office and all that it has done over many years.
  I should like to pick out a few points from my hon. and learned Friend's
  894
  speech. First, there was no indication whatsoever that there could be any benefit at all from the European Patent Convention and the signing of it.
  Mr. Bell: There was.
  Mr. Emery: If there was, I am sorry I missed it.
  Mr. Bell: I said that we have a national and accumulated system which means that one has to get a patent in each country. There is an attraction in that respect.
  Mr. Emery: I wanted to highlight that point. There is a considerable attraction in that for people applying for patents. I should declare some interest. In the past, when in opposition, I was associated with companies which had to do that. There is a benefit in being able to apply for one patent which will be applicable throughout the whole of Europe. Having to apply to register and for the necessary examination of a patent within a number of countries in Europe can be complicated, time-consuming, expensive and, indeed, tedious. Therefore, there are some benefits within the moves that the Government feel that it is right to take.
  The European Patent Convention will be signed this autumn, and a committee will then be set up for the purpose, among other things, of drawing up plans for the opening of the European Patent Office and the recruitment of its staff. We will then have a firmer idea than I am able to give at the moment as to the timetable of operations.
  At present it is expected that the European Patent Office will open for the receipt of patent applications in 1977. There will then be a progressive build-up over the next five years before the new office becomes fully operational. It is therefore unlikely that the full impact of the European patent system will be felt by the United Kingdom office until sometime in the 1980s. Therefore, in assessing the impact many indefinite factors have to be taken into account. Among these are the rate of growth of European patent applications—whether the European filings will increase quickly or more slowly along an exponential path; the rate of reduction in the filing of United Kingdom applications—because these will decrease because of the benefit of the

  895
  European Patent Office; and whether industry will be content to file the European way or will prefer to file nationally also. Another factor is whether the rate and nature of future recruitment will be affected. The loss of staff through transfer to the European Patent Office is another aspect of some considerable importance. Retirements, too, will have a considerable effect in this long time scale in view of the problem of staffing mentioned by my hon. and learned Friend.
  It is clear in view of these many factors that estimating the effect of the European patent system on the United Kingdom office is not without its difficulties. But doing the best I can and assuming that the European system is well received by industry-and if we are to have a European system we should urge that it is well received-our present thinking is that the number of United Kingdom applications, currently running at about 50,000 a year, will probably drop to about 18,000 to 20,000 a year. The result of that would be that there would eventually be examining work on United Kingdom applications sufficient only for an examining staff of 250 to 300, compared with the current strength of 600.
  I accept immediately that a major factor must be protection of the staff, all of whom have first- or second-class honours degrees, or the equivalent. However, we should expect to be entrusted by the European office with examination work on European patent applications which would be done on an agency basis. This work, which would be of considerable assistance to the patent profession and to United Kingdom industry, particularly during the important formative years of the new system, should be available to the United Kingdom office for a period of 15 years from the opening of the European Patent Office. It could amount to one-third of the European patent applications which would be filed.
  Mr. John Brewis: It London is to do all this work, does not that reinforce the argument for its being a branch office on its own?
  Mr. Emery: It could be argued that way, but these are the facts and we must realise what is and what is not possible.
  896
  The agency work, together with a properly balanced programme of recruitment, should be able to cushion the staff entirely against the effects of the introduction of the European system. I am not saying there will not be difficulties in the United Kingdom in adjusting to the new circumstances, and I appreciate that the whole question must be kept under review. Nevertheless, I believe that it will be possible for the United Kingdom office to continue as a viable organisation at such a reduced level, and the Government have no plans to close it. I want to scotch the rumour to that effect.
  It is important that British industry and inventors should continue to have the option to apply for a national patent, but we cannot judge how many will prefer to make their first application for a British patent before going to Europe.
  I come now to the question of the siting of the unified patent office. The argument for London is very strong, and of course the Government would have preferred the office to be in London rather than in Munich. There is nothing wrong in my making that clear. Nevertheless, whether the office were in London or in Munich, the staffing proportions would be the same. Therefore the idea that, if the office were in London, more English-language staff would be available because more patents would be lodged in English does not hold water. The proportion of English-language staff would be the same. It is likely to be 20 to 25 per cent., and there is about the same number of German staff in Munich.
  Mr. Bell: That would mean 20 per cent. English-language staff to process applications which are 70 per cent. in the English language.
  Mr. Emery: I said 20 to 25 per cent. This is taking into consideration the figures which may arise in a number of years' time. This is one of the advantages of the United Kingdom Patent Office working on a 15-year plan.
  There is one other factor to be considered. It would not be fair to suggest that there must automatically be more delay because of European registration rather than London registration. I am sure my hon. and learned Friend will

  897
  accept that we shall work for the efficient organisation of the European structure.
  My hon. and learned Friend was wrong to say that the European Patent Office had been handed to the Germans on a plate. That is not the case. We argued strongly for London as the centre but, after consideration by all the European nations concerned, Munich got the vote. It would surely not be right to refuse to sign the convention purely because the European Patent Office cannot be sited where we personally would like it to be sited.
  I thank my hon. and learned Friend for raising this matter, and I hope that my remarks will assist the many people who are honourably and properly concerned with this new innovation in Europe.

  ENERGY POLICY
  1.7 a.m.
  Mr. Dick Douglas: I welcome the opportunity to raise the general topic of energy policy during this debate. However, I am somewhat hesitant to raise such a wide topic since I appreciate that in another place on 28th February others more knowledgeable than myself dealt with this issue. Although in my argument I shall have recourse to statistics, my prime intention is not to give a statistical review but rather to set the problem in its various contexts. As Lord Tanlaw said in the other place,
  "…. energy policy is not about extrapolations, or resources at the bottom of the sea; it is about guaranteed supplies." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 28th February, 1973; Vol. 339, C. 629.]
  The question naturally arises as to why at this point in time we need to be concerned with guaranteeing supplies. From a United Kingdom point of view the outlook is extremely healthy. Government Ministers make speeches of disturbing complacency relating to the possibility of self-sufficiency by the United Kingdom in terms of energy supplies by the mid-1980s. Nobody welcomes the enhanced prospects for North Sea oil and gas finds more than I do, but these finds do not remove the need to consider world supplies in a world context.
  898
  I shall deal first in a United Kingdom context with the coal industry. The most significant element in the United Kingdom energy position is the decline in percentage terms of coal as a primary fuel. In 1948 coal accounted for 90.8 per cent. of fuel input compared to oil's 8·8 per cent. By 1971 coal accounted for 42·7 per cent. and oil 45·4 per cent. We know that the result has been pit closures and a decline in employment.
  I represent an area in Central Scotland which has experienced only in recent months the closure of a colliery. I know the result of such a closure to the locality. There is social upheaval. Miners in such areas say that they feel like nomads. Some miners have put it to me that they feel like gipsies because they have had to move so often in the course of their employment.
  It seems to be conceded that over the past 10 or 15 years the decline in the coal industry was too rapid and did not take into consideration the cost of keeping a trained labour force available. It is to be hoped that the new Coal Industry Act will give grounds for greater confidence in the industry. It should be noted that the leaders on both sides of the coal industry have been most vocal in calling for a fuel policy. Coal supplies can be guaranteed for a relatively long time if proper policies are adopted for investment and recruitment.
  The background history of optimism that relatively cheap nuclear power would be available to the United Kingdom is too well known to repeat. What has not been fully noted is the success of other countries in addition to the United States in the generation of electricity by hydro-geothermal nuclear means. By this year both Japan and Germany had more capacity either in use or under construction than the United Kingdom. Our lead in that important area of advanced technology seems to have been lost because of a number of factors. One such factor is the structure of the industry in the United Kingdom which supplies the necessary equipment.
  Mr. Ronald Brown: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Germans. who rushed ahead to import the American form of reactor, are now having grave second thoughts?

  899
  It appears that they were not so wise to get themselves into that position.
  Mr. Douglas: I fully recognise the point my hon. Friend makes. The Government have announced their intention, in relation to the reconstruction of the industry, of evolving a new holding company, but we still do not know what reactor system is to be favoured before the fast breeder system reaches the stage of commercial ordering by the late 1970s.
  I recognise the Government's difficulties but, if the industry is to forge ahead and if we are to keep the design personnel in being, a decision must be made as to the type of reactor which is favoured. That would enable the Central Electricity Generating Board to make the correct decision or a wise decision. Such a decision must be backed by the Government. The industry knows that it must assess its potential for holding its labour force in terms of design and construction. That is a matter which the Government should try to clarify as soon as possible.
  I now deal with oil and North Sea gas. Clearly, in terms of keeping pace with economic expansion, the fuels most likely to meet the short-run requirements of bridging the energy gap are oil and natural gas. The Government's recent publication "Production and Reserves of Oil and Natural Gas on the United Kingdom Continental Shelf" indicates that the production of gas from the North Sea is unlikely to expand much beyond 4,000 million cubic feet a day in the 1970s. The United Kingdom position could be assisted by the use of gas from other sectors of the Continental Shelf, but that will depend on detailed negotiations.
  In the short run, therefore, it is oil which will have to fill the energy gap, not only for the United Kingdom but for the rest of the Western world. World energy consumption is expected to rise by annual increments of 6 per cent. in the period 1970–85. The European Economic Community countries will use oil to supply 60 per cent. of their energy requirements. For Japan the figure will be 70 per cent. and for the United States it is expected that, surprisingly, it will decline from 45 per cent. to 40 per cent.
  900
  That means that the EEC countries will consume 1,000 million tons of oil by 1985 instead of the present 500 million tons and that imports of oil by 1985 will be about 900 million tons. Figures of expected imports by the United States range from 600 million tons a year to 900 million by 1985, and Japan's imports might exceed 500 million tons.
  The North Sea oil finds will have to be on a gigantic scale to make any impact on such enormous demands. Not even the most optimistic commentators suggest that that will be the case. Internationally, apart from the Soviet bloc, we are in the hands of the OPEC countries, with all the implications of being held to ransom and insecurity of supply.
  Although I have somewhat played down the role of the North Sea finds in an international context, they are important in providing a bargaining counter vis-à-vis the OPEC nations. I consider the finds not as a bargaining item to obtain an EEC energy policy but rather as a means whereby the EEC can work with the United States and Japan to coordinate policy to ensure oil supplies for the Western industrial nations. No doubt the Minister, like me, will be pleased at the overtures between the United States and the Japanese Governments to see whether they can achieve co-ordination of oil policy, particularly in relation to the vexed question of investment.
  It can be seen that the Government's tactics and strategy on North Sea oil are vital. The current licence conditions require the oil to be brought ashore in the United Kingdom except where permission not to do so is specifically granted. To achieve a better balance of payments advantage, the maximum amount of oil should be refined in the United Kingdom. That should mean a build-up of refining and allied capacity in the United Kingdom. Direct consultations should take place between the Government and the oil companies to map out a national approach for oil refining and to restrict the construction of refineries in the South-East of England, where the refineries under construction or planned are not desired by the population.
  We know from parliamentary answers that the next round of licences is not due until after 1973. Of crucial importance

  901
  are the terms we insert in the fifth round. A repetition of the fourth round fiasco would be unforgivable.
  What, then, might be the minimum requirements? I list eight of them in order. I should be grateful if the Minister would give them some consideration and attention.
  First, there should be a carried interest provision ranging from 30 per cent. to 50 per cent. Second, there should be a reduction on the life of the concession from the present 46 years to something under 30 years with half of the allocation being relinquished after six years. Third, the initial payments should be raised. Fourth, the royalty should be on a sliding scale ranging from 10 per cent. to, let us say, 16 per cent. Fifth, preference should be given to consortia having in their number companies in which there is a public shareholding and to nationalised industries. Sixth, in the absence of a clause requiring licensees to use United Kingdom equipment, manpower, services and bases, a clear understanding should be arrived at that the Government will expect fair bidding to be offered to all United Kingdom companies for orders.
  I interpose here, in view of discussions in the House today, that I would welcome an assurance that, despite the overtures of the EEC Commission querying the 4 per cent. credits for mobile offshore equipment, nothing in the Commission's approach endangers the strategy outlined in the IMEG report for the offshore supply industries. In view of the exchanges in the House today, the industry would welcome such an assurance from the Minister.
  Seventh, there should be a tightening of the arrangements for the landing of oil in the United Kingdom, with an understanding that it will be expected that the crude oil will be processed here unless good reasons are shown for its export. It may be appropriate to have terms which differentiate between areas where discoveries have already been made and new areas in deeper water which require more advanced technology for exploration and production. Eighth, the Government must insist on open information from the companies, not only from the viewpoint of royalties but also from the viewpoint of the general tax position.
  902
  Those are minimum requirements. What has to be assessed is the rate of exploitation of these resources, and this is a balanced judgment as to how fast we can go.
  No matter how much we intensify the search for oil and coal, the quantity of these resources in world terms is finite. Attention must be turned to new sources of power. Given that we can avoid environmental hazards, the best medium-term bet seems to be nuclear power, if we can get the necessary breakthroughs in the fast breeder reactor. In the longer term, attention ought to be turned to the exploitation of solar power and the conversion of energy potential from the wind and the sea.
  Commenting on the recent conference in Paris, jointly sponsored by UNESCO and the French Government, to discuss "The Sun in the Service of Mankind". the New Scientist claimed:
  "There are many technological possibilities for solar energy. Most of them are well enough understood to convince all but the most sceptical that the sun can contribute significantly to man's energy supplies. The question is, can we develop these technologies so that the energy is available at a price we can afford?"
  I should like to know the Government's attitude to such research and development. We know that the United States has a Solar Energy Panel which has made recommendations for short-term and long-term research running into billions of dollars. Have we in the United Kingdom any budget for this? Would it be appropriate to request the Prime Minister to place such a topic on the agenda for the forthcoming conference of Commonwealth Prime Ministers? This is an area of research in which the Commonwealth could be a unique institution for linking the needs of the developed and the developing world and in solving some of the problems of energy supplies.
  In conclusion, may I say that I am conscious of how inadequately I have dealt with such a vast subject. I have not mentioned the special role of the electricity boards and their relationship with the construction and engineering industry and the effect on the employment prospects of thousands of our people.
  What I should like to see is the Government creating a forum—call it if one will a National Fuel Council—to discuss

  903
  investment plans and views of market shares in an atmosphere not of competition but of consultation. A short-term measure might be to require joint appointment to the boards of public corporations and to the British Petroleum Company. Additionally there is an urgent need to make us conservation-minded and to devise a fuel consumption and transport policy which saves scarce resources and does not squander them.
  I end with a well-known quotation from Seneca:
  "In a moment the ashes are made, but a forest is a long time growing."
  1.26 a.m.
  Mr. Laurance Reed: The difficulty about laying down a definitive energy policy is the speed with which the overall picture changes.
  In the last few years the overall picture for us has been altered dramatically by two developments: first North Sea oil, and secondly the world energy crisis. Three years ago not a drop of commercial oil had been found in the United Kingdom portion of the Continental Shelf, and few would have guessed that in the space of 10 days this year no less than three oilfields would be confirmed.
  The speed of change has been so great that I still find most people in this country believe that those finds amount to no more than 10 per cent. or perhaps 12 per cent. of our total requirements, and I have the impression that a large number of my parliamentary colleagues, who should be better informed, believe the same. In fact, the Department's own estimate is that by 1980 or the early 1980s Britain will be producing at least 70 million tons of oil per year, and perhaps as much as 120 million tons a year.
  Those official figures err on the side of caution, and I understand and accept the reasons why that must be so, but those who do not occupy positions of officialdom can perhaps be a little more bold. The official figures, it is important to note, do not include any estimate of what reserves there may be in those parts of the British Continental Shelf that remain undesignated and, since these include some areas of quite exceptional promise in the English Channel and to the West of Scotland, including the Rockall/Hatton basin, it seems that there
  904
  is a strong probability that Britain will eventually become independent of foreign supplies, and possibly a significant exporter as well.
  But let us suppose that that forecast is too optimistic and incorrect. We still cannot forget our huge coal reserves. The value of coal is relative, and, if we are to have to pay about five dollars a barrel for our oil by 1980, what is so much dirt in the ground today will be gold in our hands tomorrow.
  "Crisis" seems to be too strong a word to use in relation to current world energy problems. There are ample world energy reserves if we are thinking in absolute terms. What we have today is an imbalance between supply and demand which may last for 12 or 15 years before nuclear power and other forms of energy come into their own. As we know, the situation has been created primarily because of the end of America's self-reliance on energy. I understand that about half of her oil requirements will have to come from the Middle East in the 1980s. Apparently, tar sands and shale deposits are not adequate to make up the deficiency, and it is considered that Communist sources, if there are any, are too risky and that nuclear power cannot close the gap for America until the 1990s. Thus, for a decade or more the United States will be dependent upon external sources and her freedom of manoeuvre will be considerably circumscribed.
  I understand that Western Europe as a whole can expect the demand for energy to double, and in Japan to treble. Of course, this means that the Western world's balance of payments will go from bad to worse. The cost of oil imports to Western Europe could be as much as 35 billion dollars per annum and America's annual deficit for oil imports around 25 billion dollars per annum. The competition for petroleum between America, Europe and Japan will create considerable international problems and complications.
  On the other hand, we can expect those in the Arab world to exploit their new bargaining strength to the full and they will wax exceeding fat on the profits. One estimate given to me is that their total surplus in one year could be around

  905
  70 billion dollars. Fears have been expressed about the possibility that they will use these huge surpluses for political ends. Whatever they may do on the political front, it seems to me certain that before very long they will decide to save their money, not in the banks but by locking their oil in the ground as an investment for the future. If that happens, it will precipitate an earlier and even greater international energy problem.
  In this situation it seems to me that Britain occupies a unique position because we look like being the only major industrial country in the West that will be entirely self-supporting in energy, and certainly there will be no balance of payments problems for us. It is very difficult to know precisely what the effect on the balance of payments will be because it depends on what the world price of oil will be, but there have been suggestions that it will be as high as £1,500 million per annum.
  Though we shall find ourselves in a position of comfort—an enviable position—we shall also find ourselves in something of a predicament because, as a member of an energy deficit bloc, we shall have an interest in keeping the cost of energy down, but as a major producer of energy we shall also have an interest in seeing the price go higher.
  World prices will be determined not by the cost of producing oil, gas or coal but by the demand/supply situation and the political complications which result. One very definite possibility which presents itself is that we could isolate ourselves completely from world energy costs, feed our industries with cheap fuel and undercut all our major industrial competitors who will be struggling to hold down their export prices as energy costs go through the roof. Needless to say, such a policy would set up very severe strains inside the European Economic Community and presumably would run counter to the declared aim of political unity.
  Nevertheless, it would be foolish not to recognise that any Government of 1980 would be under an immense temptation to do it, price rises having the effect that they do on the fortunes of political parties. The alternative, of course, would be to let our oil be sold
  906
  at the price established by the Arab monopolists, so deriving the maximum financial returns in royalties, taxes and profits. Either way, however, we look as though we shall do exceptionally well.
  It is far too early to say which way we should play this. Anyway, there are factors to be taken into account far beyond the realms of energy policy. As I said at the beginning, it is very difficult to lay down any hard and fast rules about energy policy when the picture is changing so quickly, and at this stage I do not think I could identify more than three strategic aims of policy.
  First, we should continue to explore at maximum speed for possible fuels in this country—for oil, gas and coal. It is only when we have an accurate inventory of our total reserves that we can possibly decide how rapidly we can afford to exhaust those capital resources, what should be the contribution of coal, of oil or of gas to our total energy budget and where they are best used, how much should be sold abroad and how much held at home.
  The second strategic aim is that we must strive to hold down costs by improving extractive technology for hydrocarbons under sea and on land and by finding new ways of making the most efficient and effective use of the energy by eliminating waste in use.
  Third, we must recognise that hydrocarbons are finite and that the boom that is created by these new discoveries will last no more than 20 or 25 years. We must therefore have an eye for the future and invest now in research and development which will enable us to harness new forms of energy which are either inexhaustible or relatively so.
  1.38 a.m.
  Mr. Leslie Huckfield: The matters that I should like to raise are more appropriate to the Environment Vote than to the Trade and Industry Vote, and I do not particularly envy the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry the very wide scope of affairs with which he has had to deal tonight. Nevertheless, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) for letting me latch my topic on to his subject, and I am grateful that he has chosen to raise this matter tonight.

  907
  Both my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Laurance Reed) have admirably set the stage for many of the things I want to say. I do not want to precipitate any atmosphere of crisis, but I want to draw attention to some of the points which should be featuring in the Secretary of State's thinking in the Department of the Environment and some of the basic changes in our planning assumptions which we should already be making.
  If we have not yet felt any particular draught from any forecast or any energy crisis in this country, there are already some gloomy forecasts and some dramatic happenings on the other side of the North Atlantic. We have already seen President Nixon's programme of encouraging oil imports, raising some of the price controls and encouraging people to drive their cars more slowly. We have seen the forecast of Professor Edwin Barbe, of the University of West Virginia, that by 1976 there will be 31 million cars idle in the United States, with a rate of unemployment of about 23 per cent. We have already seen American car dealers stuck with bigger cars that they cannot get rid of because of a switch by car buyers to smaller and imported cars.
  In Los Angeles there are gas stations closing down at 6 o'clock in the evening and being closed for the weekend. Pan American has told its pilots to cut their cruising speeds in jumbo jets. Eastern Airlines has told its pilots to taxi round airports on two engines. There is even a possibility now that the conservationist-controversial project, the Alaska pipeline, may at last go through if some of the legislative tangles can be sorted out in the Senate and the House of Representatives.
  We still do not know to what extent all this may be a scare campaign, but, even if it is something of a scare campaign, it raises some pretty important factors which will have international repercussions.
  It was interesting to hear that the Prime Minister has said once again tonight that this country intends to go ahead with the third London airport, with the Concorde project and with the Channel Tunnel. I wonder how far he has taken into his calculations some of
  908
  the energy forecasts which have been made in the United States.
  Ought this country to be drawing up some kind of plan? Ought we to be encouraging certain sectors of oil consumption while discouraging certain other sectors, and perhaps, for example, discouraging central heating? I hope that the Minister will have something to say about matters of that kind with reference to his Department's plans.
  My hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire and the hon. Member for Bolton, East have discussed the implications of the oil crisis in some detail. I do not propose to go deeply into the Akins-Adelman argument in the United States. I shall not dwell on how much oil the Arab countries may leave in the ground or how much they may want to raise the living standards of their people. Both my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman know how relevant these factors are.
  We do not know how much the Arab States will use their newly-won resources for speculation in the international currency markets. We do not know the possible viability of the Adelman-advocated boycott of the Arab States. We do not know the role of the Japanese. What we do know is that Japanese oil imports are increasing at about 14 per cent. per annum. We do not know whether the Akins forecast of oil at seven or 8 dollars a barrel is well founded, but what we do know is that the price of oil will rise quite substantially by 1980.
  I do not wish to take tip some of the forecasts made by my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman about the role of North Sea oil in our domestic consumption. Suffice it to say that, despite the rather rosy forecasts which I understood the hon. Member for Bolton, East to give about the role of the United Kingdom as even an oil exporter, I still cannot help thinking that we could be involved in some kind of international oil grab, reminiscent perhaps of the grab for Africa at the end of the last century. Since both Japan and the United States have already put overtones of "a matter of national survival "on the search for oil, the competitive atmosphere for oil imports will be much more ruthless than some of the more gentlemanly descriptions we have heard so far would indicate.

  909
  We have such people as the chairman of Continental Oil even saying that over the next 15 years the United States will have to double its coal output and construct about 280 nuclear stations. I should not like to be as crisis-foreboding as that, but I believe that some sort of forward planning ought to be evident in the Department's thinking, because to be forewarned is to be forearmed.
  The British Road Federation sent me some statistics to show that even if the price of a barrel of oil were doubled, because of the size of the freight element and the tax element, the price of petrol or diesel fuel would rise by only one-fifth. That may well be, because with a price increase there may be a substitution of propulsive power for road transport. This country's transport planning ought to take account of some notion of substitution.
  It is because we are still planning on the basis of infinite mobility based on an infinite supply of energy and resources that I question whether we are sufficiently anticipating some of the problems we may encounter. It is a fact that there may be a substitution of battery-powered cars in cities, but I do not think we shall get battery-powered 32-ton gross lorries going up the M1. It is a fact that we may get other kinds of substitution.
  What worries me is the kind of "locking-in" effect we may be producing by taking some of the planning decisions which have been taken. Speaking at a symposium on conurbation transport at Manchester University last October, Gerald Foley of the Architectural Association's technical studies team said:
  "Well within the time span with which we are concerned as transport planners, rising prices and diminishing availability of petroleum fuel will impose such constraints on vehicle use and ownership that provision for the levels of traffic envisaged in current studies will be completely superfluous. In view of its dispersive effects on urban form and the consequent dependence on motorised transport, the 'locked-in demand' phenomenon (for example, once people have cars and oil-fired central heating, they cannot easily switch), the provision of additional facilities for motorised mobility above those available today can in fact be regarded as pernicious."
  That puts the point I wish to make far more effectively than I could.
  Despite some of the very gloomy forecasts which have been made, despite an almost certain increase in the price of
  910
  oil per barrel and despite a possible severe shortage of that commodity over the planning period with which we are concerned, we still go ahead with constructing low-density developments like Milton Keynes and talk about building big road complexes linking Birmingham with a series of motorways—M40, M38 and M42. We still talk about the ringways and about the "Chunnel" having to include provision for road vehicles, although there is ample evidence that if there were a rail tunnel it could be at least one-third cheaper.
  All of this is based on the belief that there will be an infinite variety of supplies and infinite mobility as a result. The BBC energy supplies programme brought the point home clearly enough that we are moving all the time to a less and less efficient use of our existing and our future resources.
  The Under-Secretary will probably say that, in supporting some of the recommendations of the Select Committee on Urban Transport, the Government are to some extent anticipating possible fuel shortages and encouraging the switch to public transport. He may mention such things as infrastructure grants and railway social subsidies. I do not believe that these are enough. I do not believe that we ought to commit ourselves to plans which will have this locking-in effect for the next 60 years.
  Already, instead of just talking about the need to make the journey to work and from work by public transport, we should be questioning whether there should be a journey to work. We are still planning for long-distance commuting. I wonder whether we should not be questioning the raison d'étre of commuting.
  I have always stressed the value of the motor car as giving more mobility to the working man and enabling him to take his family out and about, for recreation and other purposes. To go ahead to base all our transport planning on the assumption that the motor car provides universal mobility is a detrimental assumption.
  Mayer Hillman and his team, in the very excellent PEP booklet "Personal Mobility and Transport Policy", have brought out the fact that even in Britain today two-thirds of adults do not have

  911
  the optional use of a car and only 11 per cent. of housewives, even in areas where two-thirds of all households have cars, hold driving licences. Only 6 per cent. of pensioners hold driving licences. Despite this low level of mobility, we still go ahead and plan out-of-town shopping centres like Brent Cross which are totally dependent on private motor car access. But even in the year 2000 it is forecast that only half the adult population will have car access.
  I wish to refer to some of the things said in this excellent and up-to-date publication. The London traffic survey, the Runcorn new town survey and all the forecasts made and on which plans are being based make such comments as
  "The automobile has freed the family …"
  and
  "Public transport must be provided for the people unable to use cars, although they are relatively few in number".
  They say that there will be
  "at least one car for every family by the year 2001".
  If we analyse the main ingredients of traffic plans for places such as Edinburgh and even the Greater London development, we see that we are coming to conclusions and basing plans with gigantic locking-in effects over the next 50 to 60 years which commit us to a determined transport policy. We are prepared to base whole town plans on the assumed universal mobility allegedly provided by the car. It is regrettable that most of the traffic forecasts miss out completely those who walk. We have never had a comprehensive inclusion of walking in the traffic surveys. But, despite that, we are now building roads and going ahead with projects which will generate their own traffic. We are going ahead on these bases, although, for example, the car will use about 200 sq. ft. more than the minimum allowed for an office worker.
  We are planning suburban residential locations of such low density that it will be impossible to support a bus service without extensive subsidies. We are making plans when road accidents cause about 8,000 deaths a year, with all the environmental detriment of pollution, exhaust fumes, congestion and wear and tear.
  912
  In a nutshell, in 1971 we spent £35 million on subsidising school transport, £30 million on subsidising rural buses, £7 million on subsidising bus operations, £60 million on subsidising British Rail socially necessary services and £22 million on fuel tax rebates. Put together, those sums would amount to about 10 miles only of urban motorway. To put it more clearly, in this forthcoming year, 197374, it is forecast that we shall spend £896 million on roads and £173 million on public transport. We are committing ourselves very extensively on a basis of fuel resources and energy resources which cannot be guaranteed at present prices and pretty certainly during that period will not be guaranteed at all, despite the fact that the use of the railways can give us 10 times as many seat miles per gallon of diesel fuel compared with road transport. We are doing it despite the fact that the railways can give us the same seat mileage at one-third of the energy requirements of road transport. We are doing it despite the fact that a 1,500-ft. railway train produces 455 net ton miles per gallon of diesel fuel compared with a 32-ft. lorry which produces 143 net ton miles per gallon of diesel fuel.
  There is already enough doubt the future continuity and supplies of our energy resources to cause us to do some drastic fundamental planning now. We must change the assumptions on which the planning is based. It is not just acceptance of the report of the Select Committee on Urban Transport that is required; we have to discuss basics.
  We have to examine the role of and the necessity for the journey to work. We have to examine the need for public subsidy—extensive public subsidy—of inner city housing. We have to question severely the massive drift to the suburbs and the out-of-town living that is still going on.
  There is the possibility that we should be bringing forward tax policies that would discourage mobility. There is the possibility too that we should be think. ing about which sectors of industry should be given priority in oil consumption, particularly as individual motorised transport cannot be adapted to nuclear energy or coal. In fact, if we are to rely on individual personalised transport,

  913
  we shall have supreme difficulties in adapting to the other fuels mentioned tonight.
  Worst of all, I fear that the kinds of plans now being laid down for the new towns and the new roads will commit us to what may become an outdated form of transport. If we are to question the assumption of enlarged mobility based upon universal provision and ownership of the private motor car, we should be doing so now, because otherwise it will be too late.
  1.57 a.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Peter Emery): We have had an extremely interesting debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) on a tour d'horizon of the fuel problem. He conducted it with that degree of competence that we have come to expect of him.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Laurance Reed) and the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) more on being able to raise the subjects they wish to discuss in this debate on the oil crisis, thus allowing them to go to sleep a little earlier than they might otherwise have expected. I am certain that they will forgive me if I spend the greater part of my time answering the hon. Member for East Stirlingshire.
  With as much sensible force as I can summon at two o'clock in the morning, I should like immediately to look the hon. Member for East Stirlingshire in the eye and say that I resent his uncharacteristic accusation that the Government were making complacent speeches about energy policy. I would reject that completely. My hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and I for a number of months have been making it clear that we do not regard it as an energy crisis.
  There are problems in energy supply. There always have been problems and I think that they are likely to continue for many years. The Government have proved that they are not complacent about these problems, as is evident when we consider what has been achieved during this year.
  Perhaps I may break off here for a moment to rectify an omission on my
  914
  part and apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, before you leave the Chamber. I omitted to ask the permission of the House to speak a second time. It will be within the recollection of hon. Members that I had only recently been on my feet replying to the previous debate. May I rectify that omission and continue to speak with the leave of the House?
  As a Government we have taken some of the most major steps attempted by any administration at any time in the reorganisation of the coal industry. At the same time we have fulfilled the obligations that we set ourselves for the restructuring of the nuclear power industry which is now corning to fruition. We have continued with our policy regarding electricity generation. As the House knows, detailed consideration is now being given to the fuelling of the next lot of electricity generating power stations. All these matters make for a major co-ordinated fuel policy.
  In some aspects of his speech the hon. Member for East Stirlingshire was unnecessarily condemnatory of our position regarding nuclear-powered electricity generation because, when mentioning what the Japanese and the Germans were doing, he neglected to point out that we are still ahead of the world as 10 per cent. of our electricity generation comes from nuclear-powered stations. No other country can claim that record.
  The hon. Gentleman went on to demand that the reactor choice should be proceeded with and implied that this matter ought to have been finalised by now. As he knows, a nuclear power advisory board in the new structure is being set up to advise the Government on a number of items, a major one being reactor choice. To suggest that we are slipping behind the rest of the world does not take account of the statement made by my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry last August when he outlined the work with which we would proceed in dealing with the examination and updating of the AGR, the further design and construction of the steam generated heavy water reactor, the further consideration and contract dealing with the safety considerations of light water reactors and the continuation of the HTR experiment

  915
  to ensure that we could consider and update it within any consideration of reactor choice before turning to the fast breeder. The second fast-breeder reactor at Dounreay will be coming on stream, we hope, later this year. We should not, therefore, underestimate the considerable activity of the Government in this area.
  Energy is a vital support to our civilisation, and the proper working of our economy depends upon getting adequate and secure supplies at the lowest possible cost, taking account of social as well as commercial factors. There has been a lot of talk about an energy crisis and we believe that this has been overdone. To put it into proper perspective, it is important to distinguish between the two different energy supply problems—the short-term supply difficulties and the longterm rundown of world reserves of conventional fossil fuels.
  The risk of short-term difficulties is always with us. It could be caused by technical breakdowns, action by overseas suppliers and delivery problems. The best protection is to have good stocks, a diversification of sources of supply and a readiness on the part of the Government to take emergency action if a real shortage develops. We have already taken steps on each of these fronts. There is the Coal Industry Act, there is the EEC directive requiring member States to have 90-day oil stocks by 1985 and there is the Government's policy of rapidly developing the North Sea oilfields. These represent a substantial diversification in sources of supply.
  The longer term problem of finite resources of conventional fossil fuels is a more complex problem. There can be two basic responses to it. Either encourage increased exploration or develop new energy sources, including the nuclear power. The Government believe that it is right to adopt both approaches in parallel. That is why we have gone for rapid development in the North Sea. We have taken steps to moderate the run down of the coal industry. On a world scale there are vast unconventional sources of hydrocarbons. It is technically possible to extract oil from oil shale, tar sands or even coal if the price is right. There is the possibility of large quantities of oil and gas which will be
  916
  found in deeper waters in many other areas throughout the world. There is also the factor of secondary recovery where, as the price of oil rises, its extraction becomes an economic proposition.
  So many people when analysing the problems of the future fail to take into account the way in which the discovery of hydrocarbon fuels has responded over the last 40 years to the increase in demand.
  Mr. Douglas: The Minister's argument does not stand up with a projection of the past into the current situation. The oil companies are concerned that proven reserves are not keeping pace with the current demand.
  Mr. Emery: Of course one can project in certain areas figures suggesting that proven resources of fossil fuels increasing at certain rates will lead to problems in the late 1980s or at the turn of the century. But that means working on the old pattern. The price factors as shortage arises, as Middle East situations have shown, put an entirely different complexion on the way the hydrocarbon resources of the world may be replaced. That is why I have referred to secondary recoveries and shale sand recoveries which so far we have not gone into in our concept of resources.
  I agree that we shall want to turn towards nuclear generation, which is the most obvious replacement factor. We shall need to ensure that hydrocarbons are used where there is no substitute for them. But where substitution can take place, such as in electricity generation, there are, for example, large resources of uranium. A fast-breeder reactor uses uranium many times more efficiently. In the very long term, energy from nuclear fusion may become practicable and it should become a limitless source of energy.
  Solar energy and wind and tidal power have been suggested, but these are not very promising in the United Kingdom. There are very few sites at the moment where tidal power would be viable in relation to total energy demand. Much as I wish it otherwise, the British climate is not encouraging for solar power. I wish it were so for reasons other than the production of energy.

  917
  We have not a specific programme for solar power but we keep in touch with the work done on it in other parts of the world. I note the suggestion that solar power might be a topic for discussion at the Commonwealth conference. It is an interesting suggestion and I should like to process it a little further.
  Mr. Laurance Reed: My hon. Friend should bear in mind that tidal power is completely pollution free, that the costs are stable over a very long period, and also that we would be exploiting a resource which would be inexhaustible. Even to use the Severn estuary would save 5 or 10 per cent. of our existing energy in fossil fuels. This would help to conserve those of our resources which are not inexhaustible.
  Mr. Emery: I accept that if it can in any way be taken to be economically viable. I was at one time very keen on the idea but the more I have studied the practical figures of the unit cost of electricity generated the more I see that the thing is put out of court at the moment as impracticable. That does not mean to say that we should not look at these things in the future as engineering techniques develop.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, East said that dirt in the ground today is gold in the hand tomorrow. That is a very interesting aspect of conservation. Nevertheless, we must reflect on the counter-argument put forward by the hon. Member for East Stirlingshire that there is a need to ensure that we are not complacent and are able to deal with problems involving the possibility of shortages in the immediate future. The need to be able to use indigenous supplies is of the greatest importance. This is why the Government have felt a need to ensure that we should maximise both exploration and exploitation of the North Sea oil hydrocarbons.
  There were two main ingredients in the remarks of the hon. Member for Nuneaton. First, there were the measures designed to secure the greatest efficiency in the use of available energy sources-in other words, energy conservation measures. I have great sympathy with that view, and I am sure that nobody in any nation today should be foolish or wasteful in the use of energy. Secondly,
  918
  there is the work intended to establish the scientific and economic implications of developing alternative sources of energy for transport purposes.
  It has been calculated that in 1971 transport as a whole took about 14 per cent. of the United Kingdom's total consumption of primary fuel. Road transport accounted for over three-quarters of that 14 per cent. It will not surprise the House to learn that not only is that great majority of road transport mileage run by the private car but that this is by far the most inefficient method of travel in fuel efficiency terms. Measuring the average fuel consumed for each person carried, the average car figure is between 25 and 50 person-miles per gallon—depending on the character of the journey—compared with between 150 and 300 person-miles per gallon for an urban bus operating at peak times. It is right that the current work in this field should examine carefully the energy conservation implications of urban policies whose effect would be to transfer people from their cars to buses and trains.
  Outside the urban and predominantly passenger fields there is the question of freight transport. In terms of ton-miles per gallon, a 700-ton freight train is nearly two and a half times better than the best lorry. However, rail is very much less favourable for the carriage of smaller loads. Few freight origins and destinations are at railway terminals, so that some road transport is inevitable. A road-rail-road journey between two points is nearly always longer than the corresponding road journey. The average length of freight haul by road is only 30 miles, and only 7 per cent. by weight is carried more than 100 miles.
  Thus the great majority of present road freight transportation falls into the bracket where rail travel would not present a significant fuel saving. I thought that that was a matter, in view of the wild suggestions which have been made, which would be useful to put before the House.
  Mr. Huckfield: I respect the figures which the hon. Gentleman has given. I do not disagree with them. The central point I was making was that we are now concentrating on less and less efficient uses of fuel in our transport strategy. For example, over the past decade the

  919
  amount of tonnage carried by road has gone up 40 per cent. but the amount of ton mileage has gone up 67 per cent. That shows that, on the hon. Gentleman's figures, we are all the time moving to a less efficient form of transport in terms of fuel consumption.
  Mr. Emery: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has made it clear that alternative sources must clearly be considered in the widest possible context of potential applications. That is why there is close liaison between the Department of the Environment and the Department of Trade and Industry on research and development. In particular we are involved in work which is being done by the Electricity Council and British Rail on the development of a sodium sulphur battery suitable, amongst other things, for powering road vehicles and providing auxiliary power for railway locomotives. The Department of the Environment is providing 50 per cent. of British Rail's costs for that project.
  It is important to realise that a considerable amount of time, effort, thought and research is being directed towards the matters which the hon. Member for East Stirlingshire has raised.
  In summing up what has been a useful and interesting debate, I refer to an article on oil in the Economist which was published on 14th July. The last sentence said:
  "The sooner the phoney energy crisis is forgotten the better."
  We must not talk ourselves into a crisis. There are, of course, problems which are being dealt with by the Government, and that is the way in which we should continue.
  Mr. Douglas: I raised a specific matter-namely, tapering grants or credits. It would be disturbing if the hon. Gentleman made no reference to them. I gave him notice.
  Mr. Emery: I apologise. The hon. Gentleman raised eight points which I noted which I considered to be of particular concern. It would be wrong of me to add anything further now other than to say that all the points he has raised are being very much taken into
  920
  account before any action is taken on the fifth round.
  The hon. Gentleman asked for an assurance about the position on the Clyde concerning credit for the mobile off-shore supply industry. I cannot say anything better than was said by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industrial Development in answer to a Private Notice Question earlier today. My right hon. Friend made it clear that he saw no reason to believe that there was anything which would lead to the undermining of the IMEG Report. We do not consider that to be the case.

  MICHAEL BIGGS (ELLESMERE PORT)
  2.25 a.m.
  Mr. Eric Cockeram: I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise a most important matter which, although it does not have general application, concerns one citizen of this country and involves fundamental freedoms which we hold so dear.
  I am referring to the case of Michael Biggs, a youth aged 19, who lived at 40 Gateacre Court, Ellesmere Port Wirral, in Cheshire. Last November he was arrested by the police and detained in Ellesmere Port police station. He became ill the next day and the police showed proper concern. They called on his mother to inquire whether he had previously been under treatment by the doctor. He had previously been suffering from stomach complaints, and the police took the appropriate medicine to the police station.
  Subsequently he was seen by the police doctor, Dr. Corbett, who also prescribed. The police immediately obtained the proper medicine, later calling on Mrs. Biggs for reimbursement of the prescription costs. Neither I nor Mrs. Biggs has any complaint against the police in Ellesmere Port or Dr. Corbett. The police attitude to Michael was entirely proper and appropriate to a youth detained on charges. If anything, they leaned towards the side of humanity and showed the appropriate concern for a youth who was held in their custody and was clearly ill.
  Michael appeared in court and was remanded to Risley Remand Centre. His

  921
  medicine went with him. That is confirmed in a subsequent letter I have received from my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State. Michael reappeared at Ellesmere Port court on 30th November, when he pleaded guilty to a number of charges. The details do not directly concern us but they related to having drugs and vandalism, charges of a nature which unfortunately are prevalent amongst a small proportion of the youth of this country today.
  He was remanded for sentence to the Crown court and again held in Risley Remand Centre. During this period his pains became more severe. They were of an abdominal nature and he was vomiting. He sought to register his illness and to receive medical attention on a number of occasions, but without success. He learnt from a fellow prisoner at Risley that the way to get attention in those circumstances was to threaten suicide by slashing one's wrists, and that he did on 6th December. It proved sound advice. He was immediately moved to the prison hospital, where he was placed under the attention of a Dr. Banajee, who specialised in psychiatry and mental disorders.
  The vomiting and pain continued, and there are medical records at Risley of a number of complaints—for example, on 13th December, Dr. Banajee continued with what he considered to be appropriate treatment.
  On the Saturday and Sunday, 16th and 17th December, Dr. Banajee went on weekend leave, leaving Dr. O'Reagain in charge. On the Saturday Dr. O'Reagain read the medical records of all the prisoners under his care. On Michael's record he read that he was being treated for a peptic ulcer. There was no record of vomiting in the medical records.
  Next day Dr. O'Reagain felt that he would like to follow up Michael's records. He found that the patient's condition and the treatment were continuing unaltered. He considered that there should have been an improvement, so he decided on his own initiative to examine the patient. He immediately diagnosed something quite different from what was on the medical records and noticed evidence of vomit on the floor of the cell, whereas there was no record of it on Michael's medical cards. He diagnosed that Michael was suffering
  922
  from acute intestinal adhesions. He immediately decided that an emergency operation was necessary. Michael was in consequence rushed to Walton Prison hospital and an emergency operation was performed that evening, the Sunday.
  At this point the question is raised whether it would not have been more appropriate for Michael to have gone to the local hospital, Warrington General Hospital, which serves a large area and has a casualty ward, rather than to a prison hospital some further distance away. Upon subsequent inquiries being made on this point, the answer ascertained was that it was more convenient to send prisoners to the prison hospital because it was not necessary for them to have special security guards at the prison hospital, whereas if they were sent to a general hospital someone had to go to act as a security guard and it was difficult to get people to do this.
  However, be that as it may, an emergency operation was performed on the Sunday evening at Walton Prison hospital. Michael's state of health did not improve. Further emergency operations were performed on 12th and 16th January. Indeed, after the first operation on the following day Michael complained of pain in his leg and a needle was found to be still in his leg, having been left there from the drip used in the operation.
  On 23rd December lice were found in his hair. This youth had at that time been held in custody for over a month. He was a youth who, between the ages of 15 to 19, had been a junior guardsman in the Army, used to keeping himself fit and clean. It was concluded by those concerned that the lice must have been picked up while he was in Risley, because he had been examined by doctors on arrival at Risley and it is inconceivable that he could have had lice-infected hair for a month without its being discovered.
  At this time his state of health had deteriorated enormously. He was previously a fit youth. Anyone who is a junior guardsman has to be just that. His normal weight was 10 stone 11 lb. By this time he was down to 7 stone. His condition continued to deteriorate, and he was transferred from the prison hospital to Walton General Hospital, which confirms the point made by Mrs.

  923
  Biggs and others that he should have been sent to a general hospital in the first place.
  On Saturday 13th January, when 1 was holding one of my normal constituency "surgeries", Mrs. Biggs came to see me. it was then that I learned the story I have just recounted. As soon as Mrs. Biggs mentioned the name Risley I pricked up my ears, because Risley, unfortunately, has a local reputation which is not high—putting it in the most complimentary way. In the past five years there have been 86 attempted suicides at Risley. There have been six deaths; five by suicide and one by injection. The number of visits to Risley by Home Office officials of relatively senior rank for specific purposes is quite high, and boards of visitors have visited, on average over the past five years, 50 times per annum.
  Conditions at Risley are not what they should be. Michael's death is the second death in Risley of which I am aware this year. I was, therefore, more than surprised to receive from the Minister of State, Home Office a letter this week, in answer to one of my letter expressing my concern about the reputation of Risley, in which he said:
  "I was surprised to hear that conditions at Risley have been causing you concern for some years."
  I should be surprised if anyone who had studied the record of Risley was not concerned, and I think it inappropriate that a Minister of State at the Home Office should express surprise that a Member of this Parliament should be upset at its reputation.
  However, having heard the story from Mrs. Biggs on Saturday 13th January, first thing on Monday morning 15th January-I wrote to the Home Office outlining the facts as presented to me and explaining that this clearly was urgent. The boy's health was deteriorating markedly. Although I had a formal acknowledgment, I had no reply as such.
  Sadly, Michael Biggs died in early February. Later, on 9th February, the noble Lord the Minister of State in another place acknowledged my letter of 15th January and said that he could not answer it because the matter would have to be investigated at an inquest. An
  924
  inquest was assembled but was adjourned, and continued adjournments took place. I continued to express my concern over this case and to press the Home Office, but I could get no action or reply from the Department.
  I subsequently learned that behind closed doors the Home Office had conducted its own inquiry, but neither Mrs. Biggs nor any other outside witnesses were allowed to be present or to question any of those who took part in that inquiry. The result of it was not revealed. It was kept under wraps, so we do not know what happened. Suffice it to say that I, as Mrs. Biggs' Member of Parliament, had not had a reply to my complaint of 15th January. That state of affairs continued throughout February, March and April.
  At the end of April I started to get very concerned indeed. I pressed the Home Office, but still to no avail, and so I applied for an Adjournment debate. On Thursday 5th May it was announced that I had been fortunate and could have the Adjournment debate on Monday 14th May-that was about 11 days later-but when I indicated to the Table Office the subject of my proposed debate I was informed, quite properly, that since the inquest had not taken place it was inappropriate for me to raise the matter as it was sub judice. I dug my heels in and said that I was not prepared to withdraw. I had already been waiting for more than three months since the boy's death, and at that time four months had elapsed since I had first complained to the Home Office. I was advised, quite properly, that nevertheless the matter was sub judice, but I did not withdraw. Finally, on Friday of that week, it was announced that the inquest would take place the following Wednesday.
  That was remarkably short notice. The House will no doubt note that my Adjournment debate was due to take place on the Monday night and the inquest was to take place on the Wednesday morning, about 36 hours later. I hope the Minister will not endeavour to tell the House that that was entirely a coincidence. If he does, I shall have to inform him that no one in Ellesmere Port regards it as such.
  In the face of the fact that the inquest had been fixed for Wednesday morning,

  925
  I withdrew my Adjournment debate. The coroner's inquest took place. It lasted for two days and the coroner was very thorough in his inquiries. He went into every detail and cross-examined witnesses, but he was faced with a solid wall of evidence by prison officers and others from Risley, each of whom corroborated what the other said.
  That is not surprising. Four months had elapsed since I had complained to the Home Office, and more than three months had elapsed since Michael Biggs had died. The Home Office had held its own inquiry by then, and it is not surprising that the witnesses gave the evidence that they did. Indeed, it would have been surprising if the reverse had been the case and they had not discussed amongst themselves what took place and what evidence they were going to give. Presumably they had given comparable evidence at the Home Office inquiry, though no one knows just what evidence was given.
  Faced with a series of witnesses each of whom corroborated what the others said, the coroner's verdict was that Michael died from natural causes, and ultimately on 5th June I received from the Home Office a reply to my letter of January. I am thoroughly dissatisfied with that reply, and I should like to ask why Michael, on complaining of a stomach condition and vomiting, was treated by a doctor who, on his own admission, specialises in psychiatry and whose training is of that professional calling. When another doctor, acting as temporary relief, examined the boy, he immediately decided that he had a corm plaint which required an urgent operation and rushed him to hospital on a Sunday night. It seems extraordinary that a proper diagnosis could not have been made at an earlier date if he had been appropriately examined.
  The second point on which I should like to comment is the long delay in calling the inquest and the very short notice given for holding the inquest when I threatened to pursue my point in an Adjournment debate. The Home Office inquiry has taken place. None of us knows what happened. None of us knows what factors were brought out or, indeed, who was called to give evidence. Over and above this, there is the long
  926
  delay from 15th January before the Home Office ultimately replied to my complaints.
  This is a sorry story of appalling conditions and I am very concerned about it. Unfortunately all the Home Office inquiries, according to the letter which it sent me in June after the resumed inquest, are to the effect that nothing is adrift, that everything is in order and no one can be blamed. Neither I nor my constituents regard that as a fair comment on this sorry story. As President Nixon said, "There is no whitewash in the White House." Some of us may doubt that, but we think there are bucketfuls of it in Risley.
  2.42 a.m.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Mark Carlisle): This is indeed a tragic and distressing case. May I say at once that I join my hon. Friend in the concern he has expressed to Mrs. Biggs and her family over what occurred.
  On the whole, as I understand it, my hon. Friend makes two general complaints, one of them about the treatment that Michael Biggs received at Risley Remand Centre and the other about the delay in investigating or in replying to the complaints he raised and which, I readily acknowledge, as my hon. Friend has told the House, he first brought to the attention of my noble Friend the Minister of State on 15th January this year.
  Before I deal with those complaints, may I say something generally about Risley and about one or two of the other remarks which my hon. Friend made. He said that conditions at Risley are not what they should be, and he expressed surprise at the comment in my noble Friend's letter of 13th July when he said he was sorry that the conditions at Risley had been causing concern for some years. Risley is a remand centre for those who have been committed in custody on remand to await either trial or sentence. It has an average population of between 650 and 700 men and 100 women.
  I represent a constituency in that area, about as near to Risley as that of my hon. Friend, and I know he is right to say that from time to time concern has been expressed about Risley. One has seen it in the Press. But when he refers

  927
  to that and to the suicides that have taken place, I must point out that, although there was a spate of five suicides, they were in 1968 and the early part of 1969, and I have no knowledge of any complaints about Risley since that time. One must accept that a remand prison with a population of those on remand awaiting trial is unfortunately susceptible to an occasional suicide or suicide attempt.
  As for the medical provision at Risley, there is a hospital with accommodation in wards and single rooms for 78 men and also hospital accommodation in the women's and girl's section. The men's hospital has three open wards, with 18 beds in each and 24 single observation rooms. The medical staff consists of a senior medical officer, four other medical officers, two part-time medical officers, one chief pharmacist and 20 hospital officers.
  If a patient is in need of treatment which cannot be provided in the hospital at the remand centre, he is transferred either to an outside hospital, as my hon. Friend said, or to the surgical unit at Liverpool Prison, at which one of the full-time medical officers is a Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons. The staff there consists of a senior medical officer, three medical officers, two part-time medical officers, six consultant surgeons, seven consultant anaesthetists, a pharmacist and a staff of 11 sisters and nurses and 25 hospital officers. I assure my hon. Friend that the standard of medical treatment available at that special unit at Liverpool Prison is of a high standard, comparable to that which is provided elsewhere.
  I turn now to the case of Michael Biggs. He arrived at Risley on 13th November, having been remanded from Ellesmere Port magistrates' court on a charge of unlawful possession of cannabis. Later he was charged with a series of other offences, the details of which have no relevance to this debate, to which he pleaded guilty and of which he was convicted on 30th November, and thereafter he was committed in custody to the Crown court for sentence.
  I understand that, as my hon. Friend said, Michael Biggs had complained of stomach pains while in police custody on 10th November. and he had been
  928
  given some medicine at that time by the police surgeon. On 13th November when he arrived at Risley, in accordance with normal practice he was seen by a medical officer. He was given an examination. I understand that he made no complaint at all to the doctor who saw him, and there was no suggestion in any records at the time that he was either unwell or requiring treatment or, as I say, had complained of his physical condition. He was, therefore, allocated in the normal way to the young prisoners wing.
  My hon. Friend says that from time to time while in Risley Michael Biggs complained of stomach pains. The first evidence we have of his reporting sick is on 25th November, 12 days later, when he reported sick with stomach trouble. On that occasion he was given some medicine. The next time he complained was 11 days later, on 6th December, when he again complained of a stomach pain and was again provided with medicine. From all I have been able to ascertain, those were the only two occasions on which he reported sick or made any complaint during that period from 13th November when he was received into Risley.
  On the evening of 6th December, as my hon. Friend said, Biggs inflicted upon himself an injury of a fairly superficial nature by scratching his wrist. In accordance with the normal practice after such an incident, not only was the scratch dressed, of course, but he was at once admitted to the hospital where he could be put under full-time medical observation. Again in accordance with normal practice after an incident of that kind, he was at first put in a room where he could not inflict further injury on himself.
  He remained in that single room until 8th December, when he was transferred to a hospital ward. I am told that his behaviour in that ward was perfectly normal, and he mixed in an ordinary way with other patients. He was then interviewed at some length by one of the medical officers on the staff on 12th December.
  During that period, from 6th December when he was brought into hospital, the reason for his being there and the observation of him while in hospital was

  929
  related not to any complaint of abdominal pains but to the incident when he had cut his wrist on 6th December. As I understand it, the interview on 12th December related to a possible report on his condition to the court.
  The following day, 13th December, Michael Biggs again complained of abdominal pains and said that he had vomited during the night but had then gone back to sleep. As a result of that, he was at once transferred from the ward into a single room in the hospital where he could receive medical observation as to his physical condition.
  From 13th to 17th December Biggs remained in bed in a single room in the hospital. During that period lie was examined regularly by a full-time doctor on the medical staff. He was receiving treatment throughout that time. It is right that it was not until 17th December when he complained of cramp-like pains and further vomiting that he was first diagnosed as suffering from an intestinal obstruction.
  The moment that diagnosis was made, immediate arrangements were made to transfer Biggs to the surgical unit at Liverpool Prison. He was operated on the same day and further operations were performed on 12th and 16th January. He was transferred to the intensive care unit at Walton Hospital on 22nd January where he regrettably died on 3rd February. There is no dispute between my hon. Friend and myself that everything possible was done for him at that stage.
  Mr. Cockeram: I support that and on behalf of the family of Michael Biggs state that they have no complaint against any of the medical staff in respect of the period when Michael was in hospital under treatment. The staff were the essence of courtesy.
  Mr. Carlisle: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Mrs. Biggs has made it clear that her complaint is limited to the treatment leading up to Biggs's removal from Risley.
  Following Biggs's death on 3rd February, an inquest was held. It was opened on 1st February but was adjourned because of the difficult and complicated nature of the case. I understand that the reason for the adjournment was
  930
  that Mrs. Biggs—I make no criticism of this—the young man's mother, made serious allegations reflecting on the professional competence of the doctors concerned and of the staff at Risley. The coroner felt that in view of these allegations lie could not resume the inquest until preliminary inquiries had been made and the doctors had been given the opportunity to seek advice from the Medical Defence Union, as they are entitled to do, before submitting statements to him. The adjourned inquest eventually took place on 16th May.
  My hon. Friend asked why there was the delay in holding the inquest. The coroner is an independent judicial officer. He is in no way the tool of or under the control of the Home Office. The decision when to hold an inquest is for the coroner alone. I repeat that the reason why the coroner adjourned the inquest was to give an opportunity for himself to make preliminary inquiries into the allegations which had been made and to give an opportunity for the doctors whose competence had been attacked in the allegations to receive advice.
  When the adjourned inquest was resumed on 16th May it took two days. As my hon. Friend has accepted, the allegations were gone into at considerable length and as a result the jury returned a verdict of death from natural causes. The pathologist who conducted the post mortem diagnosed congestive cardiac failure due to subphrenic abscess caused by a perforated gastric ulcer.
  My hon. Friend said that the evidence given at the inquest all stuck together and that that was not surprising because of the delay in holding the inquest. Three members of the staff at Risley—I am not talking about the medical staff —were called at the inquest. They all gave evidence on oath and were cross-examined. I understand that the parties were represented. It would be unfair to them to assume that they did not do their best to give an honest recollection of the events leading up to this unfortunate death.
  So far as the Home Office is concerned, the principal medical officer for the Prison Department's Northern Region conducted an inquiry, which surely he was right to do in view of the allegations which had been made, into the events

  931
  leading up to Michael's death and the complaints made about his treatment at Risley and Liverpool Prison. He is satisfied that there was nothing to suggest that Michael did not receive proper medical care and attention. He inquired into the various allegations concerning his treatment at Risley and which were themselves questioned and cross-questioned at the inquest.
  I turn to the second point which my hon. Friend made, namely, the complaint of the delay in replying to his allegations. He wrote to the Home Office as early as 15th January, but I am sure he will accept that once the unfortunate death of this boy had occurred, and once it was known that an inquest was to be held and that allegations which had been made had been brought to the notice of the coroner, it would not have been right for the Minister of State to attempt to answer fully the allegations which had been properly brought to our notice until he had had an opportunity to consider what was said at the inquest. I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that, once the inquest was over and the Home Office had had an opportunity to consider its results, there was no undue delay in replying to him. The Home Office is in no way responsible for the date at which the inquest was held and I can assure my hon. Friend that we were as anxious as he was to ensure that this distressing case was fully and adequately investigated.
  As I said to my hon. Friend in reply to a Question, if there are any other aspects of the medical arrangements at Risley which are causing him concern. I shall gladly have them investigated. I understand that he has received an offer from my noble Friend the Minister of State to talk to him and to discuss the case with him, and I understand that my hon. Friend has accepted that offer. I hope he will shortly be able to take it up.
  May I offer my hon. Friend an invitation to visit Risley and to see something of the facilities at first hand? I know that the governor and the senior medical officer would be glad to see him and to explain any point he may wish to raise. I know that the board of visitors, which has a statutory responsibility for the general conduct and well-being of the
  932
  establishment, has made it clear that it would welcome his visiting the remand centre. I hope he will give this matter consideration.
  In conclusion, I repeat my deep regret to Mrs. Biggs about the tragic death of her son. I can well understand the distress that it has caused her. But, having looked at the medical reports and at the results not only of the inquest put of the full and thorough investigation by the Principal Medical Officer, I am bound to say that they show nothing to suggest that Michael did not receive proper medical care and attention. I am deeply sorry that the efforts of the doctors, particularly those made once diagnosis had been made and he was taken urgently to Liverpool, failed to save her son's life.
  I assure my hon. Friend that if there is any further information that I or the Department can provide which will in any way help to reassure him and Mrs. Biggs of the care and treatment given to her son at that time, I will gladly attempt to find it.

  NHS CONSULTANTS (MERIT AWARDS)
  3.6 a.m.
  Dr. Shirley Summerskill: I am taking this opportunity to raise the subject of merit awards, or distinction awards as they are sometimes called, for consultants in the National Health Service. Approximately £11 million of taxpayers' money is spent on these awards each year but surprisingly little parliamentary or public discussion takes place about them and this large expenditure.
  The Under-Secretary will no doubt point out that these awards were started by a Labour Government, but it is now 25 years since the service was created and it seems time to reform various aspects of the service, especially as we are now reorganising it, and to look at arrangements that might have been acceptable inside or outside the medical profession at the time, but which are not necessarily acceptable 25 years later.
  The awards were based on the recommendation of the Spens Committee which said that, if recruitment to and the status of specialist work were to be maintained, specialists must be able to feel

  933
  that more than ordinary ability and effort received an adequate reward. I do not think that today it follows that the principle necessarily applies—that it is necessary in order to maintain the status and recruitment of specialists—as their salary scales and structures are not quite the same. One of the intentions of the merit awards at the time, certainly one of the intentions in the mind of the then Minister of Health, was to award them in order to encourage consultants to enter the service and co-operate in it. Today these aspects are different from what they were in 1948.
  I have not found in the Estimates a single figure for the amount spent each year, but I have calculated—and the hon. Gentleman will confirm or deny—what appears from the annual report of the Department of Health and Social Security to be the amount.
  For England and Wales the numbers of awards in payment at 31st December 1972 were as follows: A-plus awards, 100 of £7,350 each—incidentally, if a consultant gets this award it can double his salary for every year of his working life; A awards, 364 of £5,577 each; B awards, 1,053 of £3,273 each; and C awards, 2,258 of £1,392 each. That makes a total of 3,775 awards for 10,813 consultant appointments. Therefore, I calculated that £81 million a year is spent on these awards in England and Wales.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Gourlay), who cannot be here for the debate but who has taken a great interest in merit awards in Scotland, has asked me to point out that there are 579 of these awards in Scotland, which I calculate to cost another million to £2 million a year. The total amount of taxpayers' money spent on awards is therefore approximately £11 million a year.
  That is spent on an arbitrary number of consultants representing 35·2 per cent. of the total. The Spens Committee originally said that these awards should be given to a significant minority. How we are to approve of giving this large sum of money to 35·2 per cent. of consultants appears to have no logic behind it. I should be interested to know the Minister's justification for maintaining this 35·2 per cent. Does he want to increase or decrease it? If neither, why
  934
  does he think that this is a suitable figure?
  The Review Body's report, published two days ago, recommended that merit awards should be increased by nearly 200. I should be interested to know the Government's view on the desirable number of these awards.
  The main criticism of the awards—there are many criticisms—is that they are shrouded in secrecy as to whom they are given and for what reason. Who decides who shall have them is another criticism. They are awarded by medical and dental consultants to other consultants, so they are awarded by the profession to the profession. This does not seem to be the ideal way to distribute these awards.
  The medical committee consists of 19 consultants and only one layman. Surely one could not imagine a similar arrangement for, say, a group of hospital matrons to get together to award other hospital matrons a large amount of taxpayers' money on grounds of merit or for a group of top civil servants to get together to award taxpayers' money to other top civil servants.
  It must be difficult for members of the committee to award sums of money to their colleagues. The medical world is not such a large world and often men who are given awards must be personally known to the committee. If they were not personally known, how could they be judged? It seems most unsatisfactory.
  Perhaps the major complaint, however, which the public are now beginning to appreciate, is the secrecy about who receives the awards. Parliament is never told and neither are the public. Even the doctors are now criticising the secrecy. It took some time for this to happen. Up to now this secrecy has been justified on two grounds. It was feared that patients would flock to the doctor who had the A-plus award and that if they could not see him they would go to the A award man, the B man and then the C man. All the others would be left out in the cold. It is also said that it would be unfair to name those who were getting the award if those who had just missed it were not named, their reputations being marred.

  935
  Those are not strong enough arguments to justify total secrecy about these awards. The Regional Hospital Consultants and Specialists Association has called the system mediaeval and undemocratic and last month the BMA's annual representative meeting at Folkestone asked for full disclosure of the merit awards. The BMA was asked to press for the system to be renegotiated. The medical profession therefore want the Government to look at this aspect. The BMA has just held a referendum which showed that just over half of all consultants who participated wanted an end to the secrecy.
  Another element of secrecy concerns the grounds on which the awards are made. This is an arbitrary matter. How is a doctor awarded for more than ordinary ability and effort, which is one definition? is it length of service? For some arbitrary reason, a doctor who is aged 70 or more is not eligible for a merit award. Is it the type of service that counts? If so, how is it measured? We know that the committee takes advice on all these matters and that it has advisers all over the country. It discusses the doctor in question with the various bodies who know him and deal with aspects of his work. But it seems to me extremely difficult to measure ability and effort and to pay accordingly. The doctor will receive the award for the rest of his life, whatever his future effort and ability. If he deteriorates or if the standard of his work falls, he still gets his merit award.
  A further unfair aspect is that 54·6 per cent. of consultants with teaching hospital appointments have a merit award, whereas of the non-teaching hospital consultants—the vast majority—only 25·3 per cent. receive merit awards.
  Then there is a discrepancy with regard to specialties. Altogether, 79·8 per cent. of all awards go to thoracic surgeons. Neuro-surgeons are very high on the list. Only 21·2 per cent. of the awards go to geriatricians—and looking after old people is an increasingly essential specialty and extremely difficult and often unpleasant. So there seems to be no fairness in that respect.
  Finally, I question the basic concept of having distinction or merit awards at all,
  936
  even if everything else about them was fair. Should not consultants be paid a realistic salary, obviously depending on other factors? The merit awards themselves have given rise to such criticism and resentment in so many cases in the medical profession that the Government should reconsider whether the money, about £11 million, could not be spent perhaps as incentive awards. These could be used to encourage consultants, for instance, to undertake full-time work within the National Health Service.
  At the moment only one-third of the consultants work full time in the National Health Service and the other two-thirds do only part-time work. Many of the latter are also, as well as getting merit awards, earning in private practice outside the service. It surely is unfair to the full-time workers in the service who do not receive merit awards to see what extra payment that other consultants might be getting.
  Also, incentive awards could be designed to encourage doctors to specialise in less glamorous subjects in which there is a serious shortage, such as psychiatry or geriatrics, and they could also be designed to encourage consultants to settle and work in industrial areas where there is often a chronic shortage of consultants in various specialties.
  I ask the Under-Secretary to carry out, not only at my request but at that of the BMA's annual representative meeting, an urgent review of the whole merit award system.
  3.23 a.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Alison): It maybe for the benefit of the House if I start by outlining the distinction awards system and then say something about the aspects which the hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summer-skill) has mentioned.
  First I shall deal with the origins of the system. Distinction awards for consultants date right back, as the hon. Lady said, to the beginning of the National Health Service and are associated with Nye Bevan. He introduced distinction awards, accepting the recommendation of the Spens Committee, which argued that
  "If the recruitment and status of specialist practice are to be maintained, specialists must

  937
  be able to feel that more than ordinary ability and effort receive an adequate reward",
  and that
  "any satisfactory system of remuneration for consultants must involve differentiation dependent on professional distinction."
  The Pilkington Commission—the Royal Commission on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration—examined the system thoroughly and its report in 1960 endorsed it generally. As the Royal Commission proposed, since 1960 the number and value of awards has been determined on the recommendations of the Review Body on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration.
  To be eligible for a distinction award a doctor or dentist must hold a consultant appointment and be under the age of 70. A consultant who holds an honourary appointment with a hospital board as a clinical teacher or research worker, and who devotes an assessable amount of time to National Health Service clinical work, is also eligible. Consultants who work part time for the hospital service are eligible to receive a distinction award on a pro rata basis.
  Awards are made by the Secretaries of State of the three Health Departments on the recommendation of an independent Advisory Committee on Distinction Awards. This is predominantly professional body composed of members of the medical profession appointed by the Secretaries of State on the nomination of Royal Colleges, other medical faculties, the MRC and universities. There are currently 19 members, including the Chairman, Sir Hector MacLennan. There is a non-medical Vice-Chairman, Sir David Trench—a former important colonial Governor. Sub-committees advise the main committee on awards to Scottish consultants and dental consultants.
  When the scheme was introduced the number of awards bore a fixed percentage relationship to the total number of consultants eligible. However, the Royal Commission recommended that this system should be replaced by a fixed number of awards, and that the Review Body should be responsible for suggesting any alteration in the number which might be required by conditions prevailing from time to time. The number is flexible and does not necessarily have any absolutely unvarying percentage relationship. What broadly guides the Review Body
  938
  is the notion of the substantial minority which was mentioned by the hon. Lady.
  The Third Report of the Halsbury Review Body, published on 5th July this year, recommended some increase in the number of distinction awards available which approximately matches the increase in numbers of eligible consultants. There are now available for distribution 119 A-plus awards value £7,350, 434 A awards, value £5,577, 1,256 B awards, value £3,273, and 2,743 C awards, value £1,392. These figures relate to Great Britain. The total possible cost of these awards comes to £11·2 million assuming that they were all paid in full, but estimated figures gives an actual cost of £9·8 million. The Review Body recommended no increase in the value of these awards on this occasion. Approximately one-third of eligible consultants hold awards at any one time, and over his career a consultant has approximately a 50 per cent. chance of obtaining some kind of award.
  Awards that have become vacant through the retirement, death, etc., of award holders, and any new awards resulting from the recommendations of the Review Body, are distributed annually. The advisory committee takes the greatest care to ensure that as far as possible the claims of no consultant are overlooked, and advice is sought and received from many local and national sources. These include regional awards committees, made up of the professions' own nominees; medical committees of undergraduate and postgraduate teaching groups; ad hoc regional hospital board committees; the Royal Colleges; the Medical Research Council; the public health laboratory service, and individual consultants themselves.
  The chairman has made it known that the advisory committee will consider advice from any professional quarter, and I understand that many consultants and others write in to support particular colleagues. Although there is no formal appeals procedure, the advisory committee is always prepared to receive representations from a consultant on his own behalf, and these too are considered with other advice.
  In addition to the advice received in this way, the chairman and vice-chairman of the advisory committee make annual visits to each region to probe, assess and

  939
  expand the recommendations and advice received. On these visits they consult the local committees which have made written recommendations and also other groups. In 1972, for example, 33 centres outside London, including of course all the main provincial centres of medical services, were visited as well as the four metropolitan regions themselves. The programme of visits is varied as much as possible for year to year.
  Normally the advisory committee holds its main meeting in January each year when it has before it the information culled from the sources I have referred to. All recommendations are made by the full committee, which has before it details of all eligible consultants. The Scottish sub-committee, whose sources of advice and procedure are similar to those in England and Wales, puts forward the names of consultants in Scotland.
  I should say a little about the criteria for awards. In a recent article, published in Health Trends, Sir Hector MacLennan wrote:
  "Given the large number of specialties … the variety of circumstances in which specialist medicine is practised in the National Health Service, and the different types of contribution that a man can make to his specialty and his hospital, it would be very surprising if we could distil clear and absolute standards for use as rules of thumb to cover all cases. Certain types of cases are relatively straightforward. If, for example, a consultant clearly has international standing in medicine then he is a candidate for an A award … similarly, a consultant with a clear national standing in his specialty is a candidate for a B award … and a consultant with a clear regional pre-eminence would be strongly placed for a C award."
  Clinical excellence, in other words, is obviously a major consideration, but particularly conscientious teaching of junior medical staff or students or outstanding contributions to medical knowledge through research are other important aspects of a consultant's work which may qualify him for an award.
  It is fundamental to the system that awards should be given for outstanding merit wherever that is found. That is right, in my view, but one result is that some specialties, for whatever reason, attract a higher proportion of gifted individuals than others. The hon. Lady fairly made that point. However, the
  940
  trend in recent years has been for a reduction in the differences between the "best" and "worst" specialties.
  A similar process has been going on between the proportion of awards in London, especially in the London teaching hospitals and those in the provinces. Indeed, in furtherance of its established practice the Doctors' and Dentists' Review Body in its 1973 review has regard to the advice of the chairman of the advisory committee. As a result, it recommended extra C awards
  "to enable dedicated work under difficult circumstances to be recognised".
  The report made clear that the awards were intended for
  "merit flourishing outside teaching hospitals and particularly in the regions".
  I am pleased to say that the Government were able to accept the recommendations for the extra awards together with the rest of the report. This is an attempt to redress the balance away from teaching hospitals towards non-teaching hospitals and away from London towards the provinces.
  One aspect of the distinction awards system which has provoked a good deal of discussion from time to time, and which the hon. Lady criticised particularly, is the non-publication of the names of award holders. The matter was recently discussed again by the medical profession at its annual representative meeting. The Department, however, has not received any consequential representations from the profession on the matter as yet. They may come in due course, in which case we shall give careful consideration to them.
  The advisory committee itself decided in favour of non-publication when the system was established, and this practice was unreservedly endorsed by the Royal Commission. There are two good reasons for not publishing the names, as opposed to the numbers and distribution, of award holders. The reputation of those who are worthy of an award, or a higher award, if they are unable to attain one immediately because of the restricted number of awards available, is protected by the discretion that is observed.
  The practice prevents patients and members of appointments committees

  941
  from forming value judgments on consultants without having the advantage of knowing all the factors which would have caused an award to be granted or not granted.
  It is particularly argued that the effect upon the consultant-patient relationship of publication could only be harmful in that patients might be induced to judge the quality of treatment by the rate of remuneration of the consultant in whose charge they were placed. The Royal Commission pointed out that it is not always necessary in a public service that the remuneration of individuals should be made public, and instanced the general practitioner as an example. It might also have mentioned the dentist in general practice.
  Dr. Summerskill: Will the Under-Secretary give his opinion on these conflicting views? He is quoting various authorities and says that he has not received the BMA's request. Do the Government feel that there is a case for reviewing merit awards, and particularly the secrecy aspect, because of the point of view of the taxpayer or of Parliament, or are they simply waiting for the BMA to ask them to review the secrecy aspect? Is there to be no sign of any action until the BMA asks for it?
  Mr. Alison: This is very much a matter which has been determined by a coming together of a range of interests and concerns, starting with the political initiators of the service, supported by the profession with which it was mainly concerned. From the political side, I see no disadvantage to the taxpayer in the system. There would be a much greater disadvantage to the taxpayer in the hon. Lady's proposal that merit awards or higher fees should be associated with posts and not with individuals. The likely cost to the National Health Service would then be a great deal higher than is the cost of the discriminating merit award system that we have now.
  On secrecy, I see nothing offensive in the present system. I see positive advantages, for the two reasons I have suggested, and no clear, overwhelming advantage to the other side that would suggest a great public gain if all the recipients of awards were named with individual connotations.
  942
  However, if the profession's view of the matter is evolving and it has misgivings about the secrecy, we shall reconsider it. We are anxious to preserve professional reputations and the efficacy of the way in which consultants can deliver their service in the context of the National Health Service. Nothing is fixed and final. If the profession wants change, there will be change over a period. But I have heard no arguments on the side of disclosure strong enough to overwhelm the advantages we derive from the tradition of discretion in the matter.
  The medical and dental professions must themselves in the end give a clear expression of view on the matter. We should be prepared to consider most carefully any representations from that quarter in favour of change, but we have not yet received formal representations—or informal representations.
  Although the names of individuals are not published, a good deal of important statistical and other relevant information is published annually in the Department's annual report. The 1972 annual report was published earlier this week. The report contains the names of the advisory committee and its dental sub-committee; the age groups of consultants receiving awards in the year; the number and percentage of award holders by teaching, non-teaching and joint appointments; and the distribution of awards by region and by specialty. Moreover, the chairman of the advisory committee has addressed many meetings throughout the country, open to all consultants, on the workings of the system. He has also recently published a comprehensive article in the Department's domestic journal Health Trends, which all National Health Service doctors in England and Wales receive.
  I hope, therefore, that the House as a whole will agree that although, for reasons which I have explained, a degree of confidentiality necessarily attaches to the system of distinction awards, at least for the present, this long-established system has a useful place in the health service today.
  The hon. Lady's initiative in raising the matter will, however, serve to bring more fully home to the public what is going on and what the issues are. If changes are desired, I am certain that in the next

  943
  25 years, as in the past 25, the system can evolve and develop to meet contemporary needs.

  WIGTOWNSHIRE
  3.40 a.m.
  Mr. John Brewis: While there are numerous educational problems in the South-West of Scotland, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will know from his constituency experience, at such an early hour in the morning I want to concentrate on only one matter—Douglas Ewart High School in Newton Stewart.
  This famous and historic school serves a wider area than the Machars of Wigtownshire. In the last session about one-quarter of the total roll came from the western district of the stewartry. I well remember the decision of the Wigtownshire Education Committee in 1964 to take these pupils from outwith the county. It saved the neighbouring stewartry county council the immense expense of building a modern secondary school in Creetown or Minnigaff, but the Scottish Education Department, which would have had to provide the money for such a school, seems to have completely forgotten this fact. Yet from this enlightened decision to take the children from the stewartry much of the overcrowding problem in Douglas Ewart is derived.
  The Douglas Ewart High School has always enjoyed a very high academic reputation, but the buildings are entirely inadequate for the great increase in pupils caused by the raising of the school leaving age and the policy of concentrating pupils from a wide rural catchment area at this school. Next session the pupils at the school will number 856.
  The main building is 107 years old, with extensions added in 1928. It has external lavatories, insufficient cloakrooms and ablutions and no library facilities. Annexes, Horsa huts and other buildings in the town have had to be brought into use. There are eight different buildings, some a quarter of a mile or more apart. Several teachers have no classroom of their own, and the administrative difficulties, not to mention the physical difficulties, of running such a school are intense.
  944
  Yesterday I had a letter from a parent who wrote that her daughter was unable to complete her sixth-year chemistry syllabus because there was literally no room for her in the class, nor could she conduct any chemical experiments for lack of accommodation. She was told to copy the notes of fellow pupils. Obviously her university entrance is gravely prejudiced. I would have thought such conditions unbelievable in 1973.
  The Under-Secretary sometimes talks of his "roofs over heads" programme. At Douglas Ewart the roof of the main building, after 107 years, is worn out. Water pours in when it rains. Yet it seems pointless to reslate and relead it. The situation is a disgrace.
  Everyone knows how frustrating it is to try to keep up standards in dreary surroundings. Team spirit and morale are important in a school and are bound to suffer. I ask my hon. Friend to consider for a moment the problem of the janitor, who in his ramshackle buildings has to cope as best he can with every form of heating—coke, oil, gas, anthracite and off-peak electricity.
  The school is bursting at the seams. Yet back in 1966 it was agreed by the Scottish Education Department that a further 120 pupils from the secondary department at Whithorn Junior and Secondary School should be taken in. At the present rate 10 years later, this will not be possible for lack of accommodation. Here again unnecessary extra expense is involved. In a secondary school of only 130 pupils the pupil-teacher ratio is very low, while at the same time the breadth of syllabus is severely restricted. The Whithorn pupils are being put at an educational disadvantage by not enjoying the comprehensive range of Douglas Ewart.
  In view of these facts the postponement of phase two of the building programme has been a disastrous decision for the whole of mid-Galloway. As long ago as 1966 it was agreed that the rebuilding of the school should take place in phases. It would have been far better if a complete new secondary school had been provided, as was the case in Stranraer. The proposals contained in phase two were agreed with the Scottish Education Department at least five years ago. Then it would have cost £390,000,

  945
  but as a result of the continuing delay the costs will have risen enormously.
  Phase two includes new classrooms, an assembly hall, library, staff rooms and administrative rooms, all of which are vital to the school. I cannot overemphasise the indignation expressed locally that my hon. Friend's Department has not allocated a single penny to Wigtownshire for its main primary and secondary programmes in respect of 1974–75. I have had letters from many local organisations varying from the presbytery to the Rotary Club. They feel that the education of the children is being prejudiced, and I entirely agree with them.
  I must also mention the postponement of the new school at Belmont in Stranraer. Once again the replacement of a 100-year-old school is involved, though the area is now the site of a new housing estate. Here the education authority intended to provide nursery education and also a social centre, which of course it cannot do without any money to build the school.
  I believe that my hon. Friend knows also of my grave dissatisfaction with the state of the A75 road through Galloway.
  Reverting to school building, my hon. Friend has been very successful in getting money out of the Treasury. During the last two years £30 million has been made available through the public works scheme, and in 1974–75 the total amount available for school building in Scotland will be £54·5 million, compared with £44·4 million this year. I congratulate my hon. Friend on those figures, but it makes the nil allocation to Wigtownshire for new schools even more extraordinary, perverse and incomprehensible.
  In the recent White Paper "Education in Scotland: A Statement of Policy" it is stated in paragraph 43 that
  "the majority of primary and secondary pupils … are now housed in schools that have been built or improved in the past 25 years."
  Tonight I am speaking not about 25 year-old schools but about schools more than 100 years old. I cannot feel that the Scottish Education Department has taken this sufficiently into account in deferring phase two since 1968.
  Yet the urgency of the case has been repeatedly brought to the attention of
  946
  the Department. In April 1972 a delegation from the county council went to St. Andrew's House. In a letter to me dated 5th May 1972, my hon. Friend said that he would bear in mind the unsatisfactory state of Douglas Ewart. As recently as May this year the district inspector was optimistic about phase two being in the 1974–75 programme.
  Something clearly has gone very wrong indeed. Why was phase two excluded? Will my hon. Friend now do his sums again? We simply must have a sum to get Douglas Ewart started in 1974–75, even if it is only enough for extra classrooms. Then we must have a promise that the remainder of phase two is firmly in the 1975–76 programme. Can my hon. Friend give me assurances on both those points?
  3.49 a.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office (Mr. Hector Monro): I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis), who has a particular interest in and a great knowledge of education, has spoken about the Douglas Ewart High School at Newton Stewart, because it is right that we should take an opportunity such as this to discuss the difficulties that undoubtedly arise in administering the central Government's control of capital expenditure of local authorities.
  Every administration since the war has found it necessary, as part of its management of the national economy, to impose some limit on the share of national resources that is absorbed by the capital expenditure of local government. Even when we have a really forward-looking White Paper on education, to which my hon. Friend referred, there must be some restraints on capital projects in the years ahead. As he knows, these plans mature slowly, and it is not surprising that I have to go back to 1964 which my hon. Friend mentioned as the period when the two education committees of Wigtownshire and the stewartry agreed to develop the Douglas Ewart High School. Then one moves to 1966 when the former Secretary of State approved proposals submitted to him by Wigtownshire Education Authority for the long-term reorganisation of its provision for secondary education in the county.

  947
  A feature of these proposals was the concentration in a single school of all secondary pupils from the Machars area of the county in the Douglas Ewart High School at Newton Stewart. The longterm aim was that the high school, which is a six-year all-through school, would be rebuilt on a scale which would enable it to take the pupils hitherto accommodated in the three-year secondary school at Whithorn.
  The project was a big one, and it was decided in the time of the previous administration that it should be undertaken in two distinct phases. The first of these phases was needed as a roofs-over-heads project—that is to say, for the provision of accommodation for pupils, including pupils staying on as a result of the raising of the leaving age, for whom places would not otherwise have been available. This phase of the project, therefore, had high priority and it was started in September 1969 and completed in September 1971. It provided accommodation for science, technical and domestic subjects, social studies and school meals.
  The second phase, which is estimated to cost some £390,000, is needed to enable the authority to close Whithorn Secondary School and to bring the 140 pupils at present accommodated in that school into Newton Stewart. There is also a need to replace temporary classrooms and to provide modern specialist accommodation for music and art. There is no argument about the desirability of the Whithorn move. Three-year secondary schools are not generally a satisfactory form of educational provision and I understand that the Whithorn School is no exception to this, in spite of the efforts that have been made by the education committee. Briefly—my hon. Friend is aware of this—the trouble is that in a school of that size it is difficult to provide a balanced curriculum that is sufficiently varied to meet the diverse needs of the pupils, and there has, 1 understand, been difficulty in attracting teachers of certain subjects.
  The project would, however, be an expensive one, and its claims have necessarily had to be considered against the claims of other schemes, including of course schemes put forward by the Wigtownshire authority. In making this
  948
  evaluation my Department had to take account of the fact that whereas phase one of the new school was needed to provide roofs-over-heads for pupils who could not otherwise have been accommodated, phase two could not be given high priority on that argument.
  The position is that, with the completion of phase one of the new Douglas Ewart High School, the education authority now has accommodation for all secondary pupils from the Machars area. This accommodation is in the new phase one building, in the old buildings of the high school and in the three-year secondary school at Whithorn. As I have already said, it is undoubtedly desirable that the whole secondary school population of this area should be concentrated at Newton Stewart and that all pupils should be accommodated in modern buildings. That is not to say however that the required building project attracts the same high priority as that accorded to the projects that are required to provide roofs-over-heads.
  In this connection I am bound to mention the extension of Stranraer Academy, which was needed to provide roofs-over-heads and which accordingly was included in the authority's approved programmes for 1971–72, 1972–73 and 1973–74. It was in the last-mentioned of these years that the authority first sought to secure approval also for phase two of the Douglas Ewart High School. Its inclusion in that year's programme had to be balanced against the final stage of the Stranraer Academy extension and the authority accordingly put it forward for 1974–75. Again questions of priority arose, this time not so much within the county as between Wigtownshire and other education authorities that were also bidding strongly for increased programmes of capital investment, and I had to decide with regret that the Newton Stewart project could not be found a place.
  I realise that this decision must have been a disappointment to the authority, to my hon. Friend and to his constituents. 1 was not altogether surprised when the authority said that it wished to come and see me about it. I replied suggesting that it would be helpful if, in the first place, the authority's needs for capital investment were thoroughly discussed with my Department. I am

  949
  glad to say that this suggestion has been taken up and that a meeting will be held next month.
  I have noted what my hon. Friend has said about conditions at the Douglas Stewart High School. Everything he said tonight will be taken most carefully into our considerations. Before I leave this topic I should like to make it clear that, apart altogether from phases one and two of the buildings for the Douglas Ewart High School, progress has been made with a new physical education block comprising a swimming pool, a games hall and ancillary accommodation. This building, which falls under the social and recreational building programme, is to cost £152,000. It was started in June 1972 on an 80-week contract and I understand that it is likely to be completed later this year.
  My hon. Friend also made a plea for capital investment for a new school to be called Belmont Primary School, Stranraer. When the education authority submitted in March 1971 the two projects it wished to include in its 1972–73 primary school improvement programme, Belmont Primary School was its second priority. Its purpose was partly to replace the substandard accommodation of an existing school, the Dalrymple Primary School—where there are about 250 pupils in a building about 100 years old—and partly to provide the additional accommodation needed to reduce class sizes in primary schools throughout the burgh. The new school will be located to take account of housing development in the burgh of Stranraer.
  In allocating capital investment for that year we were able to provide for the authority's first priority, Drummore Primary School, but the needs of Stranraer were not regarded as sufficiently serious, relative to other competing claims on the available resources, to justify a start being made at Belmont. For 1973–74 Belmont was the authority's first priority, but we were again unable, either then or for 1974–75. to regard its claims as superior to those from other areas.
  As I have already said, arrangements have been made, as I suggested, for representatives of the authority and of my Department to meet next month to discuss the situation in the area created by the levels of the investment allocations so far approved, and I understand that
  950
  Belmont Primary School will be on the agenda. I do not wish to prejudge the outcome of these discussions but I can say that I shall of course consider very carefully, and very sympathetically, the case made by the authority and what action I may be able to take to satisfy it.
  I know that, in the broader area of the whole of South-West Scotland, Wigtownshire presently receives the smallest allocation, but including nursery education, which we all want, for the three counties of South-West Scotland the allocations have increased from £1,145,000 in 1973–74 to £1,576,000 in 1974–75.
  Turning from education, my hon. Friend gave the impression that the needs of Newton Stewart had not been kept sufficiently in mind when resources were being allocated by my right hon. Friend's repartments. In particular he mentioned roads. I appreciate that my hon. Friend has long been concerned about traffic on the trunk road A75 generally, and through communities such as Newton Stewart in particular. I am glad to be able to assure him that we are not overlooking the needs of this route. It is a road which I know well. It is much affected by the container traffic to Northern Ireland and by the welcome increase in the number of tourists.
  A bypass of Newton Stewart has been accepted in principle and has been included in the trunk road preparation pool. This means that preliminary procedural work can be begun. In fact, draft orders to establish a line for the bypass have been prepared and will be published within the next few weeks. Once the necessary statutory procedures have been completed, the bypass scheme will have to find a firm place in the trunk road programme. I hope that this will be within the next two or three years.
  On the A75 generally, a continuous programme of modernisation is taking place affecting the whole route from Gretna to Stranraer. Apart from the Newton Stewart bypass, which in itself will cost over £500,000, no less than 17 improvement schemes are in progress of planned in the counties of Dumfries, Kirk. cudbright and Wigtownshire entailing an expenditure of some £3 million, of which about £1 million will be spent on the Wigtownshire section.

  951
  There are other, if perhaps minor, fields of expenditure that should be mentioned. In June of last year, I approved borrowing consent in respect of an education authority youth centre to be provided at the former annex of the Douglas Ewart High School, and for the new £150,000 block at the school, incorporating a games hall and swimming pool, which I have already mentioned in the context of school building. I should add here, however, that this building and its facilities will be used by the community at large as well as by the school.
  Last month I received an application from the burgh council of Newton Stewart to approve borrowing for a sports complex costing over £110,000 to serve the area, and I have this application under consideration at the moment. Finally, I mention that an extension to Cornwall Park old people's home, Newton Stewart, to provide an extra 13 places, is planned to start building this year or next.
  I do not expect that what I have been able to say will entirely satisfy my hon. Friend or his constituents, but I hope that I have been able to demonstrate that the needs of the South-West are kept very prominently in mind when resources are being allocated by the departments of the Scottish Office.
  I look forward to meeting my hon. Friend to discuss the school building programme after the talks with officials. One thing is certain—that my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway is pressing his case very hard on behalf of his constituents.

  PUBLIC SERVICES (GREATER LONDON)
  4.4 a.m.
  Mr. Guy Barnett: I wish to draw attention to the problems of providing adequate public services for those who live and work in London. London, like other large cities in the world, contains a great deal of wealth and a great deal of poverty. It has an exciting variety in its cultural life, its historic buildings and its national and commercial institutions, but side by side with all this wealth there is poverty, multiple deprivation, congestion on the roads, and an overloaded public transport system, prob-
  952
  lems of environmental pollution and of crime, and many examples of homelessness, loneliness and human despair.
  Although we in London take pride in all that we have, we should also remember that for hundreds of thousands of Londoners the wealth does not exist. They are shut out because they cannot begin to afford what London has to offer, cannot in thousands of families make a decent life for themselves.
  Those who visit London from the Provinces sometimes assume, because they see the bright lights of the West End, that the problems of London are small or non-existent. It is perhaps because of this that London receives less attention than it might in the House, less money than it needs from the Government, and less understanding of its terrifying problems from the nation at large than it should get. This is why I welcome this opportunity of raising this subject in this debate this morning.
  The problems we face in London are getting steadily more serious. The burden shouldered by public services becomes greater and, therefore, more expensive. Because in recent years they have not been able to keep pace with the deteriorating situation, some of the public services are becoming dispirited and morale is being affected. It is no exaggeration to say that we are reaching a crisis in Greater London.
  Obviously I cannot attempt to deal with every service and problem, but it is important at the outside to emphasise that the problems are inter-related. For instance, a failure to house people may throw a burden on the social services, on the schools, on the police, and on the probation service. But there is more to it than that. This very lack of adequate housing at reasonable prices and rents is making it increasingly difficult, if not impossible, for the Greater London Council, the boroughs, the hospitals, the Inner London Education Authority, the probation officers, the police and the transport services to attract and hold the very staff they need to deal with an ever-growing variety of problems.
  With the statistics of homeless reaching an all-time peak, with 500,000 people, according to the census, living in accommodation without their own bathrooms, hot water and inside lavatory, with

  953
  100,000 people lacking even the exclusive use of a stove or sink, with very modest houses built in my constituency at the beginning of the century now changing hands for £12,000 to £13,000, it is obvious that the housing crisis lies at the root of many of our problems. The actions and the inaction of the present Government in housing and land policy have exacerbated a steadily worsening situation.
  In addition to all this, there are three specific problems which London faces to a degree not experienced by other cities in the United Kingdom, each of which places an enormous burden on its public services. These three are immigration, tourism, and the long-distance commuting which takes place from outside into the GLC area. I want to say a few words about each.
  The census indicates that about 42 per cent. of new Commonwealth immigrants have settled in London and, in addition to that, London has received and is receiving large numbers of immigrants from Ireland, both north and south, and from other parts of the country, particularly those that have been devastated by the failure of past Conservative Governments to provide proper employment opportunities in the regions.
  London has in the main welcomed immigrants. Many of those who have come have assisted in manning the very public services which I have been speaking, but they need to be housed, and their children need to be educated and often have special educational needs which have to be catered for.
  Then there is tourism. The London Tourist Board says in its tenth annual report for the year ending 31st March 1973 that 80 per cent. of foreign visitors to the United Kingdom come to London. By my calculations, that means that at least 4½ million people a year come to the city. In July 1972 there were nearly 900,000 visitors from abroad, and, at the present rate of growth, next year we can expect to have 1 million foreign visitors in July alone. As welcome as foreign visitors are, they involve a considerable burden on the transport services. Homes and land for them must make way for hotels and have done so at an alarming rate in some areas of London, and many other public services paid for by the ratepayers are bound to be affected.
  954
  Lastly, long-distance commuting places enormous burdens on the transport system, on rail and on the roads. The GLDP public inquiry opening presentation on behalf of the GLC gives figures based on the census data which shows that commuting into the GLC nearly doubled between 1951 and 1966—from 240,000 to 467,000.
  Now to take a look at some of the public services. I believe the schools situation to be crucially important. Last year my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) and I and many other hon. Members warned the Secretary of State for Education and Science repeatedly about this problem at the time when she was interfering with the negotiation of the London allowance. One estimate I have seen is that South-East London will be short of about 300 teachers when the new term opens in September. The Government must understand that this is a crisis. At the moment they are apparently burying their heads in the sand. A report in the Evening Standard on 10th July said:
  "The Department of Education and Science are not convinced that the high turnover of teachers in London has anything to do with the London allowance."
  It should take a look at the Inner London Education Authority magazine "Contact" in which a teacher estimates that living in London costs him £400 a year more than living in the North of England, and that estimate takes no account of higher housing costs in London.
  London teachers cost the ILEA and the outer boroughs £6·2 million per year more than the national average. Part of this cost is due to the special needs of the children of immigrants. London receives £3 million in special grants towards this extra cost but employs 2,000 extra teachers specifically for this purpose at a cost of about £5 million. Also, 2,600 teachers are specially recruited for teaching in educational priority areas and additional teachers are necessary because the number of children staying on after 15 years of age is higher in Inner London than it is in the rest of the country.
  I come to the problems of transport. It is clear that with the Labour victory in the GLC elections there will be a radical change in the whole transport strategy for Greater London. The debate on urban

  955
  transport planning underlined an almost total conversion away from orbital and radial motorways in cities and towards schemes for traffic restraint and greater reliance on public transport. I believe strongly that such an approach is right, but in the light of all I have said about the burdens borne by London on behalf of others it is imperative that the GLC should have an early assurance from the Government that the sum it was proposed to spend on the abortive Ringway I should be available for what even the Secretary of State appeared to admit on 9th July was the wise recommendation of the Expenditure Committee's Report on urban transport planning.
  That includes phase II of the Fleet Line, capital expenditure on the high speed bus and a whole range of expenditure implied by The Times in its leading article earlier this month. It said:
  "Public transport needs to be sold fullbloodedly as a system, beginning with market research in depth and leading not only to new and improved movement techniques, but also to city planning designed to support and draw the greatest benefit from them. Improved interchange, large-scale development over transport terminals. silent and fume-free systems for special areas, greater priority for pedestrians and cyclists, and stimulation of taxis and hire-cars—all might be expected to find a place in such a strategy."
  But plans to expand and develop all forms of public transport are liable to be frustrated by the growing shortage of drivers. London Transport is well known to be about 6,700 men short out of a total establishment of 60,000. Frankly, unless the drivers of buses and trains can be made a special case under phase 3, and housing close to depots and termini can be provided especially for them, the whole case which the GLC is putting forward is unlikely to be made possible.
  I want to say a word or two about the police, because in this respect, too, London has special problems. Indictable offences in London, per thousand of the population, amount to 43·4 whereas the figure for England and Wales excluding London is 25·9. That in itself is enough to justify extra Government aid, but the burden falling on the Metropolitan Police is greater than that.
  The recent visit of Dr. Caetano cost about £200,000, quite a hefty bill when it is realised that the annual cost of such
  956
  activities is £4 million, of which the central Government, which presumably arranges all these visits, finds about £1 million. So the ratepayer is considerably worse off in London as a consequence of exercises of that sort.
  I could go on mentioning other problems, but other hon. Members wish to speak. Situations similar to those that I have described could equally well be applied to social workers, weights and measures staff, probation officers, nurses and hospital staff, a host of jobs upon which the life of London depends.
  I have three final points. First, the Government must take full cognisance of the extra cost of services in London. I understand from the GLC that no less than £182 million a year is necessarily spent by the GLC and the boroughs by reason of the high costs of running services in London, and that figure, incidentally, was arrived at after deduction of 50 per cent. of the addition cost to the police of the specific grant.
  Secondly, there will be no solution to these urgent problems until the housing crisis in London is overcome, and that will not be done until speculation and profiteering in urban land arc ended and the lump outlawed. Thirdly the Government or the Pay Board must recognise the additional cost of living in London, particularly for those dependent on modest salaries and wages who are doing vital jobs.
  I have only introduced a whole range of problems which affect our capital city. The bitter lessons of failure in other parts of the world, in places such as New York, as there for all to see. Unless we tackle these problems imaginatively, speedily and generously, the cost in social, economic and human terms is likely to be crippling. I therefore hope that the Minister will take to heart some of my observations.
  4.19 a.m.
  Mr. William Shelton: I welcome the opportunity of the debate to make two brief comments about the services in London. The first, which is causing some concern to some of my constituents and to me, is the GLC's proposal for banning the use of parking meters before half-past ten in the morning.

  957
  Naturally, the objective must be to discourage commuters. This is not only ill-judged but it is an unfair proposal and I hope that the GLC can be persuaded not to proceed with it. Because it is ill-judged, it will not work. Those who can arrange their hours for themselves will drive in anyway at about 10.30 a.m. I do not think that the flow of commuters will be reduced. I think that we may get a slight amount of staggering of the traffic, which may be useful, but it will not achieve the GLC's objective.
  Secondly, it is not very fair, because the people who will find themselves in difficulty are the mass of workers, many of whom come into London in their cars and are not in control of their times of work. Therefore, this proposal will probably be socially divisive. The bosses will be able to come in at 10.30 a.m. in the morning instead of 10 o'clock, or whatever it may be, while the people who have to come in at 9 a.m. or 9.30 a.m. will have to come in by public transport or pay for parking spaces.
  I am told that some seven or eight years ago the parks authorities tried this device in the inner circle of Regent's Park. They banned the use of parking meters until 10.30 a.m. As a result I understand that one could see all the wealthier medical consultants arriving at 10.30 a.m. so that the total flow was not reduced in any way.
  I suggest that the right method of controlling the situation is by pricing. If there is this problem—we must accept that it exists—the solution is to make it prohibitively expensive to stay on a parking meter for more than one, two or three hours. It may be said that such a system would be advantageous to the richer and less advantageous to the poorer in our society. In a community which uses the price mechanism, those with more money have many advantages, and they would have an advantage in this way. However, it gives people the choice whether they wish to put their cars on parking meters at 9.30 a.m. or not.
  Another matter that is causing specific concern in South London is the proposed route of the M23 radial. I have been in touch with the Department about this matter and it has been extremely help-
  958
  ful. I appreciated the answers that I was given. Nevertheless, the matter is most unsatisfactory.
  The M23 is under construction at the moment from Crawley to an interchange at Merstham with the M25. The proposal is to link it back to the A23 to make the traffic flow viable, and this is to be completed next year.
  In 1968 and 1969 orders were made authorising further construction forward into London, first, to a point south of Streatham Vale and, secondly, continuing from there to a northern terminal joining, by a delta in Streatham Vale, the A24 and A23 and, at that time, Ringway 2 which was to be built. Due to the volume of complaints a Minister in the Labour Government made a statement in 1969 that this proposed continuation was "under review". In other words, a decision had not been taken.
  The next thing that happened in this tale was the Layfield Report which generally recommended that radials such as the M23 should continue on and link up with Ringway 1. That was the situation when the Layfield Report was published.
  I am advised by the Government that the review announced in 1969 is still under way and is now further complicated by the Greater London Council's proposals not to build Ringway 1. Despite the great publicity given to this statement by the GLC, I understand that the Department has not received official notification. From the Department's point of view, the GLC is still proposing to build Ringway 1. Perhaps the GLC will get round to talking to the Department about it sooner or later.
  Nevertheless if the Ringways 1 and 2 are not to be built, it will be absurd to carry a radial such as the M23 into the centre of London with no ringway on to which the traffic can move. That would be like a river with no access to the sea. Not only would the traffic have nowhere to go when it left the radial, but continuing the radial through Streatham Vale would be to destroy a good community with good houses which are becoming increasingly scarce and increasingly valuable.
  I should like to press upon my hon. Friend the Minister that a decision should be made as soon as possible, that the GLC

  959
  should consult, presumably the Government, about Ringway I as soon as possible, and that the blight provisions which still apply to the proposed route right into Streatham should be removed as soon as possible. These provisions and the proposed extension of the ringway are doing great damage and causing great distress to many people in that area.
  4.26 a.m.
  Mr. George Cunningham: I was particularly interested to hear the remarks of the hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. William Shelton) on the working of the meters. I have considerable sympathy with what he says. One should rely principally upon the charge rather than on other devices in order to maintain maximum flexibility. But there are, nevertheless, other devices and more than one must be used in order to deter as many as possible or to alter the balance of personal advantage which obtains at the moment in the decision about the different possible modes of transport.
  I can never participate in these ridiculous debates without pointing out that they are ridiculous and that it is high time that the House found another way of doing things. Of course, it is a voluntary madness in that no one has to be here in the night—
  Mr. William Hamlin: The staff have to be here.
  Mr. Cunningham: That is true and we should express our gratitude to the staff who, because of our incompetence in finding a better way of doing things, have to put up with this situation. The sooner we find a better way—and one does not have to be very clever to do that—the better for us all. There might be dispute about the ideal way of operating, but there can be no dispute that this is not it.
  We could have been holding these debates almost simultaneously upstairs in Committee rooms on the lines of Second Reading Committees so that we could get our remarks into HANSARD and in that way our deliberations could have been concluded by a normal time in the evening.
  We are technically to vote the Government f11,000 million at nine o'clock in
  960
  the morning, and that is not an unimportant matter. It is right that such a decision should be given more consideration than the House ever appears to give it. The sooner the House gets into the habit of referring the Government's proposals for expenditure to subject committees of the House, where these exist—and they cover most subjects—the sooner will this Parliament look like obtaining a professional appearance and not look like a bunch of amateurs which operates in a way which no other legislature in the world would tolerate.
  Most of what I want to say on the London situation relates to housing, but I shall take advantage of the presence of the Under-Secretary to mention two points about transport. First, I underline and support the appeal for a relaxation of phase 3 an order to allow London Transport to pay such rates for bus drivers and similar transport operatives as is necessary to attract the staff to do the job. At the moment people do not use public transport because it is not reliable. The services are not sufficiently frequent. Literally, this year the biggest reason why the public transport services are not reliable and frequent enough is that there is no margin of staff over the basic number required to do the job. This is because the rates of pay are simply not adequate to attract or keep staff.
  It has become the new orthodoxy that we should build up public transport, make it more reliable and more attractive, as a necessary preliminary to disincentives to the use of the car for the journey to work. But we cannot improve the system if, by keeping the rates of pay down, we fail to get the minimum number of staff required to operate the services.
  I fought hard to stop the Under-Secretary of State from approving an enormous new roundabout in the middle of my constituency at a cost of about £7 million. I believe that it would not only be highly detrimental to the amenity of the area but that it is unnecessary for the flow of the desirable amount of traffic in the area.
  The Road Research Laboratory has done a lot of good work on the design and shape of roundabouts, and is still doing some. The work it has completed relates principally to small

  961
  capacity roundabouts. I believe it is hoped that it will complete its work on larger capacity roundabouts by next year some time. In view of the disastrous effects of these enormous roundabouts and the possibility that we may be installing them where the conventional wisdom of the traffic designers in a year or two might suggest that they are not required, even for traffic purposes, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will do all he can to hasten this research so that we can avoid making decisions which may turn out later to have been blunders.
  I turn to London's housing need. I feel obliged to question an obligation which has rested on the London boroughs for a considerable time, although it has lately been modified. This is the obligation to house any family which is homeless in their area. It is highly contentious to say that the boroughs should not have the obligation to house any family which is on the streets, but one needs to distinguish between what I call, in brief, the deserving case and, let us say, the family which has recently come from Manchester or Glasgow or Dublin and has had no normal contact locally, not having spent much time in the area, perhaps only a few weeks.
  To impose on the London boroughs an obligation to provide a house over the heads of such a family is to ensure that the thousands upon thousands of people on the housing waiting lists in London, and the thousands of others who are in dire housing need although they are not on the waiting lists, do not get the treatment to which they are entitled and of which they stand in greater need.
  In the next Session, the House will have to address itself to the question of the Government's White Paper on the improvement grants and housing stress-areas. I want to take as an illustration one street in my constituency, because it shows that landlords are taking advantage of the generous financial assistance now available to them and that the proposals in the White Paper, though welcome in some respects, are inadequate. I refer to Stonefield Street, which consists of about 30 houses of attractive architecture, traditionally occupied for the last 100 years by working-class people, but over the last 20 years or so progressively
  962
  colonised—not too strong a word in this context—by young professionals coming into the area.
  I stress that there is no blame to be attached to such people, who merely buy these houses when they come into the market. But the eviction or winkling out of the families who lived in those houses means that those families then become homeless and have to be housed by the borough council. Whereas these houses originally provided a home for ten people, they now contain only one family. Some of the houses have no families in them at all.
  A tenant in one house in Stonefield Street was recently visited by the owner or his representative and offered money to get out. Such tenants are of course controlled tenants, and often they do not take the advice of a solicitor because they do not want to go to that much trouble. They are people who do not know their legal rights; they are unaccustomed to calling in a professional person for advice.
  Another set of tenants in the street were offered so-called suitable alternative accommodation. The owner says he wants to sell the house, but he is not interested in selling it with the tenants in occupation. The owner does not intend to improve the house but wants to sell it as the residence for one family. By getting rid of the tenants before he sells the house, the owner can make much more money.
  Yet another house in the street has been only a third occupied in the last two years. Only one of the three flats in the house is occupied; the other two flats have been empty for the last two years. The owners of the property company, instead of improving that accommodation, for which they could get generous Government help, have taken the last remaining tenant to court to try to get a possession order against her by buffering suitable alternative accommodation.
  The judge, who knew little or nothing about the social conditions in the area, felt that it was socially undesirable to leave a house two-thirds empty and thought that it would be conducive to good housing policy to grant a possession order which will have the effect of moving the woman tenant from that

  963
  accommodation into a little flat somewhere else. I was in court at the time and I am afraid that nobody pointed out to the learned judge that it would have been possible to fill that house if the owners had simply wanted to put tenants in and charge them a so-called fair rent. It is over a year since that court case was heard and the property company has failed to satisfy the court that the alternative accommodation is suitable, because it is very damp. Therefore, that house remains two-thirds empty. I could multiply those examples many times, but I do not think I need to do so.
  In another house the first floor rooms have been vacant for three years. In another the basement has been empty for six years, the top floor for five years and the ground floor for two years. In fact, there is only one part of that house which is occupied. Many of these houses have damp basements or are lacking roofs. The repairs are not done unless the council uses its full powers and nags constantly at the owners to have the repairs carried out. We must face the fact that when owners are reluctant to obey their orders, great administrative costs are placed upon councils.
  That is the kind of thing which is happening right in the middle of London. I became the Member for Islington, South West three years ago and at that time there were 10,000 people on the housing waiting list. There are now 11,000 people on the waiting list. Every time some old buildings are knocked down so as to build afresh it is found that the new buildings accommodate far fewer people than the old buildings.
  Last week one of the families living in Stonefield Street telephoned me late at night to say that they were being harassed. Whether it constituted harassment in the legal sense would be open to doubt. However, what I am about to describe is the sort of thing which often happens and which should be given as much publicity as possible. A wall needed to be rebuilt and instead of doing that in a normal considerate fashion the owners decided the dates for themselves. The owners did not put up the normal protection from the elements in the way of plastic sheets and that kind of thing. The builders were permitted to scatter bricks
  964
  all over the sitting rooms of the people concerned. A man arrived home to find a ceiling support based on his bed.
  That is not an isolated case. That is happening week in and week out. That is the regular kind of thing which comes to me during my weekly surgery. It is happening throughout London and not only in the area which I represent. For many thousands of people that is what life in London is like. For many people on all ranges of income London is an extremely pleasant place to live, but for many others the housing conditions and the way they are treated by the owners and by the owners' agents is reminiscent more of the 19th century.
  I shall quote briefly a letter which a constituent received from a property company. She is a controlled tenant who is entirely secure in her accommodation. She lives with an adult son. The family is not accustomed to looking after itself in the face of solicitors and such people. I quote this letter because it gives the lie to the argument that improvement grants are improving the situation for rented accommodation. The property company concerned is Marcolt Investments Limited. That company wrote to my constituent saying:
  "… we confirm that it is our intention to carry out remedial work to the above property and it will be most helpful if you could find alternative accommodation."
  There was no statement that it was a controlled tenancy, that she did not need to get out, no suggestion that she might take legal advice, no offer of suitable alternative accommodation, which is the only way in which it could get her out. It then offered her £1,000, and concluded:
  "As there is some urgency to this matter we would appreciate your letting us know at your earliest convenience when you could move, and, of course, when you do decide to go it will not be necessary to pay any more rental".
  She had been living in that house for a very long time. Simply because the owner decided that her several grown-up children might look after her, she received that kind of harassing letter, although she is a controlled tenant. When I took the matter up with the company the implication was "We considered that she had these grown-up children and therefore they should be able to look after her."

  965
  That kind of thing must be stopped, and the only way is to give councils powers to compel improvement. The existing powers in Section 19 of the 1964 Act are inadequate. I do not believe that the proposals in the White Paper of the other week will be sufficient to deal with the situation. It suggests that we should have housing stress areas of a very restricted size of about 500 dwellings, that it should be possible in inner London to identify those little areas where there is an improvement problem, and that there the councils should be given greater powers to compel improvement. But in an area such as Islington it is not possible to pick out such little areas. The unimproved houses lie cheek by jowl with the improved houses. There is no basis upon which we can pick a few streets here or a few streets there because we need to use the powers.
  What is necessary in inner London is that the councils should have the power to compel improvement and to buy properties by compulsory purchase order more liberally than they can now, not in areas of a few streets only but throughout the whole of their territory. I am not suggesting that they should then proceed to use those powers throughout their territory; they would use them in individual houses throughout their territory. Unless they can do that, they will never be able to make an impact upon the enormous numbers of people waiting to be housed in inner London.
  Unless we manage to house those people the facilities which are needed to provide a decent life for all Londoners, including, and most particularly, the very well-off, will not be provided, because there will not be the people in inner London to take the jobs. We cannot expect people to do the jobs of inner London unless we are prepared to ensure that they have the houses.
  4.49 p.m.
  Mr. William Hamling: I am very glad to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. George Cunningham) on the subject of housing and my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Guy Barnett) on the collapse of the public services in London.
  966
  It is not only protected tenants who are at risk. I have a very bad case in my constituency of unprotected tenants who are being made homeless. It may be all very well to say that we should think first of Londoners, but what is one to do when a family with several children —from Cornwall, perhaps—find themselves homeless after having moved into a furnished flat in one's borough? Is the local authority simply to say that it cannot help them, when they are living on a very modest income and cannot afford to buy a house?
  That is one of the dilemmas of a sympathetic authority. It is one of the dilemmas that we are facing in my borough. We face the problem of people living in furnished accommodation, perhaps what someone has called a flat but which may be just a furnished room and a shared bathroom and lavatory, when the owner of the property decides to knock the whole thing down. Perhaps it is a large house and the owner manages to acquire two or three adjoining houses and to build on that site about 150 flats, at £10,000 a time, having bought the houses for perhaps £17,000. This is a great temptation to the developer.
  What is to happen to the people in the unprotected property? This dilemma is faced in Greenwich, and in Islington. It is a problem throughout London.
  It is not sufficient for local authorities simply to be given extra powers to compel landlords to do certain things. We must establish the principle here that private ownership of this kind of property does not meet the circumstances of our age and that development must not be allowed to exert a kind of social blackmail.
  In one sense, I am glad that the Under-Secretary is specifically concerned with transport matters, although I should have preferred it if we could have had a more general approach to this matter. The House knows that the Under-Secretary and I have been engaged in long discussions, officially and unofficially, about the future of the Dover radial route. Those constituents of mine who are very hard pressed along the Rochester Way are concerned about the fact that so far we have had no answer or information about what is to happen and whether that small

  967
  portion of the Dover radial route is to be finished.
  I hope that the Under-Secretary will give us a firmer answer than we have had so far. I am not blaming him entirely. We all know that this matter is to be settled between the Greater London Council and the Department. There are important questions to be settled. But for the benefit of the very hard pressed people living in Rochester Way who have been putting up with intolerable conditions for so long, I hope that there will be a very early easement of these problems.
  I want to return to some of the questions raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich about the collapse of public services. I have had correspondence with one or two employers in my borough who have complained about some of the statements that I made in an article in the Evening News last week, in which I was talking about the problems of redundancy and of loss of employees' skills, in South-East London in particular. I said that it seemed rather odd that in spite of all these redundancies we are short of labour. My hon. Friends and I are very concerned about these matters in the South-East, and we shall attend to these problems more directly.
  There seems to be a paradox here. It springs from the fact that employment and housing are inter-related. Many people who would like to work in a particular area cannot afford to do so. I think of a young married man with four children. He was working in a public department at Gillingham. His job was changed and he was brought to headquarters in London, but he found that on his wage he could not afford the fares to London and at the same time look after his family properly.
  It was expected of him that he would move to London anyway. On the salary that he was receiving as a civil servant he could not afford to buy a reasonable house near London, and that is the dilemma that is being faced all over London. Young professional and working class people with families have no chance of getting council houses because they may have to be on a housing list for five, six, seven or even eight years. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington,
  968
  East, with his experience, is probably far worse off than we are, and the position in our area is bad enough. My hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson) has personal experience of this problem, too.
  My hon. Friend talked about the police. The situation in the Metropolitan Police area is such that if we were to take every constable from Liverpool and Manchester —two very large cities—and bring them to London we would just about reach the establishment of constables. If we were to take every constable from Wales—thereby denuding Wales—and bring them to London again we would just about reach the establishment figure here. That is one way of expressing the problem.
  My hon. Friend talked about transport, and I shall come to that in a moment. He said that there was a shortage of 6,500 transport staff out of a requirement of 60,000. The shortage in the Metropolitan Police is even more critical when one considers the total establishment. At some stations at night there are perhaps two or three constables out in cars and two on duty in the station itself. That is the total strength that is available for a large police station in parts of London. If there is an emergency they have to draw upon inadequate staffs in neighbouring stations.
  That means that our law enforcement service in London is on a razor's edge. If there is sickness, or if a man is hurt, the position in the service is critical. In some cases there are more inspectors and sergeants than constables available for duty. Constables are having to work on their rest days, and this must tire them and possibly make them less efficient.
  My hon. Friend spoke about the transport service. There are two bus services in my area, the 192 and the 228, about which there are constant complaints from the public because of the inadequacy of the service. People have to wait in the rain perhaps for an hour for a bus to arrive. Grenwich is a very hilly place; there are many elderly people, and they cannot walk easily. When I wrote to Sir Richard Way about this, he replied, "Our trouble is that we cannot get staff, not so much because of inadequate salaries but because there is not the housing".
  There is a shortage of housing, and this is true not only of our transport; it

  969
  is true of our teachers as well. When my hon. Friend and I had discussions with the Department of Education and Science earlier in the year, not only on the London allowance but on the general staffing situation in London, we discovered that there was a very rapid turnover of staffs in London schools, especially in our part of London, in the South-East, and particularly amongst young teachers who had been teaching perhaps for four or five years, who wished to marry and settle down and were trying to buy a house. They were finding it quite impossible to buy a house on the salary that is paid to teachers with four or five years' service. They had to move out. I think of Abbey Wood School. Crown Woods School and some of the other large secondary schools in our area where there is a great turnover of staff. At my local primary school the headmaster told me that two of his best young teachers are leaving this week to take up appointments outside London because they cannot afford to buy houses in London.
  These questions of employment and housing go together. The career teacher is something of the past. Those of us who went to school 40 or 50 years ago can remember teachers who were on the staff for 20 or 25 years. People retired from a school in which they had begun their professional careers. That is a thing of the past. There is a tremendous turnover of staff, particularly in London.
  The other day, in Battersea, I saw a terraced house, over 100 years old, for sale at £15,000. I do not know what it cost to build, but that sort of thing is general throughout that part of South-West London. It is even worse than in our borough of Greenwich. My hon. Friend referred to prices of £12,000 and £12,500. Then people cannot get mortgages. It seems a paradox that there is increasing homelessness and yet we have the prices of housing at this excessive level. There are empty houses at high prices and people are unable to buy them.
  There is the question of rents, too. The cost of a new building is such that the rents of council houses coming on to the market are excessive—£14 or £15 at Thamesmead. What working-class family can afford that rent? I hope that when the Government put their thinking caps on they will decide that London needs to be considered by itself, that the problems of
  970
  public services in London, its employment and planning problems, are such that London needs to get a lot more attention than so far it has had.
  It is unfortunate that we have had to use this debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill to debate some of the problems of London, but it is only about once or twice a year that we get this opportunity. Yet about 8 million people live in Greater London and we Members of Parliament for London believe that we do not get adequate attention for the important problems of the people of London. The problems of the regions are constantly ventilated. There is a Secretary of State for Scotland and one for Wales, yet the combined populations of those countries would not be as great as the population whom we represent.
  I ask the Government to ensure that next Session adequate time is given for discussion of London's problems, and, more important, that in Government much greater urgency is attached to the problems of the people whom we have the honour to represent.
  5.7 a.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Keith Speed): I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Guy Barnett) on opening this debate, which has been a short but useful exchange on a number of problems in connection with London. The House will appreciate that some of the problems raised, particularly problems of the police and of education, are not for my Department, but I will certainly pass on the views expressed to my right hon. Friends.
  The problems involved in providing adequate public services in London are complex, and responsibility for many of them falls on the shoulders of the Greater London Council and the various statutory undertakers. But that is not to say that the Government are not interested or involved in the way in which these services are provided. Indeed, central Government play a large part in assisting these bodies to carry out their responsibilities and we have a duty to see that the capital city's public services are capable of supporting both the residential and the working population.
  I have some sympathy with the view of various hon. Members about the way

  971
  in which we conduct our affairs, in that we have to discuss these subjects at this sort of time in this sort of way. Again, this is not a matter for me, but I have sympathy with these views.
  In recent years it has become recognised—I think by both the last administration and the present one—that land use planning cannot be divorced from all the other aspects of city life, including the public services which make up the complete urban fabric of today. Therefore, it is necessary for the whole structure of London to be examined in its component parts and this is why the development plan for London will become London's structure plan.
  Of the various public services which come under the umbrella of my Department, transport is obviously one of considerable concern to the public and one that has been referred to tonight. I must emphasise first that the planning of public transport in London is the responsibility of the Greater London Council and not of the Government. However, we are always ready to provide generous financial support for worthwhile public transport projects put forward by the GLC or the transport undertakers.
  Since June 1970, this Government have committed over £125 million in grant to London's rail system alone. Among the schemes which we are supporting are the electrification of commuter services out of King's Cross and the construction of the first stage of the Fleet Line. I should say here—my right hon. Friend has already made this clear—that a decision on the second stage must await the result of the London rail inquiry now being conducted. In addition, there is the massive re-signalling scheme at London Bridge. All these things will make travel by rail in the London area much more attractive.
  Over the same period, since June 1970, the Government have paid over £6 million of the cost of re-equipping London's bus fleet, not to mention 75 per cent. of the cost of the 50 bus lanes so far approved in the greater London area. I believe that these bus lanes are proving a great success. They are not unique to London, being used elsewhere in the country, too, but we are backing them in London with hard cash.
  972
  The hon. Member for Greenwich will know that only yesterday afternoon 1 attended the inauguration of the Thames commuter hovercraft service running from Greenwich to Tower Bridge and Westminster—a very comfortable ride, very quick, and at very competitive fares. The Government are contributing £75,000 towards the commuter element of this hovercraft service. I am sine that the hon. Member for Greenwich and, perhaps, other hon. Members living in that part of the world will wish to make use of this service to wend their way speedily to Westminster, and perhaps back home in the evening.
  All this shows that the Government appreciate the importance of public transport in London, whether by road, by rail or now by water, and we are prepared to back it with generous financial support.
  The hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) spoke about the Dover radial route. I imagine that he would be surprised if I gave him any further hard information tonight, and I shall not surprise him. My hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Mr. William Shelton) mentioned the related topic of the terminal of the M23 and the problems of blight about which we have had considerable correspondence. Both of these problems —the Dover radial route and the M23 —are connected with the Greater London development plan and the GLC's road proposals, as hon. Members know.
  It was announced on 10th July that the transport committee of the Greater London Council recommended giving up the safeguarding of certain of the primary routes in the Greater London development plan. My right hon. and learned Friend has already made clear that if the GLC wishes to submit road proposals different from those set out in the development plan, he will consider its views before a final decision was taken.
  In its announcement, the Greater London Council said that it would shortly ask my right hon. and learned Friend to delete particular primary roads from the plan. Until he receives formal notification, however—he has not yet received it—I cannot take the case which has been put by my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and the hon. Member for Woolwich, West any further,

  973
  since both those projects are to a greater or less extent bound up with the road system in the greater London development plan and the GLC's proposals.
  We do not underestimate the problem of staff shortages on London Transport, to which several hon. Members referred. I can tell the House that Mrs. Denington has already discussed this matter briefly with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries and myself, and she is to have a further, and probably rather longer, meeting with my right hon. Friend next Wednesday, when this particular matter will be discussed. We are seized of the point. We know of the difficulties. I hope that between us, London Transport, the GLC and the Government, it will be possible in some way to relieve the present serious situation.
  Mr. Reginald Freeson: Will the Minister bear in mind in the present consultations and any to come hereafter the urgency of providing capital for London Transport to redevelop some of its bus stations and railway stations, to include, among other things, some high density housing which would be valuable in assisting with the staff shortage in London?
  Mr. Speed: I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point. That is the type of matter which we would wish to be exploring in greater detail with London Transport and the GLC. My right hon. Friend's mind is not closed to any suggestions both of a short-term nature and of a longer-term nature to try to solve the problem which, although it is particularly bad at present, has also been experienced in past years and has tended to be a recurring one.
  The question of parking meters and pricing restraint was mentioned particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and the hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. George Cunningham). The proposal not to allow parking at meters before 10.30 or 10.15 a.m. is still a tentative one by the GLC and it will be up to the council to make a firm decision. I have some sympathy with the view that road space in London is a very expensive commodity and to put a ton or so of steel on a piece of road and charge very little
  974
  for it to stay there does not seem the best way of sorting out our priorities.
  In the recent debate on urban transport the House expressed the view that we must look at this, not only in Lon. don but in other major cities and towns, to see whether we can speed the traffic, particularly public service traffic which is so essential to the life of cities. These are matters in which the GLC and my Department are very closely concerned
  The question of housing is principally one for my hon. Friends, but I want to make some comments on what has been said this morning, because public sector housing is one of the main services which the GLC and the London boroughs provide. As with the other issues I have mentioned, London's housing problems have been fully studied by the Layfield Panel of inquiry on the GDLP and the Government are currently considering the panel's recommendations. There are one or two aspects of the housing situation I want to mention without in any way prejudicing this consideration.
  Since its formation in September 1971 the Action Group on London Housing has undertaken a great deal of constructive and valuable work. The land availability survey conducted by the London authorities at the group's request in the early part of 1972 was the most detailed study ever conducted in the capital. It provided a firm base upon which the group could make predictions about the progress being made in solving the problem. Work has continued on updating and revising the returns which have now been completed in respect of almost half the London authorities. This work has resulted in the identification of additional land and it is reasonable to expect that further gains will be forthcoming as the work progresses.
  At the same time the Government have been playing their part by ensuring that all possible land that could be regarded as surplus to the requirement of Government Departments and the nationalised industries and was suitable for housing purposes was identified and released.
  Action has also been taken on the recommendation of the Layfield Report that a review should be conducted of the green belt to identify land that could be released for housing purposes without

  975
  detriment to the overall green belt policy. The Standing Conference on London and South-East Planning has been asked to conduct an urgent study and to identify up to 2,000 acres of such land.
  The group has over the past year visited 14 of the London boroughs to discuss their individual housing problems, the policies being adopted to solve these problems, and what more could be done. This included the need for assistance to be made available to inner London. The group has reported on the outcome of its visits and on the revision of the land availability figures to my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction. I expect that the group's third interim report will be published before the House rises for the Recess next week.
  For the future the group intends to turn its attention increasingly to the problems of obsolescence in London.
  The hon. Member for Islington, South-West mentioned in particular the problem of homelessness. We hope that the GLC and the London boroughs will co-operate to spread the burden of homelessness more evenly over London because this should help to ease the difficulties which obligations to rehouse the homeless cause in respect of waiting lists.
  We must not forget, as the hon. Member for Greenwich pointed out, that many recent arrivals in London came here because there are jobs in London for them in essential services which make the capital function properly. The hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) referred to a family which came from Cornwall. I do not pretend that the solution is easy, but we believe that the London boroughs and the GLC in co-operation can spread the load from some of the hardest pushed. As the report of the Layfield Panel rightly observed, obsolescence and worn-out housing is likely to be a principal problem for the future in London. The hon. Member for Islington, South-West touched particularly on this point, and he gave a number of very interesting and disturbing examples from his constituency. Coupled with an overall shortage of accommodation, this obsolescent housing leads to the pattern of housing stress, which is certainly common and
  976
  a problem in inner London, and all the side effects which arise from it.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned the question of harassment. The recent White Paper, to which the hon. Gentleman gave, not a wholehearted but a guarded and cautious welcome, entitled "Better Homes: The Next Priorities" contains proposals which were drawn up with problems of areas such as inner London very much in mind and where the social evils of overcrowding, problems of bad landlords and evictions are extremely important, perhaps more important than the physical conditions of the houses. That is the concept of the housing action areas about which the hon. Gentleman had some critical comments to make.
  The housing action area which the White Paper introduces is designed to give local authorities faced with the sort of evils which the hon. Gentleman described the powers to deal with them quickly and effectively and it offers a package of proposals—a mixture of inducements, powers and obligations—which the Government hope to give effect to in legislation to be introduced in the next session. The proposals and details are still very much open to discussion, and my hon. Friends will consult the local authorities about them. I hope—and if this message goes out from this debate it will be invaluable—that the London authorities and hon. Members will tell us how they think these proposals might be improved and, most important perhaps, I hope that local authorities and the London boroughs will draw up plans to make the maximum use of the new powers as soon as they become law so that no time is lost.
  Harassment is a criminal offence and therefore is a matter for the courts, but I appreciate the point that there is a thin dividing line—sometimes it is not so thin —which makes it extremely difficult to judge whether it is a criminal offence. We have shown our determination that harassment shall be stamped out by recently increasing the penalties for such offences where they can be proved in the criminal courts. I am aware that cases still occur. I hope that local authorities will do all that they can to prevent them by ensuring that offenders are brought to book and that tenants who are threatened with harassment are aware of their rights. If this debate and the examples mentioned concerning tenants' rights can be given

  977
  the widest publicity, and if local authorities, citizens advice bureaux and other bodies can give them wide publicity, it will be extremely useful.
  To sum up, this has been a fairly wide-ranging, fairly brief but useful debate. The various problems of London are not unique to London, but inevitably they are on a much larger scale than they are in any other part of the country. I take the point that perhaps we do not discuss London sufficiently. I could say that we do not discuss the Midlands sufficiently, but we have time to discuss places such as Wales and Scotland. However, that is not a matter for me. The comments made about the problems of the police and education will be drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friends concerned.
  The Government, together with the GLC, the London boroughs and the various statutory authorities, are tackling these problems energetically. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Greenwich that it is all crisis. The Government now have some exciting and worthwhile proposals about housing. In all these problems of transport and housing and in the problems of London we are taking action. I believe that it will be effective action, and we are backing that action by a great deal of hard cash.

  COUNCIL ON TRIBUNALS
  5 a.m.
  Mr. Michael Hamilton: I should like to speak about the Council on Tribunals. I am deeply grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General for being at his post at this inhospitable hour of the morning.
  The Council was set up in 1958. Members are appointed by and are responsible to the Lord Chancellor and for the most part they are distinguished public servants. The purpose of the Council was well expressed by Mr. R. A. Butler, as he then was, who piloted through the Bill, when he said:
  "some continuous supervision is essential if the confidence of the public is to be inspired and the citizen assured that they carry out their duties in accordance with the principles of fairness, openness and impartiality."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd July 1958; Vol. 590, c. 1606.]
  The Council costs the taxpayer £1,000 a week, but it is a modest price to pay for a
  978
  national watchdog, providing that the watchdog barks and that the Government heed that bark. I myself have always looked on the Council as the sacred geese of the Capitol—its task is to sound the alarm when things go wrong and to speak out fearlessly until things are put right.
  Some time ago a case arose in Salisbury. It was tailor-made for the Council. It was a case in which these three principles, fairness, openness, impartiality, were wholly absent. No hint or trace of any one of those three essential qualities was present.
  I need not describe the case itself now. Suffice it to say that it concerned a planning inquiry at which the central evidence was heard in secret, the first time such a thing had ever happened. The appellants called by appointment on a civil servant at the Department in Whitehall 28 days before the inquiry and the procedures were agreed without my constituents' knowledge. The Minister in charge of the Department was never consulted. The inspector was alerted beforehand. The expert witness acting for my constituents was excluded. The dice were well and truly loaded beforehand and it was a case of breath-taking injustice.
  It was for just such an eventuality that Parliament had brought the Council on Tribunals into being and I laid matters before the Council with every confidence. In due time, the Secretary wrote to me:
  "The Council recognise that a procedural point of considerable general importance has been raised. They feel that this ought to be covered by a provision in the statutory rules of procedure".
  That was in July 1969. Talks between the Council, the Lord Chancellor and the Department were thereupon launched. The Minister told the House:
  "We are having these discussions and can rely upon the Council on Tribunals to insist on rules if it is thought necessary."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th July 1969; Vol. 787, c. 2344.1
  In its annual report for 1970 the Council repeated its belief:
  "We … felt that it ought to be covered by a provision in the statutory rules of procedure."
  Twelve months later talks were still continuing.
  Again, in its annual report for 1971, the Council repeated its view:
  "that the statutory rules of procedure for planning inquiries ought to provide for any necessary hearing of evidence in camera."

  979
  Still the talks continued; still the Council held to its view. Then, in the course of the third year, new rules for planning inquiries were ready. Before being laid before Parliament the draft was circulated for comment to various bodies, such as the Country Landowners' Association. Together with the explanatory circular the draft occupied 23 pages. It read:
  "The Lord Chancellor, in the exercise of the powers conferred on him … and after consultaton with the Council on Tribunals … hereby makes the following rules."
  In tribute to the Lord Chancellor, I must say that he had worked very hard on those rules. Constitutionally he could not intervene in the appalling mistake for which his Cabinet colleague holds responsibility, but he could ensure that such injustice could never recur. Thus, the rules insisted that notice of in camera hearings was to be published in local newspapers, whereas no hint of warning had been given before. Thus, the rules insisted that an expert witness was not to be excluded, whereas the distinguished geologist from London University had been unceremoniously shown the door.
  The rules were at last ready and they would demonstrate that what had happened at Salisbury without such rules and safeguards should never have taken place. It may be that was the very reason why the rules never saw the light of day. For suddenly the Lord Chancellor stopped dead in his tracks and overnight Government policy changed. In the Government's view rules had become "inappropriate". That was the word that was used.
  Immediately I heard from the Lord Chancellor that rules had become inappropriate, I turned to the Council on Tribunals, for here was the Council firmly convinced and on record, year in, year out, that rules were essential. Moreover, the House had been assured that we could rely upon the Council to insist. Yet, within hours of the Government deciding that rules were inappropriate, the Council on Tribunals formed the same view.
  There is something painfully and profoundly wrong here. I had never taken a case to the Council on Tribunals before. I waited until I had something tailor made
  980
  for it. When I made this discovery of a twin volte-face I asked myself: is this not a watchdog that does not bark?
  The House will recall that it was Lloyd-George who said:
  "The House of Lords is not the watchdog of the constitution. It is Mr. Balfour's poodle."
  In this case either the Council on Tribunals is Mr. Balfour's poodle, or the Government are flouting the Council's expressed wish. It must be one or the other. Either we can rely upon the Council to insist or we cannot. Has the Council been robbed of the independence which Parliament intended it to have? Has the Council been steam-rollered by the Government? I said earlier that the Council is composed of public servants of distinction and from my experience of them they do not have the appearance of Balfour's poodle. They are courteous but they are firm. My conclusion is, therefore, that the Government are disregarding the Council's recommendations and I ask my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General if he will look at the relationship between the Government and the Council on this issue, if he will consult with the Council and if, having done so, he will reassure me in a letter that the Council's wishes in this case have been fully observed by the Government.
  The Lord Chancellor tells me that rules governing secret planning inquiries have been abandoned. Safeguards which he worked so hard for have been jettisoned. That is grave news. Planning regulations have existed since the beginning of the century. Until the Salisbury precedent no part of a planning inquiry had ever been held in secret and the Salisbury precedent stemmed from a decision taken one fine morning by a civil servant whom I shall call Mr. B, a decision that was never so much as referred to the Minister in charge of the Department, a decision on which Parliament and the courts have never been so much as consulted.
  Yet the Government choose to maintain the stance that a planning inquiry behind locked doors is legal, normal, unexceptional stuff; that rules for its proper conduct are unnecessary. That strikes a chill fear into my constituents. After what has happened they do not relish the thought of another privileged circle sitting behind locked doors deciding the future of their countryside. They do not

  981
  relish the principle of "choose you a man"—a man to represent you, a man sworn to secrecy for life who will never be able to consult with you although he represents you. Such things are wholly alien to the accepted principles of planning. My constituents have experienced these things once, and once is enough thank you. They believe that a public inquiry means an inquiry held in public. So does the leader in The Times.
  "The choice must be for openness", it stated. So does the overwhelming majority of hon. Members, and the Government know that and it will be demonstrated at the proper time. Therefore I ask my hon. and learned Friend to reassure me in a letter, having looked into the matter, that my constituents need fear no further in-camera planning inquiry this year. If he cannot give me that reassurance their forebodings will increase.
  It is one of the tragedies that mistakes by Government have a tendency to grow. Yet it is in the nature of things. It is one of the inescapable weaknesses of any governmental machinery. Here, for instance, we have a civil servant, Mr. B, who commits a modest error of judgment. He is then defended in this Chamber by an over-worked Under-Secretary of State, whose brief is prepared by his civil servants. That is the point of no return. From that moment, there is no going back. The Secretary of State then has to defend not only Mr. B but his Under-Secretary of State as well. So it goes up the scale. It is "The King's Breakfast" by A. A. Milne all over again. The king asked the queen and the queen asked the dairy maid.
  The chain grows in complexity. In comes the Secretary of State and in comes the Lord Chancellor. The tragedy is that the higher it goes the more difficult it becomes to remedy the original injustice. Of course these senior Ministers would like to undo the original error, but how immeasurably more difficult it becomes. It soon becomes easier to leave a few perhaps rather inarticulate Wiltshire villagers to suffer than it is to lance the cause of their discontent.
  But this is not a problem which will get lost with the passage of time. My constituents are not in a hurry. They know that Grimstead stands right astride the road. There is no skirting round the obstacle. It is there today and it will be
  982
  there tomorrow. It will be faced Uri to in time simply because there is no alternative. Somebody will break the line. It may be a court of law; it may be a professional watchdog; it may be that the Government will decide to cut their losses. My constituents are not in a hurry.
  Meanwhile, Grimstead retains its lonely distinction. It is an abiding monument to the error of civil servants in Whitehall on Wednesday, 24th May 1967. Nowhere else in the United Kingdom is there a community which suffers as a result of an in camera planning inquiry. Nowhere else in the United Kingdom is there a community condemned to watch the gradual destruction of its countryside for commercial reasons which have not been revealed to it, reasons which it has been able neither to verify nor to contest.
  The excavating company owns some 600 acres in the parish—an area perhaps twice the size of Hyde Park. The Council for the Preservation of Rural England said:
  "The beauty of this lovely stretch of rolling countryside will be largely destroyed."
  Sir Edmund Compton, no less, said:
  "… this is not to say that the complainants in this case do not suffer, because they do."
  Lord Brooke of Cumnor, no less, has made plain that local residents had no opportunity to rebut the claims which were made.
  One after another, witnesses come forward and step by step the evidence of injustice accumulates and Ministers stop dead in their tracks, contradict one another—indeed, contradict themselves. If the Solicitor-General would like me to give him examples, I shall be only too happy to do so. After all, these are no more than the symptoms of trying to maintain an untenable position. If the Solicitor-General would like me to drive him later today—it is getting light now —to my constituency, I shall be happy to take him with me. The corn is ripening, and the villages are hospitable. I shall be happy to show him what two irregular planning inquiries have brought to my constituents. He will be able to talk to people and to appreciate what the man in Whitehall has done to us.
  5.45 a.m.
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Michael Havers): The House knows of the great interest taken by my hon. Friend the

  983
  Member for Salisbury (Mr. Michael Hamilton) in the problem of the Grim-stead quarry and his unstinting and unremitting effort on behalf of his constituents. I think that this is the sixth debate which he has contrived on this subject since 25th July 1969 when the late Mr. Skeffington replied. These debates have spanned two administrations and, in all, six Ministers, including a Law Officer on two occasions, although my predecessor was lucky enough to be on duty at the more reasonable hour of 10 p.m.
  This debate is entitled "Council on Tribunals", but inevitably a great deal of what has been said by my hon. Friend was not directed to the Council on Tribunals but more to the planning errors which he claims arose out of a decision during the Labour administration. If I do not deal with that matter, I hope that my silence is not taken to mean that I accept the strictures which my hon. Friend made, and in particular in regard to his statement that there was an appalling mistake by a Cabinet colleague of my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor.
  I should like to be able to give to my hon. Friend the reward he seeks in the form of an absolute assurance that never again will an inquiry of this kind take any evidence in secret. I say this not to save myself or my colleagues late nights in the future, but because, in an ideal or utopian situation, where confidence could be honoured and commercial secrecy preserved, evidence in secret would never be necessary. This was not a case of call girls being allocated letters of the alphabet, but where it was suggested that a vital process of manufacture of a great commercial undertaking, if disclosed, could do great commercial harm to that company at the hands of its competitors. It was in those circumstances that the inquiry was in part heard in camera. That was the narrow issue of the Grimstead inquiry. But this debate—and this is why I am here and not a Minister from the Department of the Environment—is on the wider issue of the Council on Tribunals.
  I should like first to establish the position of the Council. It is made up, as my hon. Friend rightly said, of an eminent and widely respected membership. It
  984
  was set up in 1958 and has made many valuable contributions to a difficult area involving tribunals. Its duties are advisory. The duties of Ministers and my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor are to consult with the Council before making procedural rules. There is no power for the Council—in spite of what was said in the 1969 debate by the then Minister—for that Council to insist; its duties are advisory and no more. It has the power to consider and report on any aspect of the tribunal scene. I emphasise this because it cannot be steam-rollered, to use my hon. Friend's expression. The Council certainly carried out its duties to consider and report on secrecy in tribunals for in its report for the year 1969–70, in paragraph 80, it said under the heading "Evidence in camera":
  "A planning appeal in which an important part of the evidence concerned a secret industrial process of importance to the export trade was the subject of a complaint to us by a Member of Parliament who criticised the circumstances in which evidence relating to the process had been heard by the inspector in camera and had subsequently been investigated for the Minister of Housing and Local Government by technical experts in the government service. Such cases present an irreconcilable conflict of principles, and clearly only the strongest consideration can justify withholding relevant evidence from other statutory parties and objectors. We recognised that a procedural point of considerable general importance had arisen and felt that it ought to be covered by a provision in the statutory rules of procedure for planning appeal inquiries."
  I read again the following passage:
  "… only the strongest consideration can justify withholding relevant evidence from other statutory parties and objectors."
  That is a quotation which the Government accepts and endorses. As a result of that advisory reference in its annual report the Council started discussions on the basis that there should be rules. The Government took up the problem and rules were drafted. My hon. Friend, with a degree of foresight, anticipated the difficulties during the debate on 25th February 1971 when he said:
  "Today, because two years ago I took this issue to the Council on Tribunals, it lies on the desk of my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor. This gives my constituents new hope of justice. There is no one by whom they would rather see the matter considered, no one more qualified to do it. The House will appreciate that the Lord Chancellor is concerned only with the principle. He has neither power nor responsibility to intervene in Wiltshire. It is not his task to order a public

  985
  investigation. This falls to the Secretary of State.
  What then will the Lord Chancellor do? He will pronounce one way or the other. My assessment is that new rules of procedure, sufficient to safeguard fairness and justice, are likely to be so complex as to be unworkable in practice. Two years of study have so far failed to produce a satisfactory code"— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th February 1971; Vol. 812, c. 1074.]
  That was exactly the case. The rules turned out to be, in the phrase of one person consulted, "somewhat elaborate". The Council accepted that definition. One consequence was that the rules had the opposite effect to what was intended. They gave the impression that hearings in camera could be a recognised feature of inquiries. They thus had the effect perhaps of encouraging, or would have had the effect of encouraging, applications to hear cases in secret.
  The Council accepted that and said that it agreed that the elaborate rules were inappropriate. It said that it had taken the views and always had taken it that it would be desirable to have a simple rule to cover the exceptional case. But as anticipated by my hon. Friend some two years ago, reality has so far won the day and the Council has been unable to offer any such simple rule which does not have the drawbacks and disadvantages which I have mentioned.
  The Government, of course, would like to have such a simple rule. Any such rule if preferred would be examined with care. The essential requirements of the appropriate safeguards were always to moderate the risk of the wider application of secret hearings than the draftsmen ever intended.
  It is interesting that the courts, faced with similar problems, have no such rule as a matter of course and have left the decision to the discretion of the courts to be exercised on the facts of each case, with one or two special exceptions such as are found when dealing with matters of legitimacy and adoption. The practice of the courts tends to confirm that and to show that there is an advantage in the public interest in not having fixed rules for the reasons which I have explained. I am sure that the House would support the proposition that secrecy in any public inquiry is undesirable. Nobody supports it more than I, having, as a lawyer, spent a great deal of my professional life in courts.
  986
  The hearing should be in public because the public can then satisfy themselves that the hearing was fair, that justice has been done and has been seen to be done. It follows that any departure from that rule can be justified only by the most exceptional case. It is impossible to lay down hard and fast rules, but I can assure my hon. Friend that it is my right hon. Friend's intention to exercise this discretion only where those most exceptional circumstances exist.
  If it is possible to consult the Council in advance, I am sure that it will be consulted. In any event, the Council will have the opportunity—and also the duty—to consider and report upon such an event if, unhappily, it should ever become necessary again.
  Mr. Michael Hamilton: May I put straight one minor point? What my hon. and learned Friend has just told us is typical of his painstaking approach to these problems, with his colleagues. He said that I referred to an appalling mistake made by a Cabinet colleague of the Lord Chancellor. I think that we shall find that HANSARD makes plain that I explained that it was an appalling mistake for which that Minister was ministerially responsible, rather than one made by him.
  The Solicitor-General: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that clear.

  PROVINCIAL MUSEUMS
  5.57 a.m.
  Mr. Ernie Money: I should like to begin this brief debate on Government policy towards provincial museums by paying tribute to what has been achieved over the past three years. It is a heartening and remarkable record.
  In the Consolidated Fund debate just over two years ago, almost to the very date, I urged the predecessor of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to make representations about the annual acquisition grant for provincial museums and galleries administered through the Victoria and Albert Museum, which stood at £132,000. Many of us were concerned about it as we considered it to be increasingly inadequate to meet the need to assist with purchases for museums throughout the country. It was therefore most heartening news when in

  987
  January of this year an announcement was made that the grant would be increased to £400,000, with an additional £25,000 to be administered by the Royal Scottish Museum, and special funds to meet the purchase of documents and photographic and scientific and technological material for provincial museums.
  Further, great comfort can be taken from the fact that there has been a vast improvement in the conditions governing the acceptance of works of art in lieu of estate duty, in such a way as particularly to benefit provincial museums. Most encouraging is the recent announcement by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Treasury, that one of the bodies through which the scheme is to be administered will now be the National Art Collection Fund, the 70th anniversary of whose foundation falls this year, and which has always played an important part in encouraging collections throughout the country.
  There have also been special Government grants to help provincial museums in the acquisition of works of art. The basis of the museum service has been made much more feasible by the reorganisation of local authorities and in reviewing the ownership and management of museums in their areas there is a good prospect of a more satisfactory structure emerging as a result of the reorganisation.
  All of this has built up to the major pronouncement of the Wright Committee, which reported less than a month ago. The noble Lord, the Paymaster-General, was right when he said in his recent speech to the Museums Association at Dundee that all these actions, for which there was no parallel in the 1960s, were designed to prepare the groud for a favourable reception of the Wright Report, which was timed to coincide with the reorganisation of local government. There was also extremely good news that he had to announce there, when he said that there would be an increased grant for the Area Museums Councils, increased from £132,000 to £500,000, subject to parliamentary sanction, over the next few years.
  None of this, however, hides the fact that there is considerable need for major revision of regional museum structure in this country. I shall deal briefly with
  988
  specific points arising from the five major headings considered by the Wright Committee—acquisitions, buildings, staff, common services, and the structure of provincial museums as a whole.
  Concerning acquisitions, there can be little doubt that the situation was basically greatly improved by the increase in size of the Victoria and Albert grant. But there is one point that I should like my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to stress to the noble Lord, the Paymaster-General. It is some years now since the publication of the Cottesloe Report on works of art in semi-public collections. The dangers all those years ago were substantial. As the Wright Report underlines, out of the 950 museums and galleries considered by the Committee, 73 were university museums, 71 were Armed Services museums, and no less than 338 were private museums, the majority of which contained works of art that could still be disposed of by trustees without need for authorisation either by Parliament or by a local authority.
  It would be idle to suggest that considerable disappointment has not been expressed by the museum profession and by many trustees and directors of provincial museums at the fact that the Paymaster-General has not felt able at this stage to announce that the recommendations for a housing-the-museums fund could now be proceeded with. These were, of course, a major recommendation of the Wright Report. But it is right to stress straight away that in the present capital position that the country faces, it would be obviously too much, at this point, to expect that this could be achieved at once. Nevertheless, I hope that some things over and above the present position can be achieved; specifically, that there will be funds available to meet more than the purely non-key sector locally determined schemes, so that middle capital improvements can be done and it will not be necessary to put off some of the improvements which are so badly needed for museums and galleries throughout the country. One thinks immediately of the number of galleries which every time they receive a travelling exhibition have to be closed for some period.
  I therefore ask my hon. Friend to stress to the noble Lord the Paymaster-General two points that have been of

  989
  deep concern to the Museums Association. First, the eventual hope for central Government approval for loan sanction for capital schemes in designated areas without prejudice to and in addition to the locally-determined non-key sector schemes in view of the long-term postponement of so many museum projects; for example, to the Hull museum that has not been rebuilt since the war. Secondly, the need for flexibility in the grant to the Area Museum Council to allow resources for capital schemes such as the establishment of regional conservation centres and in the implementation of the 50 per cent. local government contribution as matching grant.
  I turn from there to the equally serious question regarding museum staff. The Wright Report is specific about the need for a new type of career structure. At page 22 it says:
  "There is not only a wide variation in the academic qualifications and professional training of curatorial and technical staff already in posts and, indeed in the training and experience expected of applicants for similar posts at different museums, but there is an equally wide variation in the nomenclature and status of posts, even between museums or galleries with collections broadly similar in quantity, quality and importance. The present haphazard system is confusing to members of local authority committees who may be called upon to take decisions regarding the financing of additional posts; it acts against improved recruitment to the profession in the case of those who desire to see at the outset of their careers the possibilities of an ordered progression; and it also acts as a bar to the interchange of staff between small and large museums and between local and national museums, which could do much to widen the experience of members of the profession. The obstacles in the way of movement of staff, coupled with poor promotion opportunities in some museums, result in the institutions concerned being unable to attract good quality staff and this in turn has a detrimental effect on the reputation of the institution. We believe that there would be considerable advantages to be gained by the establishment of a system of gradings, based on common job descriptions, that could be easily understood throughout the profession."
  The proof of the pudding is there in an appendix to the report which shows that out of a total of 46 curators or persons of curatorial rank who have left the profession in the last three years only 20 have gone to other local museum posts. The others have gone to national museum posts or, more often than not, to teaching, to university appointments, to commercial appointments or other appointments outside the profession. There is
  990
  also a real need to encourage the profession so that someone going from local authority employment to Civil Service employment or employment in a national museum does not lose his or her position with regard to pension rights.
  I propose to mention briefly three points on common services. The first of these is conservation. There is still considerable concern that throughout the whole of the service in the provincial museums conservation is inadequate, and I therefore press upon my hon. Friend the need to encourage, as the Wright report recommends, a common service for calling on advice from national museums and making it available to smaller museums and more advanced training facilities in conservation at selected provincial and national museums for which central finance should be made available.
  I also ask my hon. Friend to consider one specific matter. Although a good deal of money is presently available from the Department of the Environment for archaelogical digs, there is far too little money available for work on archaelogical conservation which is needed on almost everything that is brought out of the very sites for the exploration of which Government money is now available.
  Secondly, there is question of publications, public relations, cataloguing and publicity. I believe that this goes very much to the root of many of the problems which provincial museums are faced with. I was disappointed, therefore, by the Written Answer which my hon. Friend felt compelled to give me the other day that at present this is to be left entirely haphazardly to local authorities. I hope that the Department can reconsider whether a central grant could be made available, both because of the importance of museums to the tourist industry, and secondly because of the importance of letting the public know exactly what works of art are available throughout the country, and in what museums. It is a saddening reflection that major collections like Leeds and, even to this day, I believe, Bristol have not got catalogue raisonné available.
  Thirdly, there is education. I ask the Under-Secretary whether he will encourage local education authorities to accept

  991
  the recommendations of the Wright Committee with regard to five matters: that local education authorities and teachers should be made more aware of the part that musuems can play in the educational process; that education departments should be issued with synopses explaining the importance of museums in education and making education institutions aware of the facilities available; that they should be involved to a greater extent in the planning of museum services, and these should be run by the museums; that they should be enabled to provide properly equipped accommodation available for educational use; that colleges of education should develop courses in the use of the museum services; and the local education authorities should be prepared to second staffs to museums.
  On the question of training, I ask my hon. Friend to stress the need for training posts at designated museums, for bursaries for training posts, for grants to provide staff with training responsibilities and for post-experience refresher courses. No one would expect that all of this can be done immediately. The Government have made immense strides, greater than have been made in any previous period for a long time. None the less, the position remains where many museums throughout the country are still inadequate.
  In a breath-takingly stupid leading article in The Times, and not by any means the only breath-takingly stupid leading article to have appeared in that newspaper in the last few weeks, on the day following the announcement of the Wright Report on 29th June, the writer said:
  "… an unregenerate minority is not wholly extinct which likes its museums musty. You are in there till the rain stops surrounded by flat-topped glass cases containing meaningless flints to each of which a serial number is affixed; assagais adorn the walls, trophies from the Zulu wars; there is an object labelled 'ducking stool' in the corner; stuffed birds need dusting; corn-dollies of the last century fill a wall cabinet; the town crier's bell hangs by a leather strap. All labels are faded, typewritten from a blue ribbon. No one else is there. The place is a foster-child of silence and slow time. The spell would not survive any rearrangement into the display of 'significantly grouped objects' to ensure that 'the message gets across'. It would not survive a curator who had just returned from a refresher course on conservation techniques.
  992
  It would be fatal if the premises were in a good state of decoration and repair and having adequate amenities'."
  Then, coming to a climax of silliness, the article continued:
  "The Salford Science Museum is reported to have been closed to visitors because dry rot has made its building unsafe. That is pushing things too far, but it would be a pity if the Salford tradition were to disappear altogether."
  What those words are intended to mean one is very puzzled indeed to understand.
  It does not need me to remind a Minister of my hon. Friend's literary learning and knowledge of the Victorian period that it is just a hundred years since Samuel Butler wrote the celebrated "Psalm of Montreal", better known, perhaps, as "O God! O Montreal!", in which he describes the presence in the museum there of the two plaster casts,
  "… one of the Antinous and the other of the Discobolus … banished from public view to a room where were all manner of skins, plants, snakes, insects, etc., and, in the middle of these, an old man stuffing an owl.
  'Ah,'"
  said the poet,
  "'so you have some antiques here; why don't you put them where people can see them?'
  'Well, sir,' answered the custodian, 'you see they are rather vulgar.'
  He then talked a great deal and said his brother did all Mr. Spurgeon's printing."
  The result of this conversation was immortalised in the verses:
  "Stowed away in a Montreal lumber room The Discobolus standeth and turneth his face to the wall;
  Dusty, cobweb-covered, maimed and set at naught,
  Beauty crieth in an attic and no man regardeth:
  O God! O Montreal!
  Beautiful by night and day, beautiful in summer and winter,
  Whole or maimed, always and alike beautiful—
  He preacheth gospel of grace to the skin of owls
  And to one who seasoneth the skins of Canadian owls:
  O God! O Montreal!
  When I saw him I was wroth and I said,
  "O Discobolus!
  Beautiful Discobolus, a Prince both among gods and men!
  What doest thou here, how tamest thou hither, Discobolus,
  Preaching gospel in vain to the kins of owls?'
  O God! O Montreal!

  993
  And I turned to the man of skins and said
  unto him, 'O thou man of skins,
  Wherefore hast thou done thus to shame
  the beauty of the Discobolus?'
  But the Lord had hardened the heart of the man of skins
  And he answered, 'My brother-in-law is haberdasher to Mr. Spurgeon.'"
  It is exactly against that concept of the museum, in a world in which I believe the arts mean more to people than they have ever meant before, that one can only congratulate the Government on what they have done and hope that in the next few years they will continue to do a great deal more.
  6.17 a.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Money) paid a tribute, and I believe a deserved tribute, to what has been achieved in the sphere of museums and the arts over the last three years, and described those achievements in a moderate and constructive speech. With the publication of the report to which he has drawn attention, the Report of the Committee on Provincial Museums and Galleries, Government policy towards museums has entered a new phase.
  It would be right for me to pay tribute to the work in this respect of my right hon. and noble Friend the Paymaster-General. Although he is himself such a sophisticated and metropolitan figure, he has shown an unremitting concern for the regions which has given a Copernican turn to the whole of our arts policy. This report is very much his brainchild and comes as the culmination of a whole series of actions brought about by him.
  I should like to quote from a survey which my right hon. and noble Friend made during a speech in Dundee on 13th April:
  "Going back to the autumn of 1970, I was able to give the London lobby a fair hearing and then confirm the decision to put the National Railway Museum in York. Later we increased the amount of central funds out of which to help purchaser for provincial museums and set up two new funds, one for the acquisition and resulting expenses of industrial objects and the other for manuscripts and historical documents. We made special grants for the acquisition of exceptional works of art by provincial museums. We improved the conditions governing the acceptance of works of art in lieu of estate duty in such a way as to benefit provincial museums. We increased the grants to area museum councils. We drafted the new Act
  994
  to encourage the reorganised local authorities to review the ownership and management of the museums in their areas with a good prospect of more satisfactory structures emerging from their deliberations. Lastly, as one of the conditions for the introduction of charges at national museums, I was authorised to set up the Wright Committee to review the needs of the provincial museums."
  That, as my hon. Friend said, is a proud record for which full credit should be given to the Paymaster-General.
  The Government have already welcomed the report and have undertaken to give its recommendations full study in the light of the national resources which can be made available for the arts. I assure my hon. Friend that the Government will give the closest attention to all the points which are raised in the report, and will pay particular regard to those which my hon. Friend has stressed.
  It has already been possible to provide additional resources to meet some of the committee's recommendations. The fund administered by the Victoria and Albert Museum to assist purchases by local museums in England and Wales has been increased from £150,000 in 1972–73 to £400,000 in the current year. An entirely new fund of £150,000 has been set up in the current year to assist local museums to purchase material which is of interest in the technological and scientific fields. This fund is administered by the Science Museum. I have noted my hon. Friend's remarks about the Cottesloe Report.
  Area museum councils have proved their worth since they were established in 1963 and, in recognition of the important part that these councils play in assisting the care and conservation of collections in provincial museums, their grant has been increased to £132,500 in 1973–74. It is proposed, subject to the approval of Parliament, to increase the grant up to £500,000 per annum over the next few years, in the hope that this will enable museums to gain the strong technical assistance they need.
  The smaller museums cannot supply these services for themselves, and, as my hon. Friend said, they want help with conservation, they need help with display, with cataloguing, with temporary exhibitions and so on. The larger museums need extra funds with which to improve their own performance and to

  995
  assist the smaller museums in their area to do likewise.
  In addition to the increased financial aid for area museum councils, it is necessary to consider how best their organisation can be improved in order that they may develop in the way envisaged by the committee. The Department is about to enter into discussions with the Standing Commission on Museums and Galleries with a view to exploring this issue further.
  The report makes a number of sensible remarks about museum staff, and the Government share the view expressed by the committee, to which my hon. Friend referred, about the need for a proper career structure in the museum service. However, the recommendations are addressed to the employers of the staff, who are not the Government but the local authorities and a number of private persons or trusts. They alone can act upon these recommendations in the light of the overall conditions under which salaries can be raised, which are at present subject to the national incomes policy.
  A number of other recommendations are addressed directly to those responsible for maintaining museums, and the Department has drawn the attention of local authorities to the report in a circular which invites them to study its contents carefully.
  My hon. Friend went on to raise the issue of the connection of provincial museums with the educational process. I was glad to see that a section of the report is devoted to the part museums can play in the educational process. I think that there is a significant potential for development here and I should like to see the links with the educational services strengthened in the way the committee envisages.
  Accommodation is a major problem and there is clear evidence that a backlog of building projects exists. However, the report has come out at a time when the Government have to cut down their own capital spending to make room for industrial investment, which I am glad to see is at last expanding. My hon. Friend recognised the restrictions which this situation places upon the Government. In addition, it must be remembered
  996
  that the basic responsibility for housing their museums must rest with the authorities which maintain them. A sense of local involvement and responsibility is necessary and it is vitally important that the support of the authorities and the local community is enlisted in any campaign to improve the museum service.
  For these reasons, the Government do not favour the proposal to set up an entirely new fund for housing the museums. It is no good setting up a fund unless there is adequate cash to put in it. To set up a fund without adequate cash would be counter-productive, because it would serve merely to stimulate demands which could not be met.
  I know that this has caused disappointment to some people. The Government are prepared to assuage this disappointment by considering with the local authorities whether some form of central Government assistance, within the arts programme, would be justified in special cases of more than local significance. I hope that will go some way to meet the point raised by my hon. Friend.
  It is intended to examine in detail ways in which such a scheme might be implemented in relation to institutions which have a national or regional significance. If a suitable scheme could be devised, it could serve as a means of encouraging a number of institutions to develop on the lines of the centres of excellence recommended in the report. These would then be able to undertake pastoral duties in relation to neighbouring institutions.
  To sum up, the Government welcome the report wholeheartedly. It will prove a textbook for the future in this restricted but important field of provincial museums. We have accepted a number of the recommendations and we look forward to discussions with the local authorities and the museum authorities with a view to seeing how the recommendations in the report can be effectively and fully implemented.

  LITLWORTH (DEFENCE LAND)
  6.28 p.m.
  Major-GeneralJackd'Avigdor-Goldsmid (Lichfield and Tamworth):

  997
  The contents of the Nugent Report were released recently. Amongst a wide variety of suggestions the Committee recommended that the Royal Armoured Corps gunnery school should be moved from Lulworth and Lulworth be given up by the Ministry of Defence. My aim this morning is to urge the Government to reject this recommendation.
  Before doing that, I wish to congratulate the Nugent Committee on the trouble it went to, the immense detail it went into, and the amount of evidence it sifted. Despite that, the Committee's final recommendation does not follow as a logical conclusion from the factors presented.
  To understand the matter fully, we must acquire a little background knowledge. Lulworth is the Royal Armoured Corps gunnery school. Courses are run there throughout the year and officers and non-commissioned officers, after attending courses, return to their regiments where they are employed as gunnery instructors.
  In the Royal Armoured Corps gunnery is probably the most important part of the training, and the armoured regiments have in the Chieftain tank what is recognised world wide as the best tank gun in existence. It is capable of firing a high velocity, fiat trajectory, armour-piercing round for dealing with enemy tanks. It is capable of firing a high explosive round for dealing with other types of target. The rounds are entirely different, as are the techniques of shooting involved. The Chieftain also mounts machine guns.
  The sequence of instruction, whether it be at Lulworth or in a regiment, follows the same line: classroom activity, then work in the close confines of tank turret or the turret of an armoured car, followed by work on a simulator and then range practices. Shooting is an integral part of the course. This is something which the simulator cannot replace, because it cannot reproduce the flash, bang, smell, smoke and all the other things which go with normal shooting.
  Most of the armoured regiments concerned-11 of them—are stationed with the Rhine Army in Germany. There they form the main conventional hitting power of the British contribution to the NATO ground forces. While they are in Germany, they fire their annual prac-
  998
  tices on ranges at a place called Hohne. They are NATO ranges and are shared by the Germans, Belgians and Dutch. A British armoured regiment does about 10 days' firing each year and they fire by day and by night. They fire at stationary targets and at moving targets. Some practices are fired with the crews wearing respirators. It is the most important part of their annual training.
  The climax comes with what are known as battle runs, and the squadrons are exercised in fire and movement. The runs are long, the variety of target wide, and tactical handling is an integral part of the exercise. The Hohne battle runs are exceptional, and I criticise the Nugent Committee for saying that, in its opinion, the battle run at Castlemartin is unique in Europe. I have gone into this matter in some detail to get a better understanding of the problem. But the Hohne ranges are also used for guided weapon firing on ground level and from the air.
  The Nugent Committee, seeking to release Lulworth, looked at alternative sites for the gunnery school. There were two possibilities—one in Scotland, at Kirkudbright, and one in Wales, at Castlemartin. For reasons which I shall not go into, Kirkudbright was rejected. Castlemartin is at present used for five months in the year by the Germans. The Committee investigated the possibility of sharing this with the Germans. I think that I can best explain the conclusions it reached by quoting from paragraphs 70 and 71 of its report.
  "We considered whether both German and RAC training could be carried out at Castle-martin if additional ranges were built, bearing in mind the little used land at the east end of the site, or if the site were extended. We were told that the existing site could not accommodate more ranges, but that an extension of some 3,000 acres would permit both British and German training to be carried out simultaneously.
  In summary, we concluded that the RAC Gunnery School could not share the range at Castlemartin without some increase in land, or adjustment either to its own training programmes or to those of the Germans. But the Germans could not be found an alternative training area in the United Kingdom, except at Kirkcudbright, and then only if additional land were acquired."
  The Committee went on to consider the acquisition of this extra land but rejected that because 3,000 acres were
  "good quality farming land much used for holiday purposes".

  999
  Furthermore, the Committee was honest enough to admit that it found opposition from the Welsh Office and local authorities.
  It then examined the possibility of sharing Castlemartin on a 9:3 basis, that is, nine months for ourselves and three months for the Germans. The British Army was to have its time reduced to nine months, which would mean having to push through in nine months what had taken twelve. That would entail additional skilled instructions and additional equipment, apart from the fact that they would be wasted when the Germans were on the ranges.
  The ramifications on the German side are more serious. First, range sharing is never an easy operation. Secondly, if the Germans were to have their range allocation reduced from five to three months—this year it is seven months—they would naturally require more time on their NATO ranges at Hohne. That would have the effect of reducing the time allocated to British, Belgian and Dutch regiments.
  I have already tried to explain the importance of this period. In summer, when it is dry, the tracer from the rounds often causes fires in the scrub, the peat and the heather. The fires have to be beaten out and shooting time is lost in the process.
  In summary, these were some of the main factors. Despite that, the final recommendations of the Committee were that Lulworth should be given up and that the Royal Armoured Corps should have to go to Castlemartin and that the range should be shared, leaving the method to be discussed with the German authorities. This decision will entail a vast new building programme at Castle-martin where at present there is merely a hutted camp.
  I should like to comment on the final recommendations and on a series of priorities which it is up to the Government to decide. But which comes first: the efficiency of the Royal Armoured Corps and the need for it to train on and fire its operational equipment, or the desire to accede to the wishes of pressure groups which are not supported by the local population?
  1000
  Secondly, why did the Committee seek the highest military advice available, in the form of the Chief of the General Staff, Field Marshal Sir Michael Carter, and then disregard it?
  Why have the full ramifications been disregarded of reducing the German allocation, with the effect that that might have on British regiments in Germany?
  Why, at a period of financial stringency, was a blind eye turned to the fact that if this project were put into effect it would require additional instructors and equipment on our side?
  The third and most important point relates to expenditure which was mentioned only in the final recommendation. The Committee passed off the sum of £14 million quietly by saying that it would be required for building at Castle-martin the barracks, instruction rooms, tank hangars, workshops and married quarters, all of which are at present in good order and in use at Lulworth. This project, which is being submitted at a time when the defence budget is being cut by £50 million, is phased over five years. In my experience, the cost of buildings does not decrease year by year.
  This project is unnecessary, wickedly wasteful financially and harmful to the efficiency of the Royal Armoured Corps. I hope that in his reply my hon. Friend will give a breakdown of the £14 million and will say whether it has been calculated at 1973 or at 1978 prices, as this is a five-year project.
  The Nugent Committee recommended that this item should not be a charge against the defence budget. Will my hon. Friend guarantee that it will not be a charge against the defence budget? On whose charge will it fall?
  Finally, I urge the Government, in grounds of economy, common sense and military efficiency, not to accept the recommendation of the Nugent Committee so far as it affects Lulworth.
  6.44 a.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. Peter Blaker): I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Major-General Jack d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) for raising what is pehaps the single most important recommendation about individual training sites

  1001
  in the Nugent Report. I am also grateful to him for giving me advance notice of the most important points that he intended to raise.
  My reply must necessarily be brief, for reasons which I will explain. That implies no discourtesy to my hon. and gallant Friend and no suggestion that the subject is unimportant. Indeed, it is of very great importance.
  The Nugent Report was published only two weeks ago and it is the Government's intention to give an opportunity for public comment and discussion so that all views expressed can be taken fully into account in considering the recommendations of the report. As the report was very long and complex, the Government published an explanatory memorandum at the same time to focus attention on the main issues raised and drew particular attention to the difficulties recognised by the Nugent Committee in its recommendation that the Lulworth ranges should be released and the RAC Gunnery School should move to Castle-martin. These were the practicability of the RAC Gunnery School sharing the facilities at Castlemartin with the German Army; the environmental considerations that would arise at Castlemartin; and the estimated heavy cost of the transfer.
  I cannot of course today forecast what the Government's decision will be. Nor can I answer for the Nugent Committee, which was independent in its assessment of relative priorities or the weight it put on the very extensive range of evidence submitted to it. Therefore, some of the questions by my hon. and gallant Friend are not for me to answer. They concern the reasons why the Committee took the view it did.
  There are two points of general interest which are brought out very clearly in the Nugent Committee's Report on Lulworth. First there is the difficulty of finding alternative locations for defence activities, particularly service ranges. There is a misconception, widely if not universally shared, that there are large areas of land or coast, particularly in Scotland or the north of England, which might be used to take defence activities, including gunnery ranges.
  The examination by the Committee—which was very full—of possible sites for
  1002
  the Lulworth ranges showed that the only site which could meet the necessarily stringent military and safety requirements, without the acquisition of additional land, was the existing RAC range at Castlemartin in Wales. Second, the report shows, and again this is well brought out in the committee's examination of the problem we are discussing today, that the preservation of wild life and important archaeological features is by no means incompatible with the operation of a service range.
  A number of those who gave evidence to the committee thought that military occupation had on balance, preserved the beauty of the landscape and created an important wild life reserve, as well as preserving important archaeological remains.
  Other matters of equal importance are dealt with fully and fairly by the committee. Indeed, no one who has read the report, especially on the whole difficult and complex issue of the future of Lulworth, could fail to pay tribute to the great industry shown in examining all shades of opinion and all possible courses of action.
  Perhaps the best picture of the final balance struck in their considerations can be found in paragraph 85.
  "We recognise the importance to the British Army of the training facilities which are at present provided in Germany and the need to avoid action which would prejudice them. We think that there is a reasonable basis for opening consultations with the German Government about their future training needs in this country. with the prospect that it can continue unchanged or even be increased for the next five to seven years and thereafter might possibly continue for some lesser but still useful period each year. We have naturally been unable to put our proposals to the German Government, but propose that consultation should now take place on how best to provide for German training requirements in this country in the future."
  I can assure the House that we are now well embarked on those consultations with the German Government.
  As I have already indicated, the problem of the cost of transferring the RAC Gunnery School to Castlemartin is well recognised. The figure of f14 million is not a detailed estimate based on a full-scale works investigation, but a broad estimate of the cost given to the committee. It is at 1972–73 prices. It covers the

  1003
  cost of providing at Castlemartin facilities comparable to those at Lulworth.
  The eventual Government decision will, of course, include consideration of costs. As regards the source from which the money might be found, my hon. and gallant Friend will have observed that the committee recommends that the cost should not fall on the defence budget. I regret that again I cannot anticipate what arrangements would be made if it were decided to release Lulworth.
  My reply has been short, for the reasons I have mentioned, but the debate has been a valuable contribution to the present phase of public comment and discussion, which was the object of the publication of the report by the Government. I have no doubt that others, whether organisations, individuals, or local authorities, will have comments on the report, and if so they should send them to the Ministry without delay. Like the views of my hon. and gallant Friend, they will be taken fully into account by the Government in considering this difficult issue.

  EAST ANGLIAN PORTS (TRANSPORT SERVICES)
  6.51 a.m.
  Mr. Julian Ridsdale: I realise that the House has been sitting for a long time and I shall endeavour to be as brief as possible. Neverthless, I welcome this opportunity to raise some very important issues which affect not only my constituency, with the important ports of Harwich and Parkeston, but also the Haven ports—a complex including Felixstowe—because the amount of traffic built up and the amount of trade gained through these ports has been increasing enormously and has every prospect of continuing to increase.
  My purpose in the first place arose from a meeting that I had with people concerned with roads to the ports in this area at Ipswich earlier this year, when we had a discussion on the best routes to the ports from the Midlands. In the discussion, I noticed how the route to Felixstowe and the Haven ports from the Midlands had grown piecemeal, as it were, and I challenged whether the route to Felixstowe, Harwich and Parkeston from the Midlands, through Newmarket,
  1004
  Bury St. Edmunds and Ipswich, was the best.
  I am certain that it is in the best interests of the country that there should be a much more direct route from the Midlands than this circuitous route. I hope the Government are embarking on an inquiry to see whether there is a direct route from the Midlands to the Haven ports. What research has been done? This is one of the most important problems facing us in the Haven ports. I have pressed for this over the years, as have other hon. Members, and I hope the Minister in reply will say what research is being carried out and what action is being taken to see that we get a much more direct route to the Midlands than that which now seems to be growing piecemeal.
  There has been an enormous increase in our traffic, which is building up still further and is bringing the sort of problems we find in London down to the smaller towns in Harwich and Dover-court. There is a concentration of traffic in side streets and we are naturally anxious about the problem of juggernauts. What are the Government doing to strengthen existing law procedures in terms of these juggernauts? There are certainly far too many of them, and a number of them have been travelling overweight.
  What is being done to look for suitable parking areas? Now that the Government have postponed the decision on the building of a prison in the Wrabness area where the old Admiralty depot building is, is it not possible for this site to be used as a parking area for the Harwich and Parkeston complex of ports?
  The Government are spending £10 million in acquiring sites for a national network of night parks to take lorries off the streets. What is being done to help the Haven ports and what plans are there for lorry parks, particularly in the Harwich and Parkeston area, to stop this concentration of traffic down the narrow lanes?
  Now that improvements are being made to the A12, what is the latest information about the roads which will branch out from the A12 to the Haven ports, particularly Harwich and Parkeston? I want to be sure that we do not have large lorries trundling down

  1005
  country lanes and that when the bypass to Colchester is built, there will also be proper links to the Harwich and Parkeston ports as well.
  As the Minister knows, stage 2 of the bypass to Harwich Navy Yard is dependent on a decision being made about the mudflats, but as this is such an obvious route for the bypass I hope that the new scheme will be completed very soon. I know that final decisions are being taken by the Crown Estate Commissioners and the Ports Council. I hope that all these decisions will be taken quickly, because it is very much in the interests of Harwich and Dovercourt to ease their traffic problems.
  There is one other problem connected with the roads. This concerns some of the uneconomic bus services, some of which may shortly be withdrawn. I want to make sure that if they are withdrawn, the Minister will issue licences to private operators to help people who live in the rural areas. I hope that those operators will be able to provide services as good as, and perhaps even cheaper than, the existing services. What happened when the railways gave up the ferry some years age should act as an example. That ferry is now being run efficiently and economically in respect of Felixstowe.
  All these are important problems with which the Government must deal urgently, since the build-up of traffic is enormous. We welcome what is being done. Those of us who knew the A12 some years ago will welcome the fact that it is now one of the best roads in the country, apart from one or two bypasses that have to be made at Chelmsford and Colchester. We welcome the advent of the Wix bypass, which will be opened shortly. All these are pointers to what is being done. The Government say that in general the major ports will be linked with the existing network of motorways in the mid-1970s. The Haven ports form a major port complex and I trust that the Government's plans will be expedited as much as possible. That is what must happen. We must see that the Haven ports are linked properly with the motorway complex, as the Government say, by the late 1970s.
  The Government are to spend £10 million on acquiring sites for a national network of night parks to take lorries off
  1006
  the streets. How much of that money will go to the Harwich, Parkeston and Haven ports? The Government have issued new draft proposals for the siting and advising of lorry routes, especially to and from the ports. What effect will that have in north-east Essex?
  These proposals are all satisfactory in general terms, but I want to know in detail how much is being done to help north-east Essex and the Haven ports in particular?
  7.6 a.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Keith Speed): With the leave of the House, I ask to speak again. I was speaking in a debate an hour and a half ago. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) on raising this important subject. It is one subject which he has been most energetic in pursuing in correspondence with myself and my right hon. Friend. I cannot give my hon. Friend an answer on the parking problem at present. I have noted what he says. I can confirm that my Department is considering the matter. It is accepted that part of the national network of lorry parks will be in the Haven ports area for reasons which my hon. Friend has indicated. I shall say a quick word about bus services. The issuing of licences is a matter for traffic commissioners, as my hon. Friend will know, and they are independent bodies. They would not take it very kindly if my right hon. Friend told them what they should or should not issue. My hon. Friend's comments on that matter will be noted.
  Next, I deal with the overloading of vehicles. We passed the Heavy Commercial Vehicles (Controls and Regulations) Act last year. At that time the number of foreign vehicles coming into the country overloaded was approximately 80 per cent. It was a very high percentage. I am pleased to say that that has been reduced to less than 15 per cent. It is still too high, but it is being reduced. We are having extra enforcement officers at various ports. I am confident that the problem of overloading of foreign vehicles will soon be very much under control. Indeed, it is already under control.
  Effective communication between our industrial areas and the major ports is

  1007
  of great importance to our prosperity and economic growth. That is particularly so now that we are members of the European Economic Community. The East Coast ports are important in the European context.
  It is also important that the towns and villages should not suffer. Greater use of heavier lorries has meant relatively fewer journeys and the more economical carriage of freight, but there is no doubt that they are becoming increasingly out of scale with the towns which they pass through and we must take steps to mitigate their effect. The Government's trunk road strategy reflects those two requirements with two of its main aims being to divert long-distance traffic away from towns and villages and serving all major ports.
  Only last year the Government announced plans for the further acceleration of selected schemes on some of the key routes to the ports, particularly Tilbury, Hull and the Haven ports. Within the next few years we can look forward to the completion of the M62 from Liverpool across the Pennines to Hull—already Manchester and Leeds are linked by the M62—the M3 route from London to Southampton, the M40-A34 route from the Midlands to Southampton, the M20 route from London to the Channel ports —namely, Folkestone and Dover—and the network of improvements in Essex and East Anglia in which my hon. Friend is especially interested and which he has pursued so diligently during the past few years. The completion of this work over the next few years will be of great benefit to those living along the existing routes to the ports as well as to the port traffic itself.
  The port traffic can not only avoid towns into which it has no desire to intrude but, because of the reduction in congestion, can have much improved journey times. More efficient use can be made of vehicles and drivers. Increased reliability also helps in the ports themselves. The overall result is enhanced competitiveness for our exports and wider cost savings which we hope will be reflected in the home market.
  There has been some pressure on the Department to build all the improved routes to ports as motorways to maximise
  1008
  the advantages to industry. I am convinced, however, that the costs—to the environment and in resource terms—of following such a course would outweigh the benefits to industry and that we are right to determine the standard of improvement—all-purpose, motorway, number of lanes, and so on—primarily on what the traffic requires.
  I have spoken of the importance of bypasses and improved routes for both traffic and towns. Unfortunately, the one town that usually cannot be relieved of the ports traffic is the port town itself. This is not always so. The recently completed southern relief road at Felixstowe is one example where it has been possible to remove dock traffic completely from the town. But where this cannot be done the important thing is to guide traffic from the docks to the inter-urban network by suitable routes and as quickly as possible Advisory lorry routes are now being signed in a number of towns to achieve this objective. Ipswich and Harwich are two examples. The routes are advisory, but my right hon. Friend has made it clear that in the future he will consider stronger measures.
  My hon. Friend mentioned what are popularly called juggernauts. Lords amendments to the Heavy Commercial Vehicles (Controls and Regulations) Bill' of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) are to be discussed on Friday. If they are accepted and the Bill is enacted, they will give my right hon. Friend and, more particularly, the new counties, considerable powers, which I hope they will use to control heavy lorries sensibly and realistically.
  All this indicates the importance that we attach to transport to the ports. But I must add that in pressing ahead with our programme it is also very important to ensure that the public are properly consulted and that a full opportunity for objection is given before road improvements are undertaken. Equally, these improvements must be designed in careful relation to the countryside they pass through and, of course, be well landscaped.
  Perhaps I can illustrate what we are doing and intend still to do by reference to East Anglia and to my hon. Friend's constituency of Harwich. The main ports

  1009
  concerned are the Haven ports of Harwich, Felixstowe and Ipswich, plus Great Yarmouth and Kings Lynn. The routes of importance to them are the A17/A47 from the north Midlands to Kings Lynn and Great Yarmouth, the A45 from the Midlands to the Haven ports, and the M11 /A11 and Al2 routes from London. Together with their connections to the national route network these roads link the East Anglia ports with the remainder of the country.
  All have been or will be improved to a high standard by our present plans. The Al2 is already far advanced. The road is completed to dual-carriageway standard from Brentwood to Colchester, with the exception of the Chelmsford bypass, where the Department has recently conducted a public participation exercise on three possible lines. The Colchester northern bypass is under construction, and we expect to publish orders for the Colchester eastern and Elmstead Market bypass, which will continue the improvement well along A604 towards Harwich later in the year. Construction of the latter scheme, subject to the statutory procedures, could begin in 1975.
  Further schemes on Al2 from. Colchester to beyond Ipswich should be complete by 1977, except that the Ipswich bypass itself, which we put into preparation last year, will take a little longer to complete. It involves major engineering works, including the crossing of the River Orwell and other matters.
  Work is now going ahead fast on the A45 from Cambridge to Ipswich. This is not what it may appear to be—a piecemeal approach. It will be a very high-quality route.
  Three schemes—the Newmarket and Bury St. Edmunds bypasses and the Stowmarket — Needham Market — Claydon bypass—are now under construction.
  The remainder needed to complete this section of the route are at various stages of preparation. I hope that we shall complete them by 1977. We are at present conducting a study into what is needed to complete this route from Al to M1 and the Midlands. I hope that we shall have a report by the end of the year on which to base further action. Indeed, this report is in advance, because it was not expected originally until the spring of next year.
  1010
  In addition, we are also making a study of the possibility of a route from the M1 to the M11 in the Bishop's Stortford area.
  These two routes will provide the Haven ports with really good access routes and will bring relief from port traffic not only to the many historic towns along them—Cambridge, Newmarket, Bury St. Edmunds, Ipswich and Colchester—but also to towns and villages on other minor roads in the area which are at present used by traffic as short cuts or ways of avoiding bottlenecks. This often causes great misery, hardship and distress in many of these small towns and villages. I think that the main flows of through traffic will find that they cannot afford not to use our high-standard routes. With the powers in the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East and those that are already available, local authorities will be able to take steps to see that heavy lorries use the routes that are designed for them.
  For the Norfolk ports—this is important in an East Anglian context—work on M11/A11 on to Norwich and the A17/A47 route from the Midlands will again greatly improve access. King's Lynn southern bypass is now under construction and my right hon. Friend, the Minister for Transport Industries announced earlier this month that he hoped to be able to authorise the start of work on stage 1 of East Dereham bypass early in the financial year 1974–75.
  We have little doubt, too, that there has been far too little done and far too much neglect of East Anglian routes in the past. But resources were limited, and it is arguable that it was right to concentrate on the nucleus of a national network. Whatever may have happened in the past, the present Government have changed that. We are determined that East Anglia and the important Haven ports will have a very high priority indeed.
  We have entered a new phase in the development of our road system. The emphasis is on improving links to the ports and on relieving existing routes, and relieving much of the hardship, distress and problems which so many of the towns and villages have had to put up with. I have been to see them myself, and I greatly sympathise with my hon. Friends' constituents. But it is in no small part

  1011
  due to their efforts in pressing this matter on the Government—and the Government can take considerable credit for responding to the problem—that we now have a programme which I believe will transform East Anglia and the Haven ports. This means that the main roads in north-east Essex and East Anglia will benefit greatly and, even more important, the constituents of my hon. Friends will get some much needed relief.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.
  Committee this day.

  EXPENDITURE COMMITTEE
  Ordered,
  That during the remainder of the present Session Standing Order No. 87 (Expenditure Committee) shall have effect as if the word 'two' were substituted for the word three ' in line 29 in respect of the Education and Arts Sub-Committee appointed by that Committee.—[Mr. Rossi.]

  SOCIAL SECURITY
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [22nd March],
  That the Family Income Supplement (Computation) (No. 2) Regulations 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.—[Mr. Rossi.]
  Question agreed to.

  LOCAL LOANS
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [22nd March],
  That the Local Loans (Increase of Limit) Order 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 22nd June, be approved.—[Mr. Rossi.]
  Question agreed to.

  COAL INDUSTRY
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [22nd March],
  That the Redundant Mineworkers and Concessionary Coal (Payments Schemes) Order 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 4th July, be approved.—[Mr. Rossi.]
  Question agreed to.

  ADJOURNMENT
  Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Rossi.]
  Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes past Seven o'clock a.m.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Prices
  Prices
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Swine Vesicular Disease
  Swine Vesicular Disease
  Pest Control and Crop Protection
  Pest Control and Crop Protection
  Inshore Fishing Industry
  Inshore Fishing Industry
  Cereals Levy (Computation)
  Cereals Levy (Computation)
  Price Labelling
  Price Labelling
  Fauldhouse, West Lothian
  Fauldhouse, West Lothian
  Dressed Poultry
  Dressed Poultry
  Food Subsidies
  Food Subsidies
  Bread
  Bread
  Veal Calves
  Veal Calves
  Animals and Birds (Imports)
  Animals and Birds (Imports)
  Commonwealth Sugar
  Commonwealth Sugar
  Fish Farming
  Fish Farming
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Personal Incomes
  Personal Incomes
  Government Contracts (Tendering)
  Government Contracts (Tendering)
  Indirect Taxation
  Indirect Taxation
  European Monetary Union
  European Monetary Union
  Tax Credit Scheme
  Tax Credit Scheme
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Illegal Immigration
  Illegal Immigration
  Motoring Offences (Notices of Prosecution)
  Motoring Offences (Notices of Prosecution)
  Bail Hostels
  Bail Hostels
  Kingston upon Hull (Urban Aid)
  Kingston upon Hull (Urban Aid)
  Escort Agencies
  Escort Agencies
  Remands in Custody
  Remands in Custody
  Bulls (Byelaws)
  Bulls (Byelaws)
  Fines (Enforcement)
  Fines (Enforcement)
  Scientology
  Scientology
POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
  British Broadcasting Corporation (Employees)
  British Broadcasting Corporation (Employees)
  Telephone Vehicles
  Telephone Vehicles
  Mail Deliveries
  Mail Deliveries
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Central Policy Review Staff
  Central Policy Review Staff
  St. Cross Hospital, Rugby
  St. Cross Hospital, Rugby
  Birmingham Regional Hospital Board
  Birmingham Regional Hospital Board
  Hospital Building
  Hospital Building
  Health Expenditure
  Health Expenditure
  Hospital Waiting Lists (Rugby)
  Hospital Waiting Lists (Rugby)
  Butter Tokens (Merseyside)
  Butter Tokens (Merseyside)
  Arrowe Park Hospital, Birkenhead
  Arrowe Park Hospital, Birkenhead
  Family Allowances
  Family Allowances
  Hospital Waiting Lists (Report)
  Hospital Waiting Lists (Report)
  Retropspective Legislation
  Retropspective Legislation
  Social Security Benefits (Anonymous Letters)
  Social Security Benefits (Anonymous Letters)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Saccharin
  Saccharin
  North Sea Oil
  North Sea Oil
  Liaison Offices (Universities and Polytechnics)
  Liaison Offices (Universities and Polytechnics)
  Merseyside
  Merseyside
  Industrial Production
  Industrial Production
  Departmental Information (Service to Members)
  Departmental Information (Service to Members)
  Manufactured Goods (Imports)
  Manufactured Goods (Imports)
  Motor Vehicles (Trade Descriptions Act 1968)
  Motor Vehicles (Trade Descriptions Act 1968)
  HS 146
  HS 146
  Shepperton Studios
  Shepperton Studios
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Greece
  Greece
  Portuguese Prime Minister (Visit)
  Portuguese Prime Minister (Visit)
  Khmer Republic (Refugees)
  Khmer Republic (Refugees)
DEFENCE
  Rubber Bullets
  Rubber Bullets
  Ex-Service Officers (Private Employment)
  Ex-Service Officers (Private Employment)
  Contracts
  Contracts
  Land Holdings
  Land Holdings
  Falkland Islands (Duty Ship)
  Falkland Islands (Duty Ship)
  Concorde
  Concorde
  Shipping Restrictions (Dorset)
  Shipping Restrictions (Dorset)
COUNTER-INFLATION POLICY
  COUNTER-INFLATION POLICY
  COUNTER-INFLATION POLICY
CIVIL SERVICE (POLITICAL APPOINTEES)
  CIVIL SERVICE (POLITICAL APPOINTEES)
  CIVIL SERVICE (POLITICAL APPOINTEES)
SCOTTISH OIL ADIVORY COUNCIL
  SCOTTISH OIL ADIVORY COUNCIL
  SCOTTISH OIL ADIVORY COUNCIL
ECONOMIC GROWTH
  ECONOMIC GROWTH
  ECONOMIC GROWTH
CHINA
  CHINA
  CHINA
BRUSSELS
  BRUSSELS
  BRUSSELS
SCOTLAND
  SCOTLAND
  SCOTLAND
CIVIL SERVICE DEPARTMENT
  CIVIL SERVICE DEPARTMENT
  CIVIL SERVICE DEPARTMENT
HAMMERSMITH
  HAMMERSMITH
  HAMMERSMITH
PRICES (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  PRICES (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  PRICES (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)
REGIONAL EMPLOYMENT PREMIUM
  REGIONAL EMPLOYMENT PREMIUM
  REGIONAL EMPLOYMENT PREMIUM
ISLE OF MAN
  ISLE OF MAN
  ISLE OF MAN
PORTUGUESE PRIME MINISTER (VISIT)
  PORTUGUESE PRIME MINISTER (VISIT)
  PORTUGUESE PRIME MINISTER (VISIT)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Housing (Water Closets)
  Housing (Water Closets)
  Busmen (Belfast)
  Busmen (Belfast)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Accountants
  Accountants
  Ex-Civil Servants (Private Employment)
  Ex-Civil Servants (Private Employment)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Disabled Pupils and Students
  Disabled Pupils and Students
  Museums and Galleries
  Museums and Galleries
  Teacher Turnover
  Teacher Turnover
EMPLOYMENT
  Heavy Goods Vehicle Drivers
  Heavy Goods Vehicle Drivers
  Foundries (Accidents)
  Foundries (Accidents)
  Hull
  Hull
  Milling Machine Regulations
  Milling Machine Regulations
  Smethwick
  Smethwick
  Vacancies
  Vacancies
  Selective Employment Tax (Charities)
  Selective Employment Tax (Charities)
  Merseyside
  Merseyside
  Retrospective Legislation
  Retrospective Legislation
ENVIRONMENT
  Local Authorities (Subsidies)
  Local Authorities (Subsidies)
  House Prices (Midlands)
  House Prices (Midlands)
  Council House Rents
  Council House Rents
  Lorries (Dover)
  Lorries (Dover)
  Government Grants (Warley)
  Government Grants (Warley)
  Housing (Northern Region)
  Housing (Northern Region)
  Council House Building
  Council House Building
  Gipsy Caravan Sites
  Gipsy Caravan Sites
  Wenlock Edge
  Wenlock Edge
  Harwich Harbour Board
  Harwich Harbour Board
  European Lorries (Insurance)
  European Lorries (Insurance)
  Roads (Grants)
  Roads (Grants)
  Housing (Luton)
  Housing (Luton)
  Water Authorities
  Water Authorities
  Overspill Estates
  Overspill Estates
SCOTLAND
  Farm Incomes
  Farm Incomes
  Farms and Farmworkers
  Farms and Farmworkers
  Troon (Traffic Congestion)
  Troon (Traffic Congestion)

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

WAR PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: 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, when reviewing war pensions and allowances this autumn, they will have regard to the new benefits available to ex-Servicemen since April 1, 1973, under the Ministry of Defence Attributable Pension Scheme and the Criminal Injuries to Persons (Compensation) Act (Northern Ireland); and adjust the payments for the veterans and widows of the 1914–18 and 1939–45 Wars, so that all get treated alike.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): No, my Lords. The war pensions and allowances paid by my Department to or in respect of former members of the Armed Forces for disablement or death due to service are reviewed annually and will be substantially increased from October 3. These pensions are quite separate from those paid under the Armed Forces occupational pension scheme, the improved terms of which will apply to those who give service on or after March 31, 1973. The Criminal Injuries to Persons (Compensation) Act (Northern Ireland) 1968 enables any person, civilian or Serviceman, to make a claim in the county courts for damages for criminal injuries due to terrorist activity, and the assessment of compensation is entirely a matter for those courts. The level of war pensions could not be related to such compensation.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend, who is himself an ex-Serviceman, and a sympathetic one, as I know, may I ask him to put himself in the position of, for example, the blinded soldier? Here is one blinded in the First World War—there are very few left now. Here is one blinded in the Second World War. And here is one blinded in Northern Ireland now. They get different rates of compensation. It does not interest them where it comes from or what scheme it comes under: it all comes from the taxpayer and from Parliament. May I ask whether Parliaments have not been generous over 50 years (as I think they have been), and whether my noble friend, in spite of the logic of his Answer, will refer this matter to the relevant Ministers in the other place for further consideration?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, there are two quite separate schemes. There is the war pensions scheme run by my Department, which provides State compensation for death or disablement on a flat rate basis, and which does not distinguish between any of the war pensioners or their widows wherever the injury or death may have occurred. Then there is the earnings related payment pension made by the Ministry of Defence, which varies, as any other occupational pension scheme varies, according to when the man was serving and his terms of service.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, recalling the Question that I ventured to put to the noble Lord yesterday, which was followed up by several of my noble friends and noble Lords opposite, and particularly in view of the submission now made by the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, who has great knowledge of those involved in war pensions and the like, may I ask whether the noble Lord would not reconsider the position and seek to co-ordinate the two forms of pension so that war widows, in particular—although I agree that others are affected—who were bereaved in the First World War and in the Second World War are not placed at a disadvantage as compared with those bereaved in subsequent conflicts?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I readily acknowledge the expert knowledge of my noble friend Lord Fraser and of

1365
the noble Lord who has asked this supplementary question, but this is difficult. Our own scheme, the war pensions scheme of the Department of Health and Social Security, is adjusted every year, and big improvements are being made this October which will apply to all Servicemen and their widows. But it is a very different thing to ask us to change an occupational pension scheme, which has been very much improved since March, and to make payment retrospectively to those who were not serving when the new conditions of service were introduced.
LORD HALE: My Lords, is not the noble Lord aware that there really is no greater claim upon the gratitude of the nation or the sentiment of the country than that of those who were disabled in the course of the 1914–18 war? Those of them who still survive—and I have a letter in my pocket from one who was disabled in 1924 in slave trading operations—surely have a right to look to an immediate recognition of parity of treatment. While I appreciate what the noble Lord said about the October review, has it not been constantly demonstrated that the existence of these separate compartments provides an enormous amount of expensive work for the Government's legal advisers and legal departments, who will fight over a few shillings and call it an issue of principle, and that if parity in general were recognised as the first principle and gradually applied a great deal of grievance would be removed?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, there is complete parity in the war pensions scheme operated by my Department, but I do not see how you can have parity in an occupational pension scheme when new conditions and better conditions are introduced progressively. It would be extraordinarily expensive retrospectively to give those same conditions to Servicemen who had already retired from the Forces.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, while I recognise the noble Lord's difficult in this matter, could he not look at this again to see whether it is not possible, without changing any of the schemes—if there is technical difficulty in the way—to bring up the pensions of war widows bereaved in the wars of 1914–18 and
1366
1939–45 to the level of those who are involved in subsequent conflicts?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I will certainly see that my noble friend the Secretary of State for Defence knows what has taken place in this House, both to-day and yesterday.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend one further question about this word "retrospection"? Nobody is asking him to pay for 50 years back to the First World War or even seventy years back to the Boer War. These men are still alive: they are disabled in the same way and they have the same cost of living. It is not retrospection; it is something for to-day and to-morrow.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, what I meant was that when they were serving there were certain conditions of service (including perhaps the occupational scheme run by the Ministry of Defence), and now there is a new and improved scheme which does give better treatment to those who are serving to-day than to those who served previously.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, would the Minister not agree that there is a very strong case for equalising the conditions for all persons who have suffered from military action, whether they be widows or disabled persons? Would he not also agree that there are occasions when the Government are not wholly opposed to legislation with retrospective effect when it works to the disadvantage of people in this country? Would he not further agree that the number of persons who go back to the 1914–18 War who are involved in this differentiation is bound to be small? Hardly any of them can be younger than I am myself, having ben a war widow from the 1914–18 War, though not any longer taking, or having wished for many years to take, a pension. None of them is younger than myself and, in the ordinary course of nature, their number is likely very quickly to decline.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, the fact of the matter is that if the new widows' pensions provisions which came into operation on March 31 last were applied to all war widows, the cost might well approach £100 million a year. However that may be, the principle of all

1367
occupational schemes is that you only receive the pension for which you qualify after you have joined that particular scheme.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord would be good enough to refresh the memory of your Lordships' House about the case of those who are over 80 and who have made no contribution towards a pension scheme, but in spite of that the present Government felt it right and justifiable to pay them? To that extent the noble Lord has a precedent for the matter of these war widows.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, that was a particular priority case, in which we did make an exception—and it was done after the noble Lord's Government had refused to do so.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Lord may say there was a special priority, but I would hope he might realise that the feeling in this House is that there is a special priority in regard to these war widows.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, this case concerned a national scheme. These people over 80 were receiving nothing—I repeat, nothing—and when noble Lords opposite formed part of the Government they refused to give them anything. This is very different from an occupational pension scheme. These Servicemen and their widows are receiving a pension under the war pensions scheme. What we are talking about is an occupational pension scheme.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, just one thing more and then I hope we might leave this. Would the noble Lord recognise that we accept his criticism in respect of the over 80's, but we also recognise that though they themselves may have made no financial contribution, the war widows in fact made a major contribution to the war effort?
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, could the noble Lord say how much it would cost to pay all the blinded ex-Service men the same amount?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I have not got that figure.

LORD PRIVY SEAL'S SEAT IN HOUSE OF LORDS
3.17 p.m.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper. This is the "end of term" Question.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why the Lord Privy Seal continues to sit on the Government Front Bench when he is required by law to sit on the Front Bench of the seats occupied by the Liberal Party.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE): My Lords, when the Sovereign is not present the House is responsible for its own order and procedure, and it is fairly clear from Standing Order No. 1 (which dates from 1720, I believe) that in the view taken by the House at that time the requirements of the Statute 31 of Henry VIII, Chapter 10, to which I assume the noble and learned Lord is referring, applies strictly only on the occasion when the Sovereign "comes publicly to the House". I understand that the arrangements for the placing of the Lords laid down by the Statute have not been followed in the normal Sittings of the House for at least 200 years, and probably longer. The present arrangements are, I should have thought, convenient and sensible and conform to political realities and the modern custom of the House.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, while thanking the noble and learned Lord for that answer, may I ask him whether Section IV of the Act of King Henry VIII which is printed as an appendix to the Standing Orders of this House, does not say:
"It is … ordained and enacted … That the Lord Chancellor, … and the Lord Privy Seal … shall sit and be placed, as well in this present Parliament as in all other Parliaments hereafter to be holden, on the left side of the said Parliament Chamber, on the higher part of the form of the same side, …"?
Is that not the place now occupied by distinguished leaders of the Liberal Party? Further, is it not also stated in Section X—
"… in all Parliaments … the Lord Chancellor, … the Lord Privy Seal, … shall sit and be placed in such order and fashion as is

1369
above rehearsed and not in any other place …"?
Is it not therefore plainly illegal for the Lord Privy Seal to be sitting where he is? And does not Standing Order No. 18 of this House provide that if the Lord Chancellor wishes to speak to anything particularly he is to go to his own place as a Peer? Is not that the reason why, although a distinguished member of the Government, instead of speaking, when he speaks as a Minister of the Government, from the Government side of the House, he speaks from the seat which I do not think he has sat on for about 300 years? Is that not the reason why he goes to that place to speak?—because the Act applies to the ordinary Sittings of Parliament.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord should know that the Woolsack is not in the House at all, and therefore I was not sitting in any other place in the House than that which the Statute provided. The last time I sat in that place, which is the place provided, was yesterday and not 300 years ago. I have done so on a considerable number of occasions during the present Parliament while waiting to take my place upon the Woolsack.
So far as the law is concerned, as I said in my original Answer, the fact is that the House is master of its own order of procedure when the Sovereign is not present. It is clear that our predecessors who framed the Standing Order so long ago as 1720 took the same view and clearly provided that the due places should be occupied when the Sovereign was present. If I may add what I am not sure to be correct, but which I have always thought to be the situation, certainly up to the reign of Charles II the Sovereign continuously attended the normal Sittings of this House, sat on the Throne, and, in the case of Charles II, made witty and sometimes relevant comments about the speeches as they were delivered. As our first Hanoverian Sovereign did not understand English, I imagine he found the debates rather irksome. Therefore it is no coincidence that the Standing Order dates from 1720 that is to say, six years after the Hanoverian Dynasty came to the Throne.
I have done what research I can to help the noble and learned Lord; but I
1370
should like to add this: this question was mooted during the Labour Government. The noble and learned Lord and his colleagues came to the conclusion that nothing should be done about it. I have the file in my hand. Although it is not on every occasion that I agree with the decisions come to by the noble and learned Lord and his colleagues, in the interests of Party unity on this occasion I am happy to arrive at the same conclusion.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, would the noble and learned Lord please convey to the present noble Lord, the Lord Privy Seal, the warmest possible invitation to join us on these Benches at any time that he wishes to do so? If this does not commend itself to the noble Lord, perhaps he could consider improving the performance of the present Government by inviting a leading Liberal to become the Lord Privy Seal.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack tell us in what manner he got hold of a ftle of the previous Government? It is an absolute rule that one Government should not see the other Government's files.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, that is not the absolute rule. I was not allowed to see those parts of the file which, under the rule, I am not allowed to see, but I saw enough to know that the decision was to do nothing about it.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, would the noble Lord on the Woolsack agree with me that that answer merely means that there is an interesting flexible rule about the rules?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if the noble Lord wishes to put down a Question about the convention in this matter I am sure that I or some other member of the Government would be prepared to answer it. I think his reading of the matter is wrong and that the convention is fairly well known; but I will not give a definite answer unless he puts down a Question on that matter.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, may I ask the noble and learned Lord whether our Companion says, on page

1371
22, that the Lord Chancellor speaks from his place as a Peer at the upper end of the Earls' Bench? Is this again a reference to the ordinary everyday work of the House—not just the opening of Parliament—and a reference to the Act of King Henry VIII? Regarding the last Government, may I respectfully remind the noble and learned Lord that I had the honour to be Chairman of an All-Party Conference on the Reform of your Lordships' House from whose proposals there emanated the Parliament Bill of 1968–69 by which the Act of King Henry VIII was specifically to be repealed?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I was not unaware of that last point. Unfortunately, although that measure passed with considerable ease through your Lordships' House, it met with unexpected and bitter opposition from another place and was ultimately withdrawn—again at the instance of the Government of which the noble and learned Lord was an ornament. We are thus placed, as a result of his action in withdrawing the Bill, with the status quo.
Regarding the first part of the noble and learned Lord's Question, he will not have failed to notice that I began my remarks by saying that in the absence of the Sovereign the House is master of its own order of procedure. It is perfectly true that when he is speaking in the House from the situation which I now occupy the Lord Chancellor is speaking from the place assigned under the Statute and not from any other. This, I take it, is because the House finds it more convenient that the Lord Chancellor should do this rather than repair to the Government Front Bench from which he speaks when the House is in Committee. So far as I am aware, there is nothing in the Statute which provides that when the House is in Committee the Lord Chancellor should be otherwise placed than where he sits for its ordinary proceedings.
The noble and learned Lord may also remember that yesterday the Lord Bishop of London was introduced. He sat on the Front Bench of the Bishops' Bench, whereas when most Bishops are intro-
1372
duced they sit on the Back Bench. He, too, was taking the seat assigned to him by the Statute of Henry VIII. That, again, is in accordance with the ordinary procedure of the House. When an Earl or Viscount is introduced he takes his seat on a different Bench from that of a Baron. That also is in accordance with the provisions of the Statute. So it is not a complete dead letter. On the other hand, the procedure which we have adopted since at least 1720 is one which on the whole commends itself to the sense of the House.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, the whole House appreciates the depth of the historical research into which the noble and learned Lord has gone in order to answer this Question, and has listened with interest to his reference to King Charles II, who gave vent to witty asides when presiding over the House. Will the noble and learned Lord permit me to express the hope that those who seek to maintain that position to-day do not suffer the same fate as the King?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am not sure what fate King Charles II suffered from, except to die in his bed.
LORD COLERAINE: My Lords, may I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor whether he is aware that the references of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, to historical precedence gave great satisfaction to me, at least? It made me realise that there is at least one other Conservative in the House besides myself.

GOVERNMENT COMPUTERS AND PERSONAL INFORMATION
3.28 p.m.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why, having regard to the fact that neither the Terms of Reference nor the Report of the Committee on Privacy were confined to personal information stores held in computers, the Government Report and the White

1373
Paper referred to by the Minister of State in this House on June 6, 1973, are to be confined to personal information stores held in Government computers.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS): My Lords, the White Paper will not be confined to personal information stores held in Government computers. It will cover the Younger Committee's findings as well as those of the review by officials of the privacy of personal information held on Government computers.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, while thanking the noble Viscount for that Answer, may I ask, as I am not clear about this, whether that means that it will or will not cover personal information held in Government stores which are not computerised?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, there is a fairly long passage in the speech of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary which he made in the course of the sister debate to the one we had in this House, and if the noble and learned Lord will look at the OFFICIAL REPORT of another place of Friday, June 13 (columns 1968 and 1969), he will find the scope of the White Paper fairly fully described there. It was nothing like so constricted as I may, by mistake, have conveyed in our debate.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, Friday the 13th seems a suitable date, and I will read it with interest.

CIGARETTE COMPANY'S ADVERTISEMENTS AND HEALTH WARNING
3.30 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have noted that the back cover of the Radio Times of July 5 portrays in colour a racing driver's helmet inscribed "John Player", with the words "The John Player Grand Prix, Silverstone, July 14, first race 11 a.m. John Player bringing you the
1374
best in motor racing"; and whether they will use their influence to ensure that cigarette advertising by indirect methods shall not be exempt from stating that cigarette packets carry a Government health warning.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, we have seen this advertisement but we do not consider it constitutes a breach of the voluntary agreement between the Government and the cigarette manufacturers. The code of practice stating that cigarette advertisements should carry the health warning reference does not extend to advertisements on behalf of a company as distinct from its brands of cigarette.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for that Answer, but is not the test in this matter: Does the thing tend to remind people of cigarettes? And, if it does, ought it not also to remind people that cigarettes are bad for their health?
LORD ABERDARE: No, my Lords; that is not the test in the matter. The voluntary agreement is very carefully drawn up and it provides that the use in isolation of a company name closely associated with the company's brands shall be deemed to be an advertisement for those brands and as such must carry the health warning reference. But in this case it merely refers to "John Player", and John Player manufactures cigars and tobaccos as well as cigarettes.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, in view of this continued propaganda by the cigarette manufacturers, is it not time that the code of practice was looked into once again?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, we monitor the behaviour of the cigarette manufacturers in this matter extremely carefully and I can only say that the cigarette manufacturers have carried out the code of practice to the letter.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that sponsorship is essential to motor racing to-day and that John Player and other similar sponsors have enabled our manufacturers to produce some of the finest racing cars in the world which will eventually reflect upon the safety and other standards of the British car which is bought by the general public? Is it suggested, then, that formula racing cars sponsored by cigarette manufacturers should wear on their sides

1375
something which says that cigarette packets carry a Government health warning?
LORD ABERDARE: Certainly not, my Lords. We certainly do not believe it would be right to intervene between the tobacco manufacturers and sporting organisations.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, would not a more suitable warning than the one at present placed upon cigarette packets be a skull and crossbones?
LORD ABERDARE: No, I do not think so, my Lords.

E.E.C. AND MOBILE OFF-SHORE INSTALLATION GRANT
LORD HOY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given Private Notice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what reply he has sent to the Commission of the E.E.C. in response to the Directive that a 4 per cent. grant paid to the Marathon Construction Company is an infringement of the Community rules.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my noble friend Lord Limerick will answer this Question at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m.
This will be followed shortly by a Statement made by my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie on Rhodesia.

SUMMER RECESS
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I would inform your Lordships that, subject to progress of Business, the House will adjourn for the Summer Recess on Thursday, July 26, and will now return on Monday, October 15, and not, as I previously announced, on Tuesday, October 16.

NORTH WALES HYDRO-ELECTRIC POWER BILL
3.33 p.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, as several noble Lords have informed me that they wish to speak on the Second Reading of the North Wales Hydro-Electric Power Bill I shall postpone my Motion for the Second Reading and the subsequent Motion until the end of business to-day. I regret the inconvenience that this is bound to cause to some noble Lords who intend to speak on Second Reading.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I really protest about this. This matter has been on the Order Paper throughout the week right up to this moment. I have come here this afternoon to speak early on in the afternoon, and have entered into engagements to-night which obviously prevent my being here as late as this business is now likely to come on. I suggest that it is quite out of order suddenly, at the very last moment, to take a decision of this kind.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to give the noble Lord a fuller explanation. I received the information that noble Lords wished to speak only this morning and it was therefore impossible for me to place on the Order Paper the position of the Bill at the end of business. I can also tell the noble Lord that he is not the only sufferer as I had a dinner engagement which I have had to cancel. But I think the majority of the noble Lords who told me they wished to speak on the Second Reading have agreed to speak at the end of business to-day. It is usually for the convenience of the House to proceed from Questions to the public business, instead of having a long intervention in the form of a debate on a Private Bill.

ABERDEEN CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be now considered on Report.(Lord Mowbray and Stourton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of July 12), Bill read 3ª, and passed.

EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING BILL
3.36 p.m.
Read 3ª, with the Amendments.
Clause 2 [Functions of the Commission and Agencies]:
LORD COLERAINE LORD COLERAINE moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 4, line 14, at end insert—
("(d) to co-operate generally with the careers services of local education authorities and in particular to encourage young persons to use such services;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name on the Marshalled List. As the House is aware, the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, myself, and other noble Lords and Ladies who have had some particular association with the youth employment service, endeavoured to persuade the Government to accept Amendments which would maintain the existing practice that the employment of young persons between school-leaving age and the age of 18 should be under the control of the local education authority and the existing careers service. We failed on Committee; we failed on Report, and I do not propose now to repeat the arguments that we used then. My Amendment is designed to give effect to what I believe is the view of the Government as it was expressed by my noble friends Lord Gowrie and Lord Drumalbyn in the debates to which I have referred.
It would not be unfair to say that their view was, broadly speaking, that while the careers service of the local education authority had a special claim for consideration in its dealing with young people—because the careers officers were in touch with the young people from their school days, knew their homes and circumstances and knew the whole ambit of their lives—nevertheless they felt, first, that young people were entitled to freedom of choice as between the Manpower Commission and the local education authority careers service and, secondly, that many young people felt that any-
1378
thing associated with their school days was derogatory to their standing. I did not agree with those arguments then and I do not agree with them now, but I do not propose to go into that.
What I am asking the Government to do is to accept an Amendment which would impose upon the Commission the duty to co-operate generally with the careers services of the local education authorities, and in particular to encourage young persons to use such services. In other words, I am asking the Government to ensure that the new body that is being set up under the Bill will not seek to poach from the local education authority careers service; will not insert advertisements saying that they are the shop to deal with and the local education authority is not the shop to deal with. In fact I am asking the Government to express in the Bill what in general I understood them to say in the arguments they raised against the Amendments which were moved by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond. I beg to move.

E.E.C. AND MOBILE OFF-SHORE INSTALLATION GRANT
3.40 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY (THE EARL OF LIMERICK): My Lords, perhaps this would be a convenient moment for me to answer the Private Notice Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hoy.
Her Majesty's Government recently received a communication in the form of a letter (it was not a directive) from the Commission, suggesting that the payment of construction grants on mobile off-shore installations under Part III of the Industry Act 1972 is a contravention of the Council Directive on Aid to Shipbuilding, No. 273 of 1972. The letter invited our observations. We do not accept the Commission's view of this matter but we are considering their letter and will be replying to it in due course.
Pending the resolution of this issue, which may take some time, we shall of course continue to meet our obligations to pay these grants. And of course the House will be aware that the Directive in question expires at the end of this year.
LORD HOY: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for that answer and also for the assurance that the Government will continue to give grants under their obligations because of the 1972 Industry Act. What perturbs us a little is why, when that Act was passed so recently, the Government were able to give both Houses of Parliament the assurance that these grants in no way contravened our entry into the E.E.C. If we had that assurance—and I do not think the noble Earl will deny it—why should this point arise?
What also causes us some difficulty is that the attraction of a firm like Marathon is not the only firm concerned. There are yards like Rob Callaghan who have entered into contracts of this kind and who are very important to the Scottish economy. They also would be affected, and indeed many others if in fact the practice was changed.
I should like to ask the noble Earl one question. This is the second day in succession on which we have had to meet a case of this kind, because yesterday it arose in connection with the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, where the E.E.C. denied us the right to give grants and said that we had contravened Section 92 of the Treaty of Rome. The Government then appealed to the Commission of Foreign Ministers under Section 93. Is it the intention of the Government to adopt this tactic until such time as we can find a settlement to this particular problem?
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, could not the Government agree that if the Commission should insist, over our own objections, that their interpretation of our Treaty obligations in this case is the right one—and we should all hope, of course, that during the next month or two the Government will be able to persuade the Commission not to do any such thing—then the only course open to the Commission is to take the matter to the European Court? Will they not further agree that on several occasion the French Government have been taken to the Court and have had to accept the decisions of that Court, although of course they did not want to do so? In other words, is it not a fact that if we want to insist that other members of the Community should abide by their Treaty obligations as
1380
defined by the Court, when our own interests are concerned we shall, as a last resort, have to take the rough with the smooth?
THE EARL or LIMERICK: My Lords, I will first briefly answer the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn. He may well be right, but this does not yet arise because, as I would say in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, we are dealing here with a matter of interpretation. I think this should be put into perspective. It is the duty of the Commission to keep a watch on and investigate subsidies of all types, and while in this case we do not accept their view, we must recognise, as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, that such inquiries are to be expected and indeed are necessary to ensure that competition is as fair as possible within the Common Market.
The noble Lord, Lord Hoy, asked why it had been raised now. It is raised as a matter of interpretation. We do not agree with the view which has been put upon this matter by the European Commission, and we shall be giving our reply to tell them why we do not agree. Meanwhile, as I said in my answer, we shall continue to pay the grants. The noble Lord then referred to the case of sugar. I do not think the question of the implication of this general article arises, for the reason that we are dealing with a matter of interpretation and on this I think a clear and full answer was given yesterday by my noble friend Lord Ferrers on the whole position of sugar.
LORD HOY: My Lords, I do not want to insist too much on this, but when the noble Earl said that we had this assurance, when the 1972 Act was going through Parliament we had an assurance that this was in no way a contravention of the Treaty of Rome because this specific assurance was asked for, and that British industry was going to do its job. What we find a little surprising is that having accepted the 1972 Industry Act with that assurance, we now find at this very late stage that Europe is saying to us, "You, the British, have contravened the Treaty of Rome".
I am not dissenting from what the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, has said, but as sometimes it has been said that we have not obeyed international rulings from international courts I wish that the

1381
Benches below the Gangway would also agree with us when we want to agree with the International Court so far as Iceland is concerned.
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: My Lords, these statements were made and it remains the view of Her Majesty's Government that there is no contravention. We adhere to the opinion that these grants may properly be paid to the Marathon Construction Company in such a way as not to be in conflict with our E.E.C. obligations.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, have the Government an obligation to pay the Marathon Company, and would they be in breach if they did not pay?
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: My Lords, it is my understanding that undertakings have been given in terms of Clause 11, Part II, of the Industry Act which were given on the basis that these would not be in conflict with obligations under the E.E.C., and this remains the view of the Government.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl, Lord Limerick, this question. In the possible event that may be regarded as a hypothesis at the present time, that the Commission's interpretation is considered correct, what is to happen to the shipbuilding industry on the Clyde?
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: My Lords, I should not like to deal with a hypothetical question. As I have said, it is a complicated question which I believe will take quite a long time to resolve, and the Directive with which we are here concerned expires at the end of this year.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, does the noble Earl appreciate that when a question takes a long time to resolve this creates uncertainty? What is to be the position of those persons who are employed by this particular shipbuilding firm on the Clyde? Is it not likely that they will consider whether it is worth while remaining in employment in that particular industry?
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: My Lords, I believe that what I have said, including the statement that we shall continue to pay the grants pending a determination of the case, should serve to remove the uncertainty.

RHODESIA: SETTLEMENT EFFORTS
3.49 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE): 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 Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. The Statement is as follows:
"I promised the House that I should make a further progress report on efforts to settle the Rhodesian problem before the Recess.
"I have now been able to study Sir Denis Greenhill's report on his visit to Rhodesia. In the light of it I am sure that the policy we have been following remains the right one. Our purpose, as the House knows, has been, while maintaining the status quo, to bring the various parties in Rhodesia together so that they could work out for themselves a settlement which could resolve the difficulties within their country, bring the dispute with Britain to an end and be a basis for independence for Rhodesia.
"Honourable Members will have seen that Mr. Smith and Bishop Muzorewa have met. Mr. Smith has also met the leaders of other African groups. This meeting between Mr. Smith and the Bishop is certainly a step forward, and we must hope it will eventually lead to that agreement between the races which everybody in this House would like to see".
That is the end of the statement.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, the House will want to thank the noble Baroness for repeating that Statement, and I am sure the whole House will welcome the fact that Mr. Smith has at last been able to bring himself to meet Bishop Muzorewa and that Her Majestys' Government consider this to have been an important meeting. The House would like to ask the noble Baroness whether she has any news of what took place at the meetings, because the Press reports have been extremely scanty. I should also like to

1383
ask the noble Baroness about the phrase "maintaining the status quo." I think the House would like an assurance that "maintaining the status quo" means that there will be no change of Government policy during the Recess and that sanctions will, of course, necessarily be a part of that until the House meets again. May I ask the noble Baroness whether, if the United Nations Sanctions Committee meets during the Recess and there is the same pressure that sanctions should be strengthened, Her Majesty's Government will not again use their veto against that?
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends we regard the noble Baroness's Statement as entirely unexceptionable, and for our part should like to be associated with it.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I should like to thank both the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies, and the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, for what they have said. We have no details of what exactly took place between the Bishop and Mr. Smith but, to quote what the Bishop said himself, "The discussions have been general, cordial but highly confidential". He believed the meeting was an important advance for Rhodesia and for her people. The noble Baroness asked whether the status quo means sanctions. The status quo, of course, means going on as we are unless events in Rhodesia justify a change. My Lords, on the third point about the United Nations, we have always said that we believe that present sanctions should be made effective. We are doing our best as far as our responsibility goes, but we believe that other nations can make them more effective if they try. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, for his good wishes for what is a start to a possibly happy solution.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, has the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir, not indicated that as a result of these welcome conversations some proposal for a settlement may be made? Is she aware that, anticipating this for some weeks, I have a Question down for the last day of the present Session? But if news is not available during next week and takes place during the Recess, what will be the Government's action if a development takes place which means some
1384
change in the Government's policy during that period before Parliament can meet?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I do not see that the Government's policy can in fact change during the period of the Recess, because, as noble Lords will remember, under the 1971 proposals, and whatever settlement was agreed in the future, the Rhodesian Parliament would have to pass certain legislation before an Independence Bill was passed through this House. Therefore I think one can say that the situation would not materially change, but we should be very pleased to see any progress towards a settlement.
LORD COLERAINE: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether she is aware that I think all my noble friends on this side of the House welcome very much this return of the dove to the Ark, even with such a small olive leaf in its beak, and that we should wish to say nothing that would prevent a settlement? May I also ask the noble Baroness whether it is not the policy of Her Majesty's Government to think first and foremost of the interests of the people of Rhodesia of whatever colour, and that that policy will not be changed during the Recess or at any other time?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I gladly give the assurance to my noble friend that the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards people of all races within Rhodesia is that they should come together and reach together a just settlement, and that the policy of Her Majesty's Government in that direction certainly will not be changed. I agree with my noble friend that we must guard against saying anything which might be either too hopeful or too depressing, or which might cause difficulty.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, would the Government agree that a great many people on both sides of the House would be very glad if a satisfactory settlement could be found to this question; and if conditions in Rhodesia change in such a way as to justify it, would the Government consider establishing some sort of exchange of unofficial representatives with the régime in Salisbury, so that there may be at least some sort of contact to explore the possibilities of a

1385
settlement and develop them as soon as the time comes?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, it is true that we are hampered by not having representation in Salisbury, but, of course, the sanctions which we pursue under the United Nations mandate preclude us from having a Rhodesian envoy here in London. It was for that reason that the representative that we did have in Salisbury was asked to leave after the Pearce Commission. But if a measure of agreement could be reached between Rhodesians of all nations themselves and there were any remaining difficulties over which they thought we could help, we should certainly be ready to do so.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, we are encouraged by the hopeful expression of the noble Baroness that a settlement will be reached, a hope which of course everyone in this House must endorse. The settlement proposed by the Foreign Secretary lies on the table and therefore is the negotiating basis for the Rhodesian Government. As early discussions have taken place between the African groups (the A.N.C. and the pro-settlement groups) and the Rhodesian Prime Minister has set out clearly what the Bishop had stated as receiving his endorsement (those requirements were set out by the Prime Minister, in view of the visit of Sir Denis Greenhill recently), and following upon the Statement of the Prime Minister in the Rhodesia Parliament, can the noble Baroness give any indication whether there is hope that those will not be the minimum demands? They were patently unacceptable to the Rhodesian Government. The visit of Sir Denis Greenhill included a requirement to go from Salisbury to Umtala during a weekend—a considerable journey—which left him little time to assess Rhodesian opinion. Could the noble Baroness make some comment on Sir Denis's interpretation of the relationship between the statements which the Prime Minister made and what the A.N.C. might finally agree?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, as I understand it, Bishop Muzorewa said in an interview to the Rhodesia Herald on July 6 that he was the only person who knew details of all the A.N.C. proposals and that he was prepared to negotiate a pro-
1386
gramme working towards parity with the Rhodesian Front, but not asking for "one man, one vote" right away. Beyond that, I do not think it would be helpful for me to speculate. The Bishop did not give Sir Denis Greenhill the details of his proposals and I think it would be better to leave it as suggested by my noble friend Lord Coleraine.

EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING BILL
4 p.m.
Debate on Amendment No. 1 resumed.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, perhaps I may now return to the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Coleraine. This Amendment would lay a fourth duty on the Commission under Clause 2(3) of the Bill, the first being for the Commission—
"to submit to the Secretary of State from time to time particulars of what it proposes to do for the purpose of performing its functions;"
the second—
"… to ensure that its activities are in accordance with proposals approved by the Secretary of State"
and the third—
"to give effect to any directions given to it by the Secretary of State."
My Lords, the first part of this Amendment gives the Commission a duty to co-operate with the careers services of local education authorities. I am sure that we all agree that it will be essential for the Commission to co-operate closely with the local education authority services, and indeed vice versa. We shall succeed in providing the best possible services for young people only if these two services work very closely together. My only doubt is whether it is necessary to specify this as a duty in the Bill. It is true that Clause 8(4) gives local education authorities a duty to consult and co-operate with one another for the purpose of performing their careers service functions; but I think this is really just a continuation of a standard provision in the schemes under which local education authorities operate the youth employment service at present under the Employment and Training Act 1948. These schemes have invariably included

1387
a requirement to consult and co-operate together. So far as co-operation between the Commission and the local education authorities is concerned, I think in practice we could rely on the good sense of those concerned, and of course if this did not prove enough there are always the Secretary of State's powers of direction and of guidance. Throughout the passage of the Bill through Parliament up to this stage it has, I think, been generally accepted that this would be enough.
The second part of the Amendment gives the Commission a duty to encourage young persons to use the local education authorities' careers services. We have discussed at length, at previous stages of the Bill, the question of school leavers and other young people who choose to use the Commission's employment service. I can certainly give a full assurance—and I am glad to have this opportunity to do so—that there is no intention that the Commission's service should set out in general to compete with the careers service in dealing with school leavers who have not yet got a job, or for that matter those who have left school and have fallen out of a job in the early years after leaving school. And if these young people come to the Commission's service they would normally be advised that the facilities offered by the local education authority service might be more suitable for them. To that extent therefore, the Commission certainly will be encouraging these young people to use the local education authority service. Of course, if such a young person makes it quite clear, despite this advice, that he simply does not want to use the local education authority service, then there comes a point where there is no purpose in encouraging him to do so, and he ought then to be allowed to make use of the adult service rather than going without any service at all.
But the Amendment goes well beyond those who have recently left school, and requires the Commission to encourage young persons to use the local education authority services. The term "young persons" is not defined, but for the sake of argument let us take those under 18. I do not think it would be right to give the Commission a duty of this kind under the Bill. The fact is that there are young people under 18 who may have been in
1388
employment for the best part of two years and whose needs may best be met by the adult service. In other cases, of course, a young person may need continuing careers guidance which he can best obtain from the local education authority careers officer who advised him earlier, and he should be referred back to him. But surely these are matters which should be decided on the basis of the circumstances of the individual case—not on the basis of a general rule laid down in the Statute that everyone up to a certain age must be encouraged to use the local education authority service, whether it is best suited to his needs or not.
I have been assuming that "young persons" means those under 18. But the Amendment does not define the expression, and I think that defining it would create real difficulties, for there are very genuine differences of view about what the definition should be. Some say it should be those under 18. On the other hand, the Opposition Amendments in Committee in another place sought to ensure that the local education authorities would provide the service to everyone up to the age of 19. The Expenditure Committee, in its recent report on the youth employment service, recommended the age of 21. I might add that the E.E.C. programme for the exchange of young workers defines them as "aged as a general rule between 18 and 30 years". This illustrates, I think, the difficulties of defining this expression in the Amendment—and it would be essential to define it as the Amendment lays a duty on the Commission. At this very late stage of the Bill we just cannot embark on an attempt to define "young persons", and without such a definition I do not see how the Amendment could stand. Apart from that very important objection, I suggest to your Lordships that we should refrain from writing a duty of this kind into the Bill but rather should rely on the good sense and co-operation of the Commission and of the local education authorities, backed up if necessary in the last resort, as I have said earlier, by the Secretary of State's reserve powers of direction and of guidance.
I am very glad that I can give an absolute assurance that it is the Secretary of State's intention that the Commission should not in general set out to deal with those who have recently left school and

1389
have not yet entered employment, but should advise them to go to the local education authority careers service. As I said, the same applies to those who have fallen out of employment since leaving school. We are entirely in sympathy with encouraging young people to use the local education authority service, but we do not think it would necessarily be in their best interest that they should do so in every case. For that reason, and for two others, namely, that the Amendment does not define what is meant by "young persons" and that there are likely to be strong differences of opinion as to what that definition should be, I urge my noble friends not to press the Amendment at this stage of the Bill.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, your Lordships' House will be indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, who speaks with such authority and experience, for having raised this matter yet again and obtained from the Government what I think is the clearest undertaking we have had so far—a very valuable undertaking and well worth the exercise and the trouble to which the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, has been put. Frankly, I must say to the Government that some of the anxieties which have been expressed to me, and possibly to the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, as well, arise from statements made on behalf of the Government in another place which were not at all clear, statements which at first indicated a likelihood of non-interference—let me put it at that as a minimum—and then seemed to withdraw somewhat from that. Therefore the anxieties were due in part not to the wording of the Bill but to the interpretation which has been put upon it by statements made in another place as to the way in which the Government conceived that the Bill should be operated.
The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has now made a most important contribution. He has given the clearest of assurances—indeed, one could not use words more precise than those which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has used. If I may underline it again, he has added of his own accord, on his responsibility, that this would include not only those who are at school but those who have left school, taken a job and fallen out of employment very early—I think those were the words which the noble Lord used. That, I think, is a very valuable addition; it is
1390
the way in which one hoped that this Bill would be operated and we all owe the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, a great debt for what he has achieved.
LORD COLERAINE: My Lords, I should like to echo what the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has said. I feel that what my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn has told us represents a real advance on the previous attitude of the Government, particularly in regard to what occurred in another place. I realise, too, that while he has met, effectively, I think, the purposes which I sought in moving the Amendment, the Amendment in its present form, as he pointed out, is impracticable. On both these grounds, therefore, that he has given us the reassurance we sought and that the Amendment in its present form is not entirely practicable, and as there is no time to make further Amendment, I would ask your Lordships' leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 [Modifications of Industrial Training Act 1964]:
4.10 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 26, line 10, after ("emoluments") insert ("and payments intended to be disbursed as emoluments which are").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I would speak to Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 5 together. These Amendments are somewhat technical and are directed at a situation which is particularly likely to arise in relation to the construction industry, where part of the workforce of employers may be engaged by them through the agency of labour-only subcontracting firms. In such cases it ought to be possible, particularly in the construction industry, to impose a levy on the employer in such a way as to take into account not only what the employer pays members of his workforce who are directly under contract to him but also what he pays as remuneration in respect of those who are indirectly employed under labour-only sub-contract arrangements. It is therefore important that for the purpose of calculating the 1 per cent. ceiling on normal levy it should be

1391
possible to take into account emoluments paid indirectly under such arrangements. If they were not taken into account, then because of this technicality, a large number of levy orders in the construction industry might technically impose a levy of over 1 per cent. on certain employers, if the 1 per cent. was calculated on the basis of direct employees of theirs alone without including labour-only sub-contractors. The present wording of the Bill would have this effect because of the reference to,
"emoluments paid and payable by that employer to employees of his"
in the new subsection 2A(d)(i) of the 1964 Act, on page 39, line 22 of the Bill. The purpose of these Amendments is to enable the 1 per cent. ceiling to be calculated not only by reference to emoluments paid to direct employees, but also to labour-only sub-contracting firms, as I have described. I beg to move.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I only rise to say that this is a very familiar situation, and we are quite content.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 3.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 11, leave out ("employees of his") and insert ("or in respect of persons employed").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 4.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 22, after ("emoluments") insert ("and payments intended to be disbursed as emoluments which are").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 5.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 23, leave out ("employees of his") and insert ("or in respect of persons employed ").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.— (Lord Drumalbyn.)
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

PAKISTAN BILL
4.15 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. In introducing this Bill, I should like to mention the tragic circumstances in 1971, which are known to your Lordships' House, and which led to the hostilities between India and Pakistan, and, of course, the emergence of Bangladesh as an independent sovereign State. On January 30, 1972, after these events, the Government of Pakistan announced that, having learned that Britain, Australia and New Zealand intended to recognise Bangladesh, Pakistan had decided to leave the Commonwealth at once. The Commonwealth is a free association of States and any member is free to leave at any time. Therefore, while of course we greatly regretted Pakistan's decision, we certainly did not attempt to dissuade her, and of course the President of Pakistan has said that the decision is irrevocable.
Her Majesty's Government wish to make quite sure that there is no question of our discriminating against Pakistan because she left the Commonwealth. We are happy to say that the President of Pakistan is visiting this country later this month, and we hope that this visit will lead to an even greater friendship and understanding between our two countries.
My Lords, the transition from Commonwealth to foreign status inevitably involves certain changes in our relationship. The changes necessary to our own law are included in the Bill which is now before the House. In drafting the Bill, we wished to achieve two main objects: first, that the value of the Commonwealth connection should not be diluted by allowing a country which had left the Commonwealth, or its citizens, indefinitely to enjoy those privileges which derive solely from Commonwealth membership. Secondly, that we should be fair to those Pakistanis in this country who came here expecting that they would be able to enjoy the privileges of Commonwealth citizenship. This Bill has had close scrutiny in another place, and the changes made there I believe strengthen these two aims which I have mentioned.

1393
The nationality and citizenship provisions are contained in Clause 1 and Schedules 1 and 2. The fact that Pakistan is no longer a member of the Commonwealth makes necessary the deletion of Pakistan from Section 1(3) of the British Nationality Act of 1948. This is done by Clause 1(1). The effect of this is that from the coming into operation of the Bill, which we hope to be September 1, 1973, Pakistan citizens will become aliens.
However, in order to avoid hardship to Pakistanis already in this country, the Bill makes generous transitional provisions. The most important, paragraph 2 of Schedule 2, has the effect that any Pakistan citizen who arrived in this country before May 14 this year, the date of the introduction of this Bill, will be granted a grace period in which to apply for registration as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. In most cases this period will be one year, running from the date of coming into operation of the Bill where a person has already completed five years' residence in this country, and from the date of completing five years' residence in other cases. This provision also applies to persons carrying Pakistani passports describing them as "natives of the former State of Jammu and Kashmir", since they now have the full status of Pakistan citizens. We believe that the grace period of one year should be adequate to enable Pakistanis to decide whether to apply to register, as Pakistan permits dual citizenship. Therefore, Pakistanis who register as United Kingdom citizens will also keep their Pakistan citizenship.
The majority of Pakistan citizens in this country will already have completed five years' residence by the time this Bill becomes law and they will therefore be eligible to apply immediately for registration as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. We have, however, provided certain further provisions to minimise the dislocation and inconvenience during the transitional period. We have provided in Clause 3, subsections (1) to (3), for Pakistanis holding appointments from which, as aliens, they would be debarred, to be able to continue to hold their appointments for twelve months from the time this Bill comes into operation; and, when an application for registration has been made
1394
but not decided when the 12 months' period expires, we have made provision for an extension of that period until the decision is made on the application. This will give Pakistanis time either to register as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, if they are qualified, or to seek other employment. Her Majesty's Government will also ensure that this provision is brought to the attention of those likely to be affected.
Clause 3(4) states that a Pakistani citizen who is a member of a local authority will be allowed to continue to serve until his membership ceases on some other ground—for example until his term of office expires. If in the meantime he acquired United Kingdom citizenship, he would of course be eligible for his term to be renewed. Clause 3(5) provides for transitional arrangements to avoid the temporary disenfranchisement of Pakistanis who have applied for registration but not had their applications decided by the qualifying date for the new electoral register to be drawn up towards the end of this year.
We have also made some transitional provisions regarding deportation. Section 7 of the 1971 Act restricts the liability to deportation of a Commonwealth citizen who was resident in this country when the Act came into force on January 1, 1973. This exemption must eventually cease to apply to Pakistani citizens in this country because they will no longer be Commonwealth citizens; but Schedule 3, paragraph 1, provides that Pakistani citizens shall continue for one year to enjoy these exemptions, as if they were still Commonwealth citizens.
If, when the 12 months' period expires, a Pakistani citizen in this country has applied for registration as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies but his application has not, at that time, been decided, he will continue to be treated as a Commonwealth citizen, in respect of deportation, until his application has been decided.
I have dealt with the citizenship and nationality provisions together as I thought it was most convenient for your Lordships, but I should now like to return to Clause 2, because this deals with Pakistan's position in the Commonwealth Preference area. Under the Treaty of

1395
Accession to the European Economic Community, the duties which the United Kingdom levies on goods from Pakistan from January 1, 1974, must be based on the duty we applied on January 1, 1972. In the intervening months Pakistan will, whether or not she remains in the Commonwealth Preference area, continue to enjoy a large measure of duty-free access to the United Kingdom market because she is a beneficiary of the generalised preference scheme. As a result of this, the only products of any consequence on which duties would be raised if Pakistan left the Commonwealth Preference area would be cotton textiles and foot-wear, the volume of which would be unlikely to be affected. We have therefore decided that it would be sensible to allow Pakistan to remain in the Commonwealth Preference area. Clause 4 makes certain technical adjustments consequent on Pakistan's leaving the Commonwealth—as does the rest of Schedule 3 to which I have not already referred.
I said earlier that in drafting this Bill we had attempted, while recognising that certain consequences follow from Pakistan's decision to leave the Commonwealth, to be just to Pakistanis already in this country. I trust that your Lordships will agree that the Bill does just this, and I therefore commend it to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie.)
4.25 p.m.
LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Baroness, and I know that all Members of your Lordships' House share the feeling of sadness which the noble Baroness voiced so movingly that the need for this Bill has arisen. Like myself, I have no doubt that many noble Lords will have happy memories of those territories which became Pakistan after the travail of independence—a goal towards which many of us had worked when our elders and betters were, so many of them, still determined to maintain British rule. We liked the country, we liked the peoples, we respected the faith to which so many of them adhered, and we looked forward to a long, happy, enduring association, an association between brothers who shared so much.
1396
There are those among us who hope that the barriers created between us will be of short duration and that in the fullness of time Pakistan will come back into the Commonwealth. If she does I know that she can be assured that the hand of friendship will be stretched out to greet her. Nevertheless, I am certain that Her Majesty's Government were right to resist the temptation to introduce legislation less permanent than that before your Lordships' House. It would have been irresponsible, in my view, to leave any avoidable room for doubt as to the status of those immigrants from Pakistan who are contributing so much to the prosperity and well-being of the country of their adoption.
The Bill may not be perfect, but it has come to us in a form much more acceptable than that in which it was originally presented in another place. That happy fact is due to the efforts of an all-Party group of Members determined to remove the unsatisfactory features of the Bill. And that is just what they did. Reason and good sense prevailed in a way to which your Lordships must be becoming inured, and the Government accepted the criticisms with good grace.
I personally dislike intensely the extent to which our increasing preoccupation with nationality and citizenship has eroded that true internationalism which lasted well into the last century, and has obstructed the creation of the wider Commonwealth some of us still hope to see. But however much we dislike Bills of this kind, and regret the need for them, we have to do our best with them when they come before Parliament. In another place they removed four objectionable features, and four important changes were made. In my view the first of the four changes was, as the noble Baroness has said, that natives of the former State of Jammu and Kashmir were given the same protection as Pakistanis. Secondly, the Government also met criticisms about retrospection, and also, thirdly, about the shortness of the time given to people in which to decide whether they wished to register. Fourthly, they allayed fears that very many people could be disfranchised because of tardiness on the part of the Home Office. I thank the noble Baroness most sincerely for what the Government did on all these four points.

1397
I am left, however, with one nagging doubt, and that concerns Schedule 3. Your Lordships may perhaps recall that the hope was expressed in another place that the Government would look at the Schedule again to satisfy themselves that it leaves no scope for misunderstanding or misinterpretation. That is something about which we might perhaps talk at a later stage, but if the noble and learned Viscount tells me that he has satisfied himself that the procedures proposed will work effectively and fairly, and in a readily comprehensible way, I will gladly accept his assurances this afternoon.
I would end by repeating my respect for Pakistan and her people, whether they are citizens of Pakistan or of the United Kingdom and Colonies, whether they live in Bradford or Karachi, and by extending to them all our very best wishes for their peace and prosperity.
4.30 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I follow my noble friend Lord Greenwood with my personal reflections? He reflected on his own pleasure on visits to this area. I spent my childhood in this area and the village in which I lived was divided from Bengal—what is now called Bangladesh—only by the river which, young as I was, is very keen in my memory to-day. Therefore I have some personal involvement in the issues which we are discussing. Next, may I ask the noble Baroness and the noble Viscount, who will be replying, to excuse me if I make some errors in my comments. If I do, it will be partly due to the fact that a Back-bencher does not have the opportunities for research, and although I read the report of all the proceedings in another place I admit that it has left me confused. As a layman, I have found few Bills less easy to understand than the Bill which is now before us. But I want to admit at once that I may make some mistakes in the criticisms which I utter.
I think that the noble Baroness and the noble Viscount are aware of the fact that there is a very anxious feeling among the Pakistani community in this country. I am aware of it in my old constituency of Slough, and it is also very widespread in Bradford and other places where there are large Pakistani communities. I hope that one result of this debate will be to
1398
reassure them on some of the problems about which they have doubts. I welcome the fact that the noble Baroness said that the Government will be making an effort to make the Pakistani community aware of the actual provisions, because at present they are very unaware. I would make this suggestion to the Government, that they should print in Urdu and other languages which the Pakistanis will understand, leaflets couched in simple terms so as to explain the position.
The first point I want to make is that by a change accepted in another place, Pakistanis who were admitted to this country after January 30, 1972, when Pakistan decided to leave the Commonwealth, do not automatically become aliens, but may become aliens, and may not be able to register as United Kingdom citizens. This seems to be contrary to precedent. I was faced with exactly this problem, because I was born in India and I had to register under the British Nationality Act as a British citizen. But I was given the opportunity to do so, and I hope that when he comes to reply the noble Viscount will be able to indicate what the Government had in mind when they accepted the word "may". The great majority of those who came to this country after Pakistan left the Commonwealth are dependants of heads of households who were already settled here. If there is any obstruction to their coming it will create an anomalous situation in their families, and will be divisive in family associations. I venture to suggest that the decisive date should not be the date of the introduction of this Bill, but the date of the enactment of this Bill. Thus more time will be allowed. This would greatly ease the situation and would allow many dependants who will have arrived during the 20 months—if the Bill is enacted in September—since Pakistan left the Commonwealth to have these advantages. I welcome very much the fact that in another place the Amendment regarding the Kashmiris was accepted.
My second point, upon which I want information rather than to be dogmatic in criticism, relates to Pakistanis who are in our Civil Service. I should like to know whether it is true that a circular has already been issued to Pakistanis in the Civil Service, even before the Bill has been enacted. One wonders whether

1399
that circular, which was issued before the Amendments were accepted in the House of Commons, includes reference to all those Amendments. Is it the case that civil servants must register if they are to remain in the Civil Service? Some will have applied for naturalisation qualifications, because they have been here for five years. But often the wife is still overseas and there may be hardship, because many Pakistanis do not send for their wives until they have sufficient means to keep a family and have accommodation. So I should like to ask that all Pakistanis arriving before the date of enactment of this Bill in September should be entitled to registration as citizens of the United Kingdom.
The next point I want to raise for information may seem small, but it is very important from the family point of view. Under the original Bill—I am not quite sure whether the Bill has been amended in this respect—infants born after February 19 were not to be registered as British nationals. Again, I want to suggest that the date should be the date of enactment of this Bill. A further point that I want to make—
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, the noble Lord is asking a number of questions, and I do not in any way blame him for not having given me notice of them. But may I ask: infants born where, and to whom?
LORD BROCKWAY: Infants born in this country to Pakistanis. As I understand it, under the original Bill if they were born after February 19 they could not be registered as British nationals. I am suggesting that that date, too, should be altered to the date of the enactment of the Bill, in September.
I come to the last point to which I wish to refer. I apologise if I have not given the noble Viscount notice of these matters. I think the Minister will appreciate that when one is interested in many questions, as the Order Paper to-day will indicate, one prepares one's speeches at the last moment. I try, whenever I can, to give notice; and I shall understand if the noble Viscount has not complete replies to-day, but there are the Committee and Report stages to come. The last point I want to raise concerns the
1400
question of doctors, dentists and veterinary surgeons. I think that nearly all of us who have spent periods in British hospitals have appreciated the service given in those hospitals by doctors, particularly junior doctors, from other countries. When I was last in Hammersmith Hospital, one of my ward doctors was an Indian and two others were Pakistanis. I welcome the fact that under this Bill they are protected if they have already registered under the Medical Act of 1956. Doctors, dentists and veterinary surgeons who have already registered under the Medical Act, 1956, have protection under this measure; but, unless changes have been made, doctors, dentists and veterinary surgeons who are employed on a temporary basis do not have that protection. Many of those junior doctors in hospitals on a temporary basis intend to become fully registered after they have completed their qualifying period, and I should like to see some amendment of this Bill whereby they might be similarly protected.
My Lords, those are the points that I want to raise. I shall understand if full answers cannot be given to them in this Second Reading debate. I hope they will be considered at the Committee stage, and that it will be possible, as a result of this Bill, to give the fullest assurance to the Pakistanis who are now anxious about their position.
4.44 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, did not think that I was criticising him for not giving notice. I fully understand the position that he and other noble Lords face with a Bill of this nature, and the position they find themselves in. I was not intending for a moment to be critical: I was simply trying to pinpoint the exact matter about which he was asking a question. I would never for one moment criticise him for the way in which he asks these questions; and I will do my best to answer them.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I appreciate it.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I think that the Government will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, for the speech that he made on

1401
this Bill. We all recognise the sad circumstances; but we are also grateful for the comments that he made about the improvements which stemmed from all sides in another place and which I think have taken a lot of the sting and controversy out of this Bill. He listed four matters which he thought had been put right. I shall come back in a moment to the one about which he was not altogether happy. All the same, the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, is, I am sure, right that not only the Bill but I suppose the action of the Pakistan Government which has given rise to it is bound to have caused some anxiety among the people originally from Pakistan who are in this country at the moment. I hope that we shall be able to reassure them by means of the explanations which my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir has already mentioned; and doubtless leaflets, and so on, would be a good idea. We shall certainly want to use the good offices of those who work in the community relations field and who have direct contact with these people. I am sure we shall want to use all known means to get over to those who are still in fact only Pakistan citizens what they need to do in order to gain the protection of the measure that we are now discussing.
The noble Lord asked a question which I think I at first took to relate mainly to heads of families. This was about people from Pakistan who were admitted here after the date when that country withdrew from the Commonwealth. If they were heads of families, there are various provisions in the Bill which would, I think, entitle them to fall within its provisions and thereby have at any rate some hope of being able to register; though if they were admitted legally and they do not qualify for registration but become aliens at the end of the period of grace, there is still no reason why, at the end of the five-year period, they should not apply for naturalisation. In fact, the process under the 1971 Act is remarkably similar now as between a Commonwealth citizen who registers and an alien who becomes naturalised; so I do not think people of that sort will be very much harmed by the fact that they arrived here after the date of Independence.
1402
There are also some provisions in Schedule 2 which might help them, and perhaps I can draw attention to them. I know they are incredibly complicated, but I think I am right in saying that some people of this sort might find that they could apply for registration under paragraph 2(1)(b)(ii) of Schedule 2, because they were here before January 1, 1973. Then they will be very exceptional cases, but it is just possible that there may be people who arrive here and can take advantage of paragraphs 3 and 4 of Schedule 2. Again, these are immensely involved sets of circumstances, but these provisions have been put in specifically to try to take account of people who may be in nationality difficulties over the change in status of Pakistan and the Bill which is consequent upon it.
But, in the end, I suspect that the noble Lord was really most concerned with the dependants of Pakistan citizens, or those who originally came from Pakistan and are already registered in this country. I think he will find that it is unnecessary to put anything in the Bill about them, because under the basic law, in the British Nationalities Act, they follow the head of the family, and if either he is already registered as a United Kingdom citizen or he registers under this Bill, his wife and his infant children will be able to follow suit automatically. I do not think, therefore, that we need anything specific in the legislation to deal with them, and I am in fact so advised. If there is anything wrong with what I have said I will make perfectly certain that the noble Lord is told about it; but that is the situation now, and that is why it does not say anything in this Bill about dependants.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Viscount for one moment? It is extremely important that the information which he has just given us is widely circulated in as simple a form as is possible, because many of us have had representations on this point indicating that there is anxiety about it; it is not understood. So I hope that in any publicity which is arranged in addition to the actual applications for registration, and so on, this particular point is made as clear as possible.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, but first I must make sure that I have got it right, because, as I say, it does not actually arise under any part of the drafting in this Bill at all; it is dependent on something else. I must first make perfectly certain that I have it right. If I have, I will see that that information goes in the leaflets. If I have got it wrong, I will see that the correct information goes into the leaflets.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, if the noble Viscount has got it wrong, will he please change the Bill?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I hope that I have not got it wrong, but, at any rate, I will check up on it. The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, mentioned the Pakistanis in the Civil Service. Yes, my Lords, they must register. They must become United Kingdom citizens, but they are given a period of grace in which to do it. We have done our best to make sure that those who hold this position will not be jeopardised and that they will be able to continue with their jobs. I think, also, that we have done our best to inform them of the situation; though I imagine that they are in a better position than some in this country to find out for themselves. We wish to retain their services, and we are allowing for them to be registered and to continue in that job.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, the point I was making in this and in the earlier case as well was, can the date be extended to the date of the enactment of the measure in September, because the discussions in Parliament in this House will have done a great deal to enlighten Pakistanis as to their rights? Is there any objection to extending it until that date?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, there is a whole year from next September, as well, during which this can be done. After all, it was one of the matters discussed in another place; it is not as if they must do it by this September. As my noble friend mentioned, there is a special period of grace of a further year during which these things may be regularised. We think that is fair. It was perhaps the result of a compromise; but at any rate there was a great
1404
deal of discussion in another place, and that is the conclusion that we reached. It was our change; we put it into the Bill. We changed it from the original six months. I believe that people concerned will have that period of time as a safeguard. Indeed, if their applications for registration have not been determined at the end of that time the second safeguard continues to operate, even after that. So we have gone even beyond the year of Royal Assent.
As for the doctors, this, I am bound to say, is not a point I have studied closely. It is a fairly complex issue under the legislation, some of which is mentioned in paragraph 4 of Schedule 3. I doubt whether I can give a satisfactory answer to it today. But we are in discussion with the General Medical Council about it and I hope that we shall be able to reach a happy conclusion on what is a very important issue, as the noble Lord said himself.
Finally, I come back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, about Schedule 3. I do not claim that by the time both Parties have legislated—and we have now had four major Acts on this subject since 1962—any issue relating to deportation is easy. If the noble Lords says there is scope for misunderstanding, I do not think that I would altogether disagree with him, in view of the length of time that I have taken to try to master the subject. What I do think is that we have worked out a procedure which is fair, which is the answer to the question the noble Lord asked me. I know that there will be cases which are said to be hard. On the other hand, we have to recognise, first of all, that there are people who have broken the law in some cases by overstaying. I do not think that we are particularly concerned with illegal entrants in this case; we may be concerned with overstayers. We are concerned with various lengths of residence, with various immunities which have been passed under legislation in 1969 and 1971. We have tried to put forward a fair and balanced solution which extends the period of immunity for a year, and indeed thereafter, if an application has been made, determined by the Home Office.
We have also the safeguards, first of all, of my right honourable friend's discretion if any question of deportation

1405
comes up. He is not bound to deport. Secondly, in all these cases, we have the appellate system as originally set up under the Immigration Appeals Act. Not only can they go to the adjudicator once, but also, if they fail, they can go to the Immigration Appeals Tribunal. So there are three opportunities if anyone should get himself into a position where the question of deportation rises. There are three opportunities for him to put forward all the mitigating circumstances, reasons for compassion and so on. Therefore matters are slightly different from the discussion we had in this House a little while ago, because this comes right within the machinery already set up and which is, I think, working fairly well. It is not very easy to follow and if the noble Lord wishes to have it further explained I should be grateful if he would tell me what it is he would like explained and we can put down an Amendment; or perhaps he can tell me in advance and I will do my best to explain.
In general terms, we think that we have struck a fair balance which gives protection to those who may become liable to deportation, while recognising that there has to be some change which results from the sad fact that Pakistan has left the Commonwealth and that this, inevitably, must have an effect on her citizens. Therefore I hope that, as before, we have tempered what may in some cases be change, with fairness and humanity. That is certainly how we intend to carry it out. Perhaps I could leave that point at this stage. It was widely discussed in another place and there was no Division on it. I think that on Report stage those on both sides of the House understood some of the problems about it. But if the noble Lord wants to come back to it next week, at the next stage of the Bill, I will do my best to satisfy him. I think those were the subjects that were raised. I am sorry if I cannot do full justice to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, but if he wants to put down Amendments, or if he gives me notice that he wants to probe things on clauses or a Schedule. I will do my best to help him, or my noble friend will do her best, on Monday. Meanwhile, I hope that the House will give this Bill a Second Reading.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I think that the only point I raised that the noble Viscount has not answered was regarding the birth of an infant.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I think I did, because I referred to dependants who came, or children who were born to Pakistani citizens in this country, after the date of independence. I think that under the British Nationality Act they come into the same category, if the father registers, as do dependants who come in after that date. So I believe those two are bound up together. This was very much part of the point which the noble Baroness, Lady White, had in mind.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, if necessary we can return to the matter during the Committee stage.
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

BANGLADESH BILL
4.58 p.m.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Her Majesty's Government accorded de jure recogition to Bangladesh on February 4, 1972, and on April 18 of that year Bangladesh joined the Commonwealth. I do not need to remind the House of the very sad events of 1971 but they did lead to the emergence of Bangladesh as an independent sovereign State. I am sure that the House will join me in wishing that the memories left by those events will soon be healed and that a settlement in the sub-continent may rapidly be achieved. Her Majesty's Government wish, of course, to have friendly relations with Bangladesh, India and Pakistan.
We have just considered a Bill designed to take account of Pakistan's leaving the Commonwealth. We now are considering a Bill designed to take account of the fact that Bangladesh is not only now an independent sovereign State but also that she is within the Commonwealth. This Bill will, in certain respects, have retrospective effect to February 4, 1972, the date when Her Majesty's Government

1407
recognised Bangladesh. It is, I think, a straightforward Bill. The majority of its clauses are of a technical nature designed to secure that our law operates in relation to Bangladesh in the same way as it operates in relation to independent Commonwealth countries.
The most important clause of the Bill is Clause 2 dealing with nationality. Persons from Bangladesh in this country have so far enjoyed the privileges of Commonwealth citizenship only because, paradoxically, they retained their Pakistan citizenship under Pakistan legislation. Clause 2(1) of the Bill therefore amends the British Nationality Act of 1948 in order to secure that persons who are citizens of Bangladesh under the law of Bangladesh will possess the status of Commonwealth citizens under our law. Bangladesh passed a law on December 15, 1972, providing for citizenship of Bangladesh. When first published, this law was so drafted as to cause some doubt whether many of the people from Bangladesh in this country would qualify for Bangladesh citizenship. The Bangladesh Government has since published an amendment to the law making it clear that generally persons from Bangladesh in this country have Bangladesh citizenship.
Any persons who do not qualify for Bangladesh citizenship would of course still retain their Pakistan nationality, although they would become aliens once the Pakistan Bill becomes law. However, it is possible, only possible that Pakistan might at some time in the future amend its law to deprive persons connected with Bangladesh of Pakistan citizenship. The persons affected might include some settled in this country who have not acquired Bangladesh citizenship. If this were to happen any people in this category in this country would become stateless. Clause 2(2) therefore guards against such a possibility by enabling the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary to make an order under which they could still be treated as citizens of Pakistan, and so retain their option to apply for registration as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies under the transitional arrangements of the Pakistan Bill.
This is a precautionary measure, since in the present circumstances we see no
1408
reason to suppose that the situation which I have just described is likely to arise.
I am sure that in considering this Bill the House will wish to join me in conveying to the State of Bangladesh and to Bangladesh citizens in this country, our best wishes for their future.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª. —(Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie.)
5.3 p.m.
LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE: My Lords, it is my privilege to thank the noble Baroness and to extend on behalf of my noble friends a welcome to this Bill, both to its provisions dealing with our relationship with Bangladesh and to those dealing with the status of citizens of Bangladesh in this country. That I do most warmly; and I endorse the noble Baroness's hope that we shall see the day when divisions on the Indian sub-continent will be healed. I welcome therefore the degree of flexibility to which the noble Baroness referred in her concluding remarks about the provisions of the Bill.
I know that we have watched with heavy hearts the blows which have fallen on Bangladesh in recent years. I suppose that few countries in the history of the world can have had a more painful birth. We hope that this modest Bill made necessary by Bangladesh's welcome accession to the Commonwealth last year as an independent sovereign State will help cement our long friendship with her people and will symbolise our appreciation of her loyalty in the past, our confidence in her future and will be one of the first milestones on her road to happiness and stability.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords. I want very sincerely to welcome this Bill. I shall say only a few words. I am associated with Bangladesh in a curious way. Its President was one of my constituents in Slough when I was in the other place and was one of my very great friends there. The noble Baroness referred to the difficulties of Bangladesh in relation to the whole situation in South-East Asia. One of my hopes is that British recognition of Bangladesh and the fact that Bangladesh is joining the Comonwealth may assist in bringing a solution of these problems.
There are five elements of the problem, with each of which Bangladesh is

1409
intimately associated. There is, first, the question as to whether Pakistan should recognise Bangladesh. One has great hopes of that by the acknowledgment by the Assembly in Pakistan of President Bhutto's right to do so. The second element is the Bangladesh residents in Pakistan whom we are hoping will be allowed to return. The third element is the 90,000 Pakistan prisoners who are still in India. The fourth element is the Biharis and those who were loyal to Pakistan who are still in Bangladesh. Fifthly, there is the "indication"—I almost said "threat" but I will not put it as strongly as that—that many among the prisoners in India may be tried as war criminals.
I am suggesting that all those five very closely related problems, which might easily become separate items in a broader solution, could be assisted if Her Majesty's Government, now recognising Bangladesh, were able, through the Commonwealth Secretariat, to give their services towards that kind of solution. May I add just one word because of my association with those who are in the Government of Bangladesh? I hope that for this wider settlement they will not insist upon the trials of war criminals. No doubt atrocities were committed. I am never very deeply concerned over attaching blame for atrocities—whether in Vietnam, Mozambique or Bangladesh. The greatest atrocity is the war itself. I hope very much, despite the precedent we gave, that the Bangladesh Administration will be prepared, for the sake of a wider settlement not to proceed with the trials of these war criminals. I welcome this Bill.
5.8 p.m.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I should like to thank both the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, and the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, who have spoken in such welcoming terms of Bangladesh as a member of the Commonwealth and have wished her citizens all good fortune in the future. I think that as the wider questions have been raised it is perhaps right that I should refer to some of the problems that still confront Bangladesh. The House will remember that it was on April 17 this year that the Indian and Bangladesh Governments issued a joint Declaration which suggested a "package" settlement which would involve the simul
1410
taneous repatriation of Pakistan prisoners of war except those wanted for war crime trials. I understand that Sheikh Mujib is considering that he might put about 195 persons on trial; also the return to Bangladesh of the Bengalis detained in Pakistan and the transfer to Pakistan of the Biharis in Bangladesh who had opted for Pakistan.
The Pakistan Government objected to the proposed war crimes trials and to the suggested transfer of the Biharis but they suggested that Indian representatives should visit Pakistan for further discussions. An Indian emissary is due to arrive in Pakistan for talks on July 24. Meanwhile, President Bhutto has obtained from the National Assembly a resolution authorising him to recognise Bangladesh whenever he considers it appropriate. President Bhutto—and I was interested to hear that he was a constituent of the noble Lord—has said that he will not recognise Bangladesh until all the prisoners of war have been returned and the idea of these war crime trials is abandoned.
I should like to say on behalf of Her Majesty's Government that we are ready to help in achieving a settlement on the sub-continent which we think is of prime importance; but to date the three countries concerned have made it clear that they wish to see a settlement among themselves without outside mediation. I think in the circumstances this is right. Therefore I hope that the House will give this Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

NORTHERN IRELAND (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL
5.11 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE): 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.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The VISCOUNT GOSCHEN in the Chair]
Clause 1 [Punishment for murder]:
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD BROCKWAY: I should just like to say, as I am critical of nearly every other clause in the Bill, that I very much welcome Clause 1.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Mode of trial on indictment of scheduled offences]:
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD BROCKWAY: I want to say quite a number of things on Clause 2, which I regard as thje essence of the Bill. This clause carries out recommendations of the Diplock Commission. Among the terms of reference of the Diplock Commission was that detention should be dealt with,
"otherwise than by internment by the Executive".
Under this clause the Exxecutive is removed from being the authority, but in effect internment is retained. There is to be no decision by juries in the cases which are covered by Clause 2. I regard the jury system as a legal foundation for freedom and democracy, and perhaps I may quote from two noble Lords who I know have the great respect of this House in this matter. The first is the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, who in his Freedom Under the Law, says:
"The system"—
that is, the jury system—;
"which has been built up by our forefathers over the last 1.000 years suits our people because it is the best guarantee of our freedoms. The fundamental safeguards have been established, not so much by lawyers as by the common people of England … These are the men who have bequeathed to us the heritage of freedom."
The second quotation is from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Devlin, who wrote in his Trial by Jury:
"Each jury is a little parliament. The jury sense is that Parliamentary sense. I cannot see the one dying and the other surviving. The one object of any tyrant in Whitehall would be to make Parliament utterly subservient to his will and the next to overthrow
1412
or diminish trial by jury, for no tyrant could afford to leave a subject's freedom in the hands of twelve of his countrymen. So that trial by jury is more than an instrument of justice and more than one wheel of the constitution. It is the lamp that shows that freedom lives."
I think all your Lordships would oppose any measure that sought to end the jury system unless it was felt to be absolutely essential.
Two reasons have been put forward for ending the jury system in these cases in Northern Ireland. The first is that the juries themselves could not be relied on, because of their sectarian emotions, to give an unprejudiced decision. In Northern Ireland to-day the jury system is now in operation except in a few cases associated with emergency. On the whole, it has worked well and impartially. There is the historic case of Mallon and Talbert, two Catholics who were acquitted by an entirely Protestant jury because their confessions were alleged to have been obtained by torture. Jury liability in Northern Ireland is still on a property basis of £32 valuation, and most property owners are Protestants. They are therefore not likely to give decisions which would be favourable to the I.R.A. I should add that I believe there is now some discussion as to whether the juries should be broadened, but at the moment I think the position remains as I have stated it. Under this clause, trial without juries is extended both by the regulations which have preceded this Bill and by the Bill itself. Over 50 selected offences can be tried without a jury, without the possibility of bail or common law defences. I submit that experience of the character of the juries indicates that we need not go as far as this clause suggests in eliminating juries.
The second reason that has been urged for the ending of the operation of juries in Northern Ireland is that witnesses would decline to give evidence because of their fear, because of intimidation and because they might be threatened. I submit to your Lordships that this danger might be overcome in three ways. The first would be by the admission of evidence by affidavit; the second, by the concealment of identity of witnesses, if necessary; and the third, by some relaxation of the rule regarding hearsay evidence. I believe that if this were done no reason

1413
would remain for the total elimination of the jury system.
I have dealt with Clause 2(1), and I should now like to refer to subsection (4). Surely this is one of the most remarkable clauses that has ever been put into a Bill to come before this House. Subsection (4) says:
"Without prejudice to subsection (2) above, where the court trying a scheduled offence on indictment are not satisfied that the accused is guilty of that offence, but are satisfied that he is guilty of some other offence which is not a scheduled offence, but of which a jury could have found him guilty on a trial for the scheduled offence, the court may convict him of that other offence."
I have never read such an extraordinary provision. The court is given the power to deal with scheduled offences. Under this clause, even if a man is found innocent of the scheduled offence he can be found guilty of another offence, if it is thought that a jury could have found him guilty. I am not a lawyer; but is there any lawyer, including the noble Lord, the Lord Privy Seal, who can possibly defend a clause of that character? Is there any precedent for it in the whole of British law, and what can be said in justification of it?
LORD KILBRACKEN: In rising to support my noble friend, I should like to apologise for not having been present in your Lordships' House during the Second Reading of the Bill. I had damaged myself while following the peaceful pursuit of pitching bales of hay in Ireland and was unable to face travelling some hundreds of miles to attend your Lordships' House.
I completely agree with what my noble friend Lord Brockway has said about subsection (4). It seems to me that if a man is charged with a scheduled offence, and if in the course of his trial in extraordinary circumstances it is found that some completely minor offence—for example, exceeding the speed limit—has been involved, then the court can find him guilty of that offence, instead of simply allowing him to go to an ordinary court and be tried in the ordinary way, where he would be able to defend himself.
The other point to which I should like to allude is that concerning the single judge. Your Lordships will remember that on Second Reading (and I may say that I read the OFFICIAL
1414
REPORT very carefully) my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner expressed his clear preference for a judge and two legal assessors. The arguments he adduced were so convincing that there is no need for them to be repeated now. The principal reason given for insisting on a single judge was the shortage of appropriately qualified judges, barristers and solicitors in Northern Ireland. The Question was asked in another place by my right honourable friend Mr. Fitt why it might not be possible for the English Bar to be called upon. He said, it is true, that it would not be a very pleasant duty and might not be popular; but surely in a matter of such importance it would be justifiable to call upon the English Bar to make possible the position which was actually voted for at Committee stage in another place, although the decision then reached was reversed at a later stage by the Government. I should like to know why that solution could not be adopted by the Government.
5.24 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL: May I just put a question to the noble and learned Lord? I am not sure that it comes to anything more than a question of drafting, but it is a question which arises in my mind on subsection (3). That subsection provides that where there is an indictment which contains a count relating to a scheduled offence and also another count relating to an offence which is not a scheduled offence, the offence which is not a scheduled offence shall be disregarded. I think the general object of that provision can be readily discerned, but I am not quite sure how it works. Supposing you have such an indictment, the judge is enjoined by this subsection to take no notice of the non-scheduled offence. What happens to it?—does it, as it were, lie on the table? It remains, after all, part of a count which is extant against the accused person. It has not been dealt with at the trial of the scheduled offence and it remains in being, so to speak. I suppose it is a charge which could at some time in some court be proceeded with against the accused person. That would have to be subject to the general principle that a man cannot be prosecuted twice on the same, or substantially the same, facts; and in probably 19 cases out of 20 that principle would apply so as to prevent any further

1415
prosecution of that accused person in relation to the non-scheduled offence.
Perhaps it is only a matter of drafting, but I wonder whether it might not be desirable to reconsider the language to see exactly what is intended. I would assume it is intended that even if the principle of no further prosection on the same facts is relied upon, the accused person, in a situation of this sort, probably should not have to think himself at risk of prosecution in some other court in relation to the non-scheduled offence. To my mind, at any rate—perhaps I am wrong —the effect of the language used is not quite clear. I feel sure that the noble and learned Lord would agree that it ought to be made clear beyond a peradventure what the position of the accused person in those circumstances is; and I simply raise the point on the Question, "That the clause stand part" in order that the Government may give further consideration to it if the noble and learned Lord feels there is some doubt. If he says that he will take it into account, I shall be completely satisfied.
5.28 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If I may deal with the last point first, the only information I can give to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, at the moment is that it is not intended to proceed with the disregarded count at all. However, as he has raised it as a drafting point, I am sure he would not wish me to answer him off the cuff. I will see that, as a drafting point, it is brought to the attention of those who are more expert than I.
I really am astonished at the two speeches we heard before that of the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill. Dealing first with that of the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, the last time (so far as I remember) he addressed the House on the subject of the administration of justice in Northern Ireland, he actually put to me, as something for which the Government ought to be responsible, a perverse acquittal by a Northern Irish jury of a Protestant for an offence against a Roman Catholic. I pointed out to him, though he did not seem to understand the point, that the Government cannot go behind an acquittal by the jury. He seemed to think that the Government ought to do something
1416
about it. Now, the Government are doing something about it, by the abolition of trial by jury in these circumstances and for the very short period for which this Bill will be in operation, and the noble Lord (incidentally I hope he has now recovered from his hay-toting experiences in Ireland) comes down to the House and complains about what we are proposing, though it would deal with the only thing with which he previously reproached us. The truth is, I fear, as far as the noble Lord is concerned, that—
"Whatever we say,
Aunt Agatha tells us it isn't the way."
I turn now to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, and I found myself even more astonished by what he said. Of course, I endorse every word that fell from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and also from the other noble and learned Lord (whose name for the moment I forget) about the merits of trial by jury. We discussed this matter, of course, at great length on Second Reading. I was happy to know that the noble and learned Lord, my predecessor, speaking from the Front Bench and I think officially on behalf of his Party, expressly endorsed the conclusion to which we had come that trial by jury had in these circumstances broken down. The reason it had broken down was partly intimidation, and partly bias. It is not fair; it is morally unjustifiable—I say this to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, who is not slow to refer in this House to moral problems—to take 12 men from their homes and businesses, where their families are at risk and are vulnerable, where every one of them is known, and where every one of them can have their businesses and homes burnt and their families shot by sectarian violence, and to say, "Now you are going to conduct a cool and impartial trial by jury for a terrorist offence." If anything is morally unjustifiable it is the implication of what the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has said.
Let me support what I have said with a few figures. Take, for instance, the spring assizes which have just taken place, in May and June, in Northern Ireland. In Londonderry City there were 17 cases all of I.R.A.-type violence; there were eight acquittals, five disagreements and four convictions in cases in

1417
which I believe the juries happened to be Protestants. Is that a satisfactory situation to arrive at? Take, for instance, the recent Armagh Assizes. There were six cases, no convictions, four acquittals and two disagreements. I could go on quoting this situation round several of the assizes and county courts. The only other matter I need mention concerns the report which I have received on the Antrim Assizes—so far that is three out of the Six Counties. I would be prepared to quote from the report, but I seem to have mislaid it in the heap of papers that I have before me. But the gist of it is this: if you have a Protestant jury it will not convict a Protestant if you have a Catholic jury it would not convict a Catholic; if you have a mixed jury it will disagree and there will be no result at all. What is the good of talking about the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and whoever else it was, and the merits of trial by jury, when you have reached this kind of situation in Northern Ireland? What is the justice of it? What is the morality of it? People are being killed. These are trials for murder, for bombing, for violence, which nobody deplores more than the two noble Lords who have spoken, I suppose. You cannot get a conviction in the Six Counties of Northern Ireland—or in many of them —under the jury system as it is working now. The noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, was one of the people who pointed that out to me about a year ago.
The fact is that the report went on to say: why is it those situations obtain? The situation obtains because some sectarian juries, members of the two communities, are intimated; they are afraid —I am quoting the report now, of reprisals; others are afraid of being reproached by members of their own community for being traitors or, as they are called in some Protestant circles, Lundies. This is the situation which the noble Lords are asking us to perpetuate. When one comes to look at the remedies proposed, where do we get to? The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, suggested that a trial for murder on sectarian grounds should be tried on affidavit evidence. Well, his little finger is thicker than my thigh! If I was a defendant on a trial for murder or for some violent crime, and I had had to choose between
1418
being tried by a jury on affidavit evidence, not seeing the witness, not having him cross-examined, not even having him appear before the court, and, on the other hand, having a trial where the witness is cross-examined before an impartial judge, whose impartiality is beyond reproach, I know which I should choose. Lord Brockway's suggestion is far more radical and destructive of civil liberty than anything in this Bill.
The other point was that the identity of the witnesses should not be disclosed. But how can that be possible in a community where the nature of the evidence will almost always enable the identity of the witnesses to be discerned, where everybody knows everybody else in a public court which, as I must tell the Committee, is often packed with "bully-boys" for the express purpose of intimidating the witness? But the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, in order to preserve trial by jury, would have the witness absent and his identity not disclosed. Has the Committee ever heard of a more preposterous suggestion? Has the Committee ever heard of anything more destructive of civil liberty than that? What we are suggesting is a trial that would stand up before the European Convention on Human Rights, a trial of a nature which would be reproduced in other countries of civilised Western Europe. What the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, suggests as an alternative is a breach of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. He gets up in this House and says he has never heard of anything so dreadful as Clause 2. I ask the House to pass Clause 2, and to do so with a certain sense of indignation with what the noble Lords have said.
LORD KILBRACKEN: I want to be as charitable as I can, and I can only suppose that the noble and learned Lord did not hear what I said. I am sure that must have been my fault; I did not express myself sufficiently clearly. He is right in saying that a year ago I pointed out to him the danger of the jury system in the Six Counties. I quoted the case of a Protestant (he happened to be a Protestant) who was clearly guilty of having arms and ammunition on his premises, but had been acquitted. And I stand by that. The Committee will know that in

1419
my remarks to-day I said nothing at any time that was critical of the Government's proposal to abolish the jury system—absolutely nothing at all.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord's memory is singularly short. He began his speech by endorsing every word that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, had said.
LORD KILBRACKEN: With respect, I said that I endorsed every word that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, had said on subsection (4). What he was saying on subsection (4) was that when a man had been charged with two offences, only one of which was a scheduled offence, and was found not guilty of that, but that if a jury could have found him guilty of the nonscheduled offence, he could then be found guilty of that offence, that this should appear before a jury. There is no reason why a non-scheduled offence should not be tried by a jury. All nonscheduled offences are tried by a jury. Just because on that occasion the offence happened to have been coupled with a scheduled offence was no reason why it should appear before the special court. The noble and learned Lord has done me a wrong.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If I have done the noble Lord a wrong, I am naturally sorry. All I can say is that he misled me completely by his speech. I do not suppose there were many other Members of the Committee who were not misled. Perhaps I ought to dispose of what the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, said about subsection (4). The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, modestly disclaimed being a lawyer, and I suppose that is right. The fact is that there are certain alternative verdicts which can be found on the evidence on a count of an indictment. In English law they are probably wider than in Northern Irish law, but there are certainly some which can be found. Obviously the draftsman has rightly allowed for the case where an alternative verdict could be found which was not that of a scheduled offence on a count which charged a scheduled offence. One noble Lord—it was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, and therefore this is not a criticism of
1420
the two noble Lords—was very ready to point out the injustice which would be created under, I think it is, subsection (2) if the man was put in peril on two separate occasions; and this is to prevent that.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Limitation of power to grant bail in case of scheduled offences]:
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
5.41 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: I want to raise two points on Clause 3. The first is on subsection (1) which says that a person,
"shall not be admitted to bail except by a judge of the High Court …"
I want to ask what is the justification of that. Why should not a person be admitted to bail by a decision of magistrates or of judges in a lower court? The second point I want to raise is on subsection (5), and this I do very seriously indeed. It applies this clause to,
"persons who have attained the age of 15".
There are similar references in Clauses 8 and 9 and in the Schedule, but perhaps I may deal with the subject on this subsection. Under this subsection a child of 14 may be sent to a detention centre for six months; and there are to be special detention centres for such children. Previously the term was only one month and, such cases were dealt with, I believe, by juvenile courts. Why should not juvenile courts still have this power over children of this kind of age?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The short answers are these. I explained very fully the bail provisions of Clause 3 in my speech on Second Reading. But, first of all, all these offences are offences for which people in England, if they were tried for a comparable offence, would certainly not be given bail in my opinion and I explained my reasons for saying so. They are commonly given bail in Northern Ireland and they are being given bail by magistrates. The reason why magistrates are giving them bail is that they are frightened of being murdered or that their wives and children will be murdered. The noble Lord will not have forgotten (I reminded the House on Second Reading) the dreadful case of Mr. Stainton, a brave Roman Catholic

1421
magistrate, who was I think dealing with a case and who was shot and died —murdered—because of the way in which he stood up to it. His daughter, the Committee will recall, wrote that absolutely heartbreaking poem addressed to the Deity begging for her father to be spared, which brought tears to the eyes of anyone who saw it. That is why we are leaving it to the High Court judge, who, by virtue of his high office, is perhaps more easily protected and, because such judges are relatively few in number, can be provided with reasonable security. We are protecting him so far as we can by saying that his duty is laid down by the Statute: the duty to do that which would be done in any ordinary English case of the same gravity. His duty is laid down by the Statute and therefore, whatever the pressure or threats which may be brought against him, he will have to make the same order. It is directly the danger of intimidation and the desire to protect the magistracy and the Bench that have led us to make this provision.
As regards the second point, I do not claim to be as great an expert on the answer to the question as my noble friend Lord Belstead would be, but, broadly speaking, one must face the fact that in the situation which obtains in the streets of the cities of Northern Ireland children of relatively tender years are, unfortunately, being used by the terrorists to perform crimes which one would have hoped would be confined to the wickeder members of us adults, and they have to be treated as very dangerous people. The provision to which the noble Lord has drawn our attention is a provision by which they may be admitted to bail notwithstanding the general provisions of the clause. The other provision at which we have not yet arrived but to which the noble Lord referred is of course a provision for their detention where they are not admitted to bail.
LORD SHEPHERD: May I ask just one question? I can fully understand and sympathise with the case that the noble and learned Lord has put, but here we have the age of 14. One sees on television and has read reports of youngsters a good deal younger than 14 who also are involved in violent matters. If this is so, we still leave the magistrates
1422
in the same position they are in now. Why was the age set at 14 and perhaps not made lower for the protection of the magistrates, for whom the noble and learned Lord has made a case?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord is logically quite right. I do not know why 14 was chosen as the age, although it is an age quite commonly referred to in criminal matters. I would think it is a question of judgment and degree. It is perfectly true that even younger children have been guilty of explosives offences, and others. But I expect that all of us feel about bail (I do not know what they feel about it over there, but I know what I feel about it here) that, wherever possible, the presumption ought to be in favour of bail. Here we have a clause in which, for reasons I have explained, we are forbidding magistrates to exercise a discretion, taking away power from them and confining it to a High Court judge. I suppose it was thought that in the case of a child under 14 there ought to be a discretion to admit to bail even where a terrorist offence was committed. Obviously, to that extent we have been illogical; to that extent the magistracy will be exposed to threats of reprisals. I should like to think we have been right about this. I do not know exactly why it was done, but I think I can imagine and that I have probably given the correct explanation.
LORD SHEPHERD: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, and I certainly would not want to appear to be putting children in a different situation from their present one. My only fear in this matter is that, by putting it in this way, we may encourage those who require some of these children to do this to look to children who are younger than 14 merely because they are in a special position. I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord would look at this point. I am not now advocating that the age should be lower, but I should not like to think that, because we have set this age, we shall find younger children being required to undertake some pretty ghastly and dreadful acts.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will certainly draw attention to what the noble Lord has said. Those concerned are, I

1423
am afraid, quite wicked enough to what he has in mind.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Admissibility of written statements in proceedings relating to scheduled ofiences]:
5.50 p.m.
LORD GARDINER LORD GARDINER moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 4, line 23, leave out ("or mental").
The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 1. The point is a short one. Clause 5 provides for the very kind of circumstances of which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor spoke so eloquently just now; namely, that a case may be tried on a written statement, which is not even on oath, and the man is not there at all and so cannot be cross-examined. Nevertheless, I quite agree with the clause in general in the circumstances of Northern Ireland: that the man is outside Northern Ireland and it is not reasonably practicable to secure his attendance, or that all reasonable steps have been taken to find him but he cannot be found.
The third case is where the maker of the statement is dead or is unfit, by reason of his bodily or mental condition, to attend as a witness. This Amendment relates only to his mental condition. I quite agree that if, for example, the accused, by attacking the witness, has caused a mental breakdown he should not be able to dispose of him altogether as a witness in that way. This Amendment is solely directed to the question—as I put it rather colloquially during the Second Reading debate: if the man is "bats" when he made the statement, how can it possibly be right that the statement should in any circumstances be admissible? The answer given by the Government to that was that it was very unlikely indeed to happen and that no doubt in those circumstances nobody would want to use the statement. Of course it is possible that the prosecution may know the man is "bats" and the accused may not. It is a short point, and I know that there is a precedent for it in the Criminal Justice Act 1965; but I still think it ought to exclude a case in
1424
which the mental condition was in existence at the time when the man made the statement. Needless to say, the more the Government say that this will never happen, the more I shall press the Amendment because of the obvious submission that there can be no possible objection to acceptance of the Amendment. I beg to move.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I take it that it probably would be convenient to deal with this and the succeeding Amendment together. They are related, are they not?
LORD GARDINER: No.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have misunderstood them then. At any rate I can deal with this quite simply by saying—
LORD GARDINER: I am sorry, but the noble and learned Lord is quite right. I was in effect speaking to both Amendments.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I thought the noble and learned Lord was, but as he is such a very distinguished person I thought I must be wrong when he corrected me.
Before I disclose my hand on this matter, I should like to share with the Committee one or two of my own difficulties about it. To my mind it is not quite so simple as to say that the thing is unlikely to happen; nor is it quite so simple as to say that there is a precedent for it. To begin with, of course, those who are mentally unstable habitually do give evidence in our courts. I slightly—I will not say reproach, but slightly dissent from the rather crude expression, "bats". There are all sorts of people who may be fit to give evidence but who are not quite "all there". It rather depends on the nature of their malady, and the matter about which they are giving evidence, as to whether they are quite "all there" and whether they ought to give evidence or not.
Of course a wise court, whether it is a judge or a jury (in this case it is a judge), will bear in mind anything they know or can observe about the mental condition of the witness if he appears in court, in deciding how much attention to pay to his statement. If I may say

1425
so, I think the strength of the noble and learned Lord's position is that in this case they will not be in a position to make that kind of judgment. That is the strength of it. The difficulty is this: that if a situation arises where the prosecution seek to put in a written statement of a man who is said to be suffering from a mental or nervous condition which enables him not to give evidence, some witness must be produced, either a lay person who says he has observed the man and that he is in a state of frustration and cannot come, or something like that, or a medical witness who says that he has observed the man and that he is suffering from this or that mental incapacity and cannot come. In the latter case, I very much doubt whether the medical witness would be able to say when the condition arose. In the former case there is a new witness who would be liable to as much pressure as the original testimony.
As a matter of fact, I suffered considerable qualms of conscience about whether I should accept this Amendment. In the end I consulted my right honourable friend and we both thought, on balance, that in the light of the noble and learned Lord's fears, and because we want to be as conciliatory as we can in this matter, we would accept this Amendment and its immediate successor, to which he has spoken. I beg the noble and learned Lord to believe that this kind of task is no pleasure. I have some doubts whether, in accepting the Amendment, we are doing right, and I recognise that one may regret it afterwards. It is a political decision rather than a legal one that we have taken, but I hope the noble and learned Lord will take it as a token of good faith.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD GARDINER: I beg to move Amendment No. 2.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 23, after ("witness") insert ("or is unfit to attend as a witness by reason of a mental condition which has arisen since he made the statement").—(Lord Gardiner.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 [Admissions by persons charged with scheduled oflences]:
5.57 p.m.
LORD GARDINER LORD GARDINER moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 4, line 36, leave out from ("to") to ("in") in line 37 and insert ("severe and prolonged pressure whether physical or otherwise or to violence or the threat of violence whether to himself or to any other person or to any combination of such forms of treatment").
The noble and learned Lord said: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord and his colleague for having accepted those Amendments, because, apart from anything else, it shows that this Committee stage is a real Committee stage of the Bill. Encouraged by this, I now move this second Amendment. It arises under Schedule 1, which provides in paragraph 36 that the Secretary of State who releases a man against whom a detention order has been made on conditions, may recall him. Paragraph 36(3) provides:
"The Secretary of State may recall to detention a person released subject to conditions under sub-paragraph (2) above, and a person so recalled may be detained under the original detention order."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: On a point of order. I am not sure that the noble and learned Lord is moving the right Amendment. I thought we were dealing with Amendment No. 3 and, if I am right, Amendment No. 3 is to page 4, line 36.
LORD GARDINER: The noble and learned Lord is quite right. I had moved on to Schedule 1.
LORD STOW HILL: This matter was discussed very fully on the Second Reading stage of this Bill, and the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, gave, if I may say so, a full and reasoned reply to the point that was raised on behalf of the Opposition and which is now repeated in the Amendment. I hope that noble Lords in all parts of the House will think that my noble and learned friend and I are serving the purposes of the Committee in inviting noble Lords to consider the matter again, because I should have submitted to your Lordships that it involves a matter of principle on which we should feel some anxiety.

1427
The relevant words in the Bill are to be found in the following context. In effect, a confession or a statement made by an accused person is to be admissible against him on the trial of a scheduled offence unless (I abbreviate rather, but I think I get the substance of it) it was obtained by his being
"subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment in order to induce him to make the statement.…."
I start, and I know my noble and learned friend starts, from the general position that we are in a wholly exceptional situation, that there is the risk of a breakdown of the administration of the criminal law in the circumstances at present obtaining and that that not only justifies this Committee but requires that this Committee should be ready to depart, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, and his colleagues recommended, from a number of legal safeguards which over the years we have worked out in order to prevent the risk of innocent persons being convicted of crimes which they have not committed. I start from that position. I seek to serve the purpose of the Committee by asking your Lordships to form a judgment on this question. Have we in this particular instance gone a little too far in departing from those standards? I put that to the Committee because of what I submit is the extremely stringent and severe character of the wording used. The statement has to be admitted in effect unless it was obtained by torture or inhuman or degrading treatment.
I should have thought it is difficult in our vocabulary to find words of more extreme import than those words. I accept at once that the test has got to be something far more severe than that which we habitually apply in normal circumstances in our own courts in this country in the case of the trial of criminal offences. There is no question of the Judges' Rules or of warning here. But have we not gone too far in selecting this extreme form of expression? Unhappily, in this century, we have become used to the concept of human beings applying torture to each other and treating each other in a way which is inhuman and degrading, and wherever we sit in this House, or any other, we all abhor
1428
that sort of thing and thoroughly repudiate it for any purpose whatsoever.
What the clause in effect says is this. If you have a person before you—"you" being an interrogating police officer—and there is a question of that person being put on trial for a desperate offence, in order to get a statement out of him it is your duty, if you are the interrogating police officer, to do anything to him to make him make that statement, subject to this, that you must not actually torture him and you must not actually submit him to degrading or inhuman treatment. I would submit to your Lordships that this is going a very long way. I take into account the fact that you are dealing with people who probably, certainly if they are guilty, are bloodthirsty, pitiless people; but I try to picture the situation of a decent, self-respecting police officer, perhaps with a family of his own, talking to his superior officer and asking him how he should conduct himself; and the answer is, "You have got to get a statement out of this man", or it might be a woman, "go to any lengths, but do not actually torture him. If you actually torture him the statement will not be admissible. Do not subject him to treatment which is inhuman or degrading". Those are words of uncertain import. I would have thought possibly in the ordinary connotation of the English language we might substitute for inhuman or degrading" the word "bestial". It is something we abhor and condemn.
It is said on the other side, and I accept at once that it is a weighty argument, that you are, after all, envisaging a situation in which a judge is trying this case without a jury being present. He is an experienced judge and clearly, if he heard that the individual charged had been subjected to treatment which fell short of torture but nevertheless was bestial, very unkind treatment (if I may use the expression unkind") he would probably say to himself "Well, I am not going to place much credence on this statement. If I thought it was voluntarily made I would rely on it, but when I hear the man", or woman as it may be, "was not actually tortured but nevertheless drastic measures were applied short of torture, I do not think it would be right for me to place much reliance on that statement". I accept that that is a cogent argument and probably in some

1429
cases would result, if I may respectfully say so to the Judicial Bench, in a correct assessment of it, and in the statement not being allowed to loom too large in the evidence against the accused person. I accept that. If I may respectfully say so to the noble and learned Lord who advanced that argument on Second Reading, I also accept that it is desirable, if we can, also to adhere to the language of the European Convention on Human Rights. This language which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, and his colleagues, have chosen does in fact come from the European Convention on Human Rights.
The argument advanced by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor also has force, if I may say so, but I would say to him possibly it is open to this answer. If we should, as I think we should, so far as we can, adhere to the language of the European Convention, perhaps it could be said that we ought also to do that in our own administration of the criminal law in this country. We do not do that. We think it right to apply far more careful tests in deciding whether or not we will admit a confession by an accused person. We have the Judges Rules and the caution, and we are very, very far away from the sort of provision made in the European Convention on Human Rights; I think rightly so. So I submit to the noble and learned Lord and to your Lordships' Committee that that argument only goes a certain way, although I accept it goes some way; and I accept at once on the case as a whole that this is a matter of balanced argument. There are considerations on both sides. When dealing with this wholly unprecedented situation it is difficult to draw the line in the right place. I accept that at once.
The object of my noble friend and myself in putting down this Amendment is to ask your Lordships to give further thought to this matter, in the concept that supposing it is the sense of your Lordships' Committee that really this language is too extreme, then one might try on Report to see whether we can find some more appropriate language. I know the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, and his colleagues gave a great deal of thought to this and tried hard to find language which would seem to avoid the extreme character of the language
1430
chosen. It is very difficult to draft. My noble and learned friend and I made an attempt in the language we have put on the Marshalled List. I am quite sure that Parliamentary Counsel could probably shoot our attempt to bits, but I would have thought if we try to embody, as we have sought to do, the concept of prolonged duress, prolonged pressure of a severe character, whether with or without violence or with or without threats, that was coming rather near to what we have in mind. I myself, and I do not know whether your Lordships feel this also, find it very difficult to accept the notion that in a Statute emanating from Westminster we should say, in effect, "Do everything you like to this person, but do not torture him." We are, I would have thought, by implication saying, if we do so, that we are prepared to accept everything up to torture—that you must not go beyond torture or bestial treatment, as I have described it, or inhuman or degrading treatment. It goes against the grain with me; I do not like the idea of it and I hope your Lordships will not think I am being pernickety and saying as it were by implication emanating from Westminster that there they are prepared in any circumstances to tolerate such extreme conduct so long as it does not go beyond the limit into the realm of torture or bestial treatment.
Those are the arguments which I would seek to propound. As the clause stands, if the statement is obtained by torture or inhuman or degrading treatment it is not admissible. If it was obtained by something less than that it is admissible. The judge would then assess it. I agree that that is an argument of importance, but I respectfully submit that we ought to try and find something which imposes a test of severity which allows for the fact that the interrogating officers are dealing with a wholly abnormal situation, one where they have a guilty man before them—a very abnormal type of person. I do not suggest that this should apply when an innocent man is charged with the offence. These are abnormal people, who know no pity, and in that situation there is justification for allowing a good deal more latitude than we would in our own country in normal circumstances.
I hope I do not repeat myself when I say that there is a limit beyond which

1431
we should not even seem to countenance harsh treatment. I submit that this language transgresses that limit. For those reasons I respectfully move the Amendment on the Marshalled List, in the knowledge and I am sure with the agreement of my noble and learned friend, that probably that language is unsatisfactory, but perhaps your Lordships may think that it does ensconce an idea of the sort of direction in which we ought to go and which might be explored further for the purpose of perhaps finding more suitable language for Report. I beg to move.
6.13 p.m.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, I support this Amendment, more with a view to asking the Government to think again than supposing that this is the right Amendment, and having every sympathy with the Government because I think it is very difficult to draw the right line. The first question I would raise is this. As the Bill stands, what is the position as to the methods of interrogation described in the Compton Report?
The Compton Committee's conclusions were that their interrogation in depth procedures consisted of: (a) keeping the detainees' heads covered by a black hood except when being interrogated or in a room by themselves, and that this constituted physical ill-treatment; (b) submitting the detainees to continuous and monotonous noise of a volume calculated to isolate them from communication, and that this was a form of physical ill-treatment; (c) depriving the detainees of sleep during the early hours of the operation, and that this constituted physical ill-treatment; (d) depriving the detainees of food and water other than one round of bread and one pint of water at six hourly intervals and that this constituted physical ill-treatment for men who were being exhausted by other means at the same time; (e) making the detainees stand against a wall in a required posture (facing wall, legs apart, leaning with hands raised up against wall) except for periodical lowering of the arms to restore circulation; (f) detainees attempting to rest or sleep by propping their heads against a wall were prevented from doing so, and that if a detainee collapsed on the floor he was picked up by the armpits
1432
and placed against the wall to resume the required posture, and that the action taken to enforce this posture constituted physical ill-treatment. They found that 11 of the 12 men were at the wall for periods totalling 9, 9, 13, 14, 15, 20, 23, 29, 30, 40 and 43½ hours, and the man covered by the second Compton Report totalling 35 hours. Those hours were not, of course, continuous. They were standing continuously at the wall for periods of 6, 6, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 8, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 10, 10, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15 and 15 hours.
On the Privy Counsellors Committee we all declined to express any opinion as to whether those interrogation methods amounted to, "torture or inhuman or degrading treatment". There were two reasons for that: the first was that it was not necessary for us to do so because there was no disagreement whatever, either in the evidence we heard or among the Committee, that these methods were illegal by the law of England and illegal by the law of Northern Ireland and, for that matter, illegal by the law of Aden where, among other colonial situations, they had been used by an army interrogation team. That team, while never putting anything in writing, went over to Northern Ireland to train the Irish police in these methods, but as things were done which constituted torture and crime, it was obviously illegal and therefore quite unnecessary to express any opinion as to whether it constituted a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights, which uses the words "torture or inhuman or degrading treatment".
The second reason was that the Government of the Republic of Ireland brought a case, which I think is still extant, against the United Kingdom Government alleging that these methods were a breach of the European Convention. The United Kingdom case as I understand it was and is an issue, if the European Convention applied, that these methods did not constitute, "torture or inhuman or degrading treatment". If that is right, then these are the sort of things which will be able to be done if the clause stands as it is. They will of course remain illegal, and we have been told by the Government that these methods have been stopped. Nevertheless, I cannot help thinking that the Committee as

1433
a whole will probably agree that confessions ought not to be admissible if they are obtained either by the Compton methods or even by lesser methods, though I think it is very difficult to draw a line at the right point.
Of course the Bill purports simply to carry out the recommendations of the Diplock Committee. I do not know how far the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, had studied the decisions of the European Court as to the meaning of the words, "torture or inhuman or degrading treatment", but it looks as though he thought that physical violence, or even the threat of physical violence, would constitute, "torture or inhuman or degrading treatment" because paragraph 91 of their Report reads:
"We do not think that with human lives and properties so gravely at risk any fair-minded man would consider that in the present emergency the police who are charged with the detection of crime should be discouraged from creating by means which do not involve physical violence, the threat of it or any other inhuman or degrading treatment…."
It is because of that phrase that I conclude that he must have thought that physical violence, or even the threat of it, would amount to, "torture or inhuman or degrading treatment". So if I may say so, I respectfully feel that this really requires further consideration. I have received—and it may be some of your Lordships have received—purported allegations of actions being conducted now at the Royal Ulster Constabulary Interrogation Centre at Ballykelly R.A.F. Barracks, mostly on young detainees of 17 to 23. I have no knowledge, of course, of whether any of them are justified or not.
I appreciate that it will be said that this is subject to the judge's discretion. This is the great difficulty, because the governing consideration must be this: that what has happened over the Judges' Rules in England shows that with the best police force in the world, which I believe to be ours—and I have no reason to think that the Royal Ulster Constabulary, for whom I have a high regard, have not an equally high standard—if the police use methods they ought not to use to get a confession and then find that the judge admits it, they go on doing it. I am not revealing any secret when I say that the Judges' Rules are in many cases not observed in
1434
England, and when evidence is given that they are not observed the judge, who has a discretion nevertheless to admit the evidence, tends to admit the evidence. The result is that the police go on doing it.
This, I think, must be the governing consideration, wherever you draw the line. It cannot be an answer simply to say, "Well, a judge could exclude it", because all experience tends to show that if the police use methods they ought not to use and they are not disciplined and the evidence is admitted, human nature being what it is they tend to go on doing it. Therefore, while I sympathise with the Government in feeling that this is a very difficult line to draw, I would support my noble friend Lord Stow Hill in saying that we ought to draw the line at a narrower point than the circumstances in which a confession can be admitted after it has been obtained by methods less Draconian than torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. If I am right in thinking that it is the Government's case that even the Compton methods do not amount to torture or inhuman or degrading conduct, then I think we are in a difficulty.
6.22 p.m.
LORD KILBRACKEN: I strongly support the Amendment of my noble friend and my noble and learned friend who has just spoken. There are two points I should like to make, and the first is this. I assume it is the Government's case that the shameful catalogue of methods enumerated by my noble and learned friend to extract information from prisoners is not held by the Government to be torture or to be inhuman or degrading treatment. I may be wrong in that, but that is my understanding. If that is the case, why is it necessary to have this reference in the Bill at all as it stands at present? Can it be that the Government foresee the possibility of using even more terrible methods? Is there a plan to bring back the rack or the thumbscrew?
The second point I want to make is that my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner found that these methods were illegal. He stated that as his opinion, and, as he said at Second Reading, that opinion has never been challenged. What action has been taken against those people who were responsible for that illegal

1435
act and those illegal actions? Has any action been taken, and if not why not? If such actions were illegal, do we have to provide in legislation that worse methods would make any evidence secured in that way inadmissible? It seems to me that the high standards of British justice, for which I have had such great respect, are falling to the most abysmal depths if we have to state in an Act of Parliament that evidence obtained by torture worse than that used at Long Kesh cannot be admitted.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble and learned Lord. Lord Stow Hill, and the noble and learned Lord who sits opposite me at the moment have put the case for their Amendment with their customary courtesy and sense of responsibility, and I hope to persuade them in the same mood that they are mistaken in what they are suggesting. In two points of fact I must correct them, and I should like to do so straight away. It may have been just a slip of the tongue, but it is certainly wrong when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, said that we were in effect, by the Bill as it stands, saying, "Do everything you like to this person but do not torture him". We are not saying that at all, and I will explain to him in a moment why. Equally the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, was mistaken—and I did not get his words precisely, so he will forgive me if I do not quote him exactly—in suggesting that it was any part of our case that the authorities in Northern Ireland ought to use the Compton methods, if I may use a shorthand phrase. I will again explain that. Indeed the very speech which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, made exposes the fallacy of both statements, if I may say so.
I think I really must pass by with contempt the suggestion which fell from the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, that the British Government were thinking of introducing the rack. That is neither courteous nor responsible, and I can only repudiate it with such indignation as I feel the House would wish me to use.
If I may return to the two noble Lords who put their case in a reasonable way, I start by saying this. I was deeply grateful, if I may say so personally to him now—I do not think I have had the opportunity of saying it before—to the
1436
noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, who was one of the Compton Commission, for the extreme sense of responsibility with which they characterised what they found had taken place. Their restrained and proper language rendered it much more easy for those of us who wished to stop that type of interrogation to accept his Minority Report rather than the Majority Report of the other two. They all, I thought, carried out their functions conscientiously and with great wisdom. If he will allow me to say so now, I know how deeply he feels about these things; it must have cost him a great deal to express his views in such cautious language, and I think it enabled those of us who wished to take that point of view to accept his Minority Report rather more easily than we might otherwise have done. So I think he can write it down as his good deed for the Session that he acted in that way.
The noble and learned Lord said to the Committee—and who am I to contradict him?—that such actions are illegal by Northern Irish law. I will not discuss English law because we are dealing with Northern Ireland. On the assumption that he is right and that it is both a tort and a crime to conduct methods of that kind, the answer is that we do not say to the police or the military, "You can do anything you like short of torture", because the fact is that in the opinion of the noble and learned Lord—and, as I say, I have not contradicted him—if they did that the Government would be liable to pay damages, they would be liable to pay damages personally as well as the Government, and they, though not the Government, would be liable to criminal prosecution. This can be brought under the law of Northern Ireland, as it can under the law of England, by any individual in the world who is living there and will take out a summons. That is the sanction which prevents that kind of thing and, quite rightly in my opinion, we have given an undertaking that those methods will not be used. I was happy to note that neither of the two noble Lords who spoke so responsibly suggested that we have departed in any way from a strict observance of the undertaking we gave when we accepted the noble and learned Lord's Minority Report.

1437
It follows therefore that it is not correct to say that we are tolerating, permitting, encouraging, conniving at or colluding with methods of which the House would not approve, and which the noble and learned Lord enumerated. I hope he takes that as common ground between us. We are not allowing this kind of thing, and if it came to the surface it would be open to prosecution, and open to an action for damages if the noble and learned Lord's view of Northern Irish law is correct.
What are we doing about it? This brings me back to the philosophy of the Bill. It is at this point that I begin to cross swords with the argument presented by the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill. The philosophy of the Bill, which I sought to expound on Second Reading, is this. One of its prime objects is to get rid of imprisonment without trial. The Diplock Report described how we were to set about it. Lord Diplock said that the ordinary trials had broken down and that this was part of the reason why so many people had to be imprisoned without trial; and he said that we must make deviations from the ordinary rules of procedure and evidence.
He asked "What standard are we going to adopt for the special trials we hold for terrorist offences?" The standard he took was Article 6 of the Human Rights Convention, which contains the phrase about "torture and inhuman or degrading treatment", that appears in the present clause of the Bill under discussion. What he said in effect was, "We will set up trials which conform to the Human Rights Convention, although not with the highly laudable additional restrictions which in ordinary times are imposed on trials both in Northern Ireland and in England; and beyond that stage you must rely on an extra-judicial process." That is to say, a process at which the laws of evidence are suspended.
The effect of passing this Amendment, or of any Amendment which reduces the area within which a public trial can take place, is to increase the number of people who will be imprisoned without trial. Therefore I must point out to the noble and learned Lord—and I will come back to this in another context—that if he is really concerned, as I know he is, to prevent inhuman treatment, this is not
1438
the way to go about it, because the only effect of passing his Amendment would be to push it under the carpet so that it resulted in imprisonment without trial under the detention order, which is far less easy to control. I am quite sure that that is, in its way, a conclusive argument against it. The virtue of a trial under the Bill is that it is held in public. Every kind of allegation against the police, or against the military, can be made in public in that trial, irrespective of whether the evidence is ultimately admitted or ultimately rejected, because, as both noble Lords will know, whether or not it goes to admissibility it must be admitted when it goes to weight. Therefore the way in which malpractices can best be brought to light and repressed, as the Compton practices were repressed as a result of the noble and learned Lord's Minority Report, is precisely to ensure that as many trials as possible will be held in public and that the methods can be subjected to scrutiny by counsel.
I am afraid this is going to take a little time, but it is a serious matter. The noble and learned Lord appealed to me to give it further consideration, and I have given it no little additional consideration to what I gave it on Second Reading. I hope I may be forgiven here for what may be thought by both noble Lords to be a slight digression, because at this stage I owe it to the Committee to describe something that both noble Lords know: namely, what actually goes on in a trial by jury when a confession is sought to be adduced and its admissibility is challenged by the defence. What takes place is what is called in the profession "a trial within a trial". The jury is told to go out. All the evidence relating to the confession—almost always including the actual confession itself—is then adduced in court, but without the jury being present. The Press do not report it (though why they do not must be ascribed more to their sense of public responsibility than the law), but in fact the trial goes on without the jury.
The judge then makes up his mind about the facts. He asks himself, "Am I satisfied "—and the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the admissibility of the alleged confession, and not on the defence to establish that it was improperly obtained. If he is not, then

1439
the evidence is not admitted. The jury come back, and the trial then goes on without their ever knowing what it is. If, on the other hand, the evidence is admitted, then the trial goes on and the jury hear all the evidence again with a new cross-examination and all the facts relating to the alleged improper methods used, notwithstanding that the judge has expressed his own view of the facts, and then the jury make up their own mind about what weight, if any, they choose to attach to it.
Of course this is a lengthy process in a trial by jury, but it is a perfectly rational one. Now translate that into terms of judge alone, and I think the Committee will see that the opposite is the case. Suppose this trial takes place before a judge alone. The judge first of all has to hear all the evidence in the case relating to the confession, all the circumstances relating to the way in which it was obtained. He will not be able, because judges are human (at least, I have always thought so), to fail to make some kind of judgment about whether the confession is in fact a true statement of what happened or a false statement of what happened. Suppose he came to the conclusion that the evidence was improperly obtained I am using shorthand—he says, "I have got to exclude it". Suppose, however, that he believes it to be true; what sort of mental gymnastics can a judge alone really perform, believing that a true confession had been made but that he will not admit it in evidence? The trial thereafter becomes some kind of a farce, and only a greater one in a sense—although we have done our best in the Bill, as it stands, to give him a discretion to send it to another judge—if he excludes the evidence. If, on the other hand, he does not exclude it, he is still entitled to say, "I am not satisfied about the way in which this evidence was obtained, even though it was not obtained by torture. I therefore choose to disregard it."
I am sorry to take so long about this subject, but it is very important that this should be understood by lay people as well as by lawyers. This is not just an argument between lawyers; it is an argument about human liberty. I hope I have persuaded the Committee that all this talk about admissibility is perfectly real and rational when you are dealing with a
1440
jury, when a judge decides what they shall be allowed to hear, but it is basically unreal when a judge is sitting alone and decides what he will allow himself to listen to, and has to hear it all first before he can make up his mind.
I think that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, will at this point ask me—and he will be perfectly right—" Why have you excluded torture and degrading and inhuman treatment?" The answer to that is basically one of public decency. This is what the Diplock Commission said about it, and I agree with them. It is contained in paragraphs 88 and 89 of their Report and I think we should remind ourselves of it:
"The logic of this solution"—
say they—
"is that the function of a court of law is to determine whether the accused is truly guilty of the offence with which he is charged. Its function is not to discipline the police force, over which it has no direct powers of control, by the indirect method of letting a guilty man go free to commit further crimes against public order and safety. In the case of a hardened terrorist this is a likely result of this method of marking the court's disapproval of the behaviour of the police.
Nevertheless"—
they go on to say, and this is where I agree with them—
"we think that logic ought to yield to the consideration that the reputation of courts of justice would be sullied if they countenanced convictions on evidence obtained by methods which flout universally accepted standards of behaviour. We consider therefore that although the current technical rules, practice and judicial discretions as to the admissibility of confession ought to be suspended for the duration of the emergency in respect of Scheduled Offences, they should be replaced by a simple legislative provision that:

(1) Any inculpatory admission made by the accused may be given in evidence unless it is proved on a balance of probabilities that it was obtained by subjecting the accused to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment; and

(2) The accused shall not be liable to be convicted on any inculpatory admission made by him and given in evidence if, after it has been given in evidence, it is similarly proved that it was obtained by subjecting him to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment."

At this stage, I think I must point out that the Bill as drafted is a stage more favourable to the accused than the Dip-lock Commission reported, because although we have adhered to the strict wording of the European Convention—I

1441
have explained our reasons for doing that, and I hope they have commended themselves to the Committee—we have reversed the burden of proof. We have put it back on the prosecution to exclude inhuman or degrading treatment or torture, and not vice versa for the defence to establish it. This I think is right and, although I have forgotten the exact course of events in another place, I think it is true that we yielded to pressure from various critics at one stage or another in order to do it.
This brings me back to the view—I hope I have persuaded the Committee that I have not in any way passed over this Amendment lightly—which I ask the Committee to accept. The line we have drawn is the line of universally accepted human behaviour, which the European Convention has drawn. For very many reasons, including respect for the European Convention itself, I do not want to depart from that form of words. There are reasons of policy which I have tried to explain in my argument, but there is a different reason of policy and it is this. Both noble and learned Lords spoke rather airily, saying that the wisdom of the Parliamentary draftsman could perhaps find a better form of words than those in the Bill; but those in the Bill have been adopted by the European Community as the proper place to draw the line. I do not want to cast doubts upon either the humanity or the wisdom of the noble and learned Lords, but a great deal of thought was spent on selecting these words by the parties who drew up the Human Rights Convention, and I should hope to have persuaded the Committee that the policy of the Bill demands that we should hold as many trials as possible in public.
If we want to stop the practices which fall short of the Convention we must do it by the ordinary processes of law in serious cases, where what is done is illegal against either the civil or the criminal law—which can be done; or by disciplinary methods in cases where there is much less deviation from propriety. We should leave it to the judge to adopt a rational procedure in all cases which do not go outside the bounds of the Human Convention, and to decide whether he believes that the confession obtained was true or false, when he comes to make up his mind about whether a terrorist is proved
1442
to be guilty without reasonable doubt, and we should not ask him to indulge in intellectual contortions which are appropriate only when two tribunals, one of law and one of fact, are trying the case. I do not think I ought to express a view as to what is, and what is not, inhuman or degrading treatment. This is obviously a matter of degree related to the circumstances of a particular case. In the end, the courts will have to decide that question in this country, and if a case is brought in the European Court, then the European Court will have to decide it again, and I think it would be improper for somebody such as myself, holding a quasi-judicial position, to try to speculate as to what they might find. Opinions might differ about the Compton methods. I have already said what I have to say upon them and I do not propose to go beyond that. But with that explanation, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will not think me discourteous if I say that we do not accept this Amendment, although we respect his reasons for putting it forward.
LORD STOW HILL: I rise only to thank the noble and learned Lord very sincerely for his very full and carefully considered reply. Quite obviously, he has thought a great deal about this problem and it is a difficult one. I do not know whether it is for me, or for my noble and learned friend whose name appears first on the Amendment, to make a decision whether or not we ought to beg leave to withdraw the Amendment, but, speaking for myself, I think the right course is probably to ask the Chair to put the Question, although I would not ask the Committee to divide. But I should like to hear the voices in order to collect the general expression of view.
LORD GARDINER: I would ask my noble and learned friend, if he agrees, to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD STOW HILL: I have not asked leave to withdraw it—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No, but his noble friend was advising the noble and learned Lord to do so.
LORD STOW HILL: —and I should like to have the voices counted. If they are very obvious in one way I shall not ask the Committee to divide.
6.48 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clauses 7 to 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Arrest and detention of terrorists]:
6.57 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 10 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD BROCKWAY: On Clause 10, I wish to raise the question of the right of constables and members of the Armed Forces to arrest and search on suspicion. This issue is also raised in practically every clause from now until Clause 18, and, to avoid making a speech on each clause, perhaps I may deal with the whole problem now. If we look at Clause 10, we see that the first subsection reads:
"Any constable may arrest without warrant any person whom he suspects of being a terrorist."
Subsection (2) says:
"For the purposes of arresting a person under this section a constable may enter and search any premises or other place where that person is or where the constable suspects him of being".
I regard that power to arrest on such suspicions as being quite extreme, and beyond what we ought to accept in any Bill which comes before your Lordships'
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 4; Not-Contents, 53.

CONTENTS

Brockway, L. [Teller.]

Longford, E.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Kilbracken, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Elton, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Abinger, L.

Falkland, V.

Redesdale, L.

Belstead, L.

Ferrers, E.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Berkeley, B.

Gowrie, E.

St. Just, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

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

Sandford, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Somers, L.

Carrington, L.

Hanworth, V.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Clwyd, L.

Hereford, L.Bp.

Coleraine, L.

Hood, V.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Limerick, E.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Craigavon, V.

Lothian, M.

Sudeley, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Loudoun, C.

Tenby, V.

Crawshaw, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Terrington, L.

Daventry, V.

Mancroft, L.

Teviot, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Milverton, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Dulverton, L.

Monck, V.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, B.

Dundee, E.

Mountevans, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Eccles, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Young B.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Committee. If I may be permitted to deal with it now (because it raises the same point), when we turn to Clause 11(1) we see that anyone can be arrested who is suspected of "being about to commit" an offence; and that Clause 12(1) extends this power to any member of Her Majesty's Forces. Then, subsection (2) of Clause 12 contains the extraordinary statement that such a person need not state the ground of arrest: he has only to state that he is a member of Her Majesty's Forces, and he can then arrest. One also sees that this applies not only to the right of arrest but also to the right of searching premises.
To revert to Clause 10, I draw attention to subsection (3). Under this subsection, if a suspected person is arrested in these circumstances he can be kept in detention for 72 hours before being brought before a court. This is to make the situation more severe than it was previously. Previously, the period during which he might be detained before being brought before a court was 48 hours. I hope that, on these grounds, the Committee will consider very carefully indeed whether it ought to endorse these denials of very elementary civil rights—the power to arrest and search on suspicion, and to arrest without even stating any grounds of arrest. What is the

1445
alternative? It is the practice, if someone is suspected, to ask that person to accompany one to a police station, where some examination may take place. But to suggest that any constable and any member of Her Majesty's Forces should have these extreme powers seems to me to be beyond the acceptance of any Parliament which stands by the right of civil liberties. I hope the Committee will give very careful consideration to these points before accepting these provisions in this clause.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I only want to say that obviously no one wants to extend or impose rights of arrest without warrant or on suspicion—although they exist under the ordinary law in certain cases—beyond what is necessary. In the conditions of Northern Ireland we are satisfied that it is necessary and so were the Diplock Commission. When the noble Lord speaks so glibly of human liberties, he might reflect that not to be bombed is a civil liberty, not to be killed is a civil liberty, not to be shot at your front door in front of your young child is a civil liberty, and in cases of turmoil that kind of civil liberty might be a little more important than expecting a police constable or a young soldier to go about with a set of law reports about him.
LORD BROCKWAY: The noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, knows very well that I take that view just as strongly as he does. What he is really doing is trying to justify a denial of elementary civil rights by an appeal to emotion, to rhetoric, which is not worthy of the legal mind which he should reflect as the Lord Privy Seal.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Lord Chancellor.
LORD BROCKWAY: As Lord Chancellor. It is quite typical that he should just rise with amusement to correct something which I was going to add in that kind of trivial way. It shows that the emotion which he has been reflecting in a rhetorical way from that Front Bench is just a superficial thing which has been made for the purpose of impressing members of this Committee.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I say that if the noble Lord thinks that my emotion on this subject is superficial compared with his, he might reflect that my
1446
son has been there for some time as a soldier.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clauses 11 to 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 [General powers of entry and interference with rights of property and with highways]:
On Question, Whether Clause 17 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD BROCKWAY: I want to raise two points in Clause 17. In doing so, may I say that I do not want to suggest that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was not feeling an emotion on these matters. I was suggesting that on the occasion when he was speaking just now he was emphasising it in a way for the purpose of rather suggesting that those of us who hold these views just as deeply as he does were not expressing them.
On Clause 17 I want first to raise the point in subsection (4), where there is a denial of the accepted rule in this country that anyone charged should be regarded as innocent until he is proved to have been guilty. This phrase is in subsection (4):
"… the proof of which lies on him …"—
that is, the person charged. That is repeated in Clause 20. I want to ask what justification there is for denying the classic legal view in this country that a person is innocent until proved guilty.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is not at all a rare provision in law. Where a person does something which is prima facie unlawful and desires to put foward a special excuse, it is quite common in Statute law to insist that if he has such an excuse he must put it forward because it is a matter distinctly within his own knowledge. It does not apply in common law but it is not at all particularly uncommon in Statute law.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Proscribed organizations]:
On Question, Whether Clause 19 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD KILBRACKEN: I want to draw your Lordships' attention to subsection (6) of this clause. I cannot believe that

1447
it is really the intention of the Government that this clause should go as far as any normal use of language makes it appear to go. I want to read out that part that seems most offensive to me. It states:
"The possession by a person of a document … relating or purporting to relate to the affairs of a proscribed organisation … shall be evidence of that person belonging to the organisation …"
How on earth can that possibly be justified? It happens that within the last few days I have addressed two letters to noble Lords relating to the affairs of the Irish Republican Army. One of these was addressed to my Leader, the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and the other to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I discussed certain aspects of the I.R.A. How can it possibly be maintained, if either of those noble Lords happened to visit Northern Ireland (and, fortunately, only there will this lamentable Bill be applicable) and if they had my letter, or my memos, in their pocket, that this would prove them to be members of the I.R.A.? It seems to me to be completely without justification.
What makes it more remarkable is that nothing is said about the author of the document which relates to the affairs of the proscribed organisations. The person who writes the letter is not covered by this subsection; only the person who receives it. If anybody writes a document which advocates policies of the proscribed organisation, and if that letter is found, it is not held to prove anything about the writer; it is held to prove something about the person who receives it. I could write letters to any number of people in Northern Ireland and if I had a grudge against them I could make sure that the security officers knew that they had the document in their possession; and they would be held to be guilty of being a member of that organisation. I hope that the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor can give me some explanation of why this extraordinary subsection occurs in the Bill.
LORD BROCKWAY: I hope very much that in a more quiet way than we —or shall I say I?—discussed previous clauses, very careful consideration may be given to this subsection. Honestly, I
1448
do not see how anyone could endorse subsection (6):
"The possession by a person of a document addressed to him as a member of a proscribed organisation …"
and then follow the words which were quoted by my noble friend
"…shall be evidence of that person belonging to the organisation at the time when he had the document in his possession."
I imagine that it has been the experience of every Member of another place and many Members of this House to have received documents which have assumed that they are members of particular organisations. If they had received such a document and under the provisions of this clause were alleged to be members of an organisation, and if they had kept the document, I suppose were they in Northern Ireland rather than in this country—which makes no difference to the principle—that document would be required as evidence that they belonged to the organisation at the time they had the document in their possession. This is impossible, and I very much hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will look at this subsection and seek to delete this—I will not say "unforgivable" subsection, but this subsection for which no possible argument can be advanced. To receive a letter in which someone has said that you are a member of an organisation and to have that letter in your possession, it may be quite momentarily, means it is evidence that you belong to the organisation. Surely that is quite impossible, and I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will recognise that.
LORD KILBRACKEN: In view of what my noble friend Lord Brockway has said, may I add that what makes the position far worse is that the document does not have to be addressed to the person as a member of the proscribed organisation. That is taken as evidence that he is a member of it. The subsection states:
"The possession by a person of a document addressed to him as a member of a proscribed organisation, or relating or purporting to relate to the affairs of a proscribed organization …".
So if the letter is addressed to somebody and there is nothing in it about him being a member of a proscribed organisation—if it is addressed, for example, to the

1449
Lord Chancellor—but it relates, or purports to relate, to the affairs of the organisation it proves that he is a member.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Behind the observations of both noble Lords is the fact that they have confused evidence with proof. The judge who tries an offence under the provisions of this Bill has to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that a defendant is guilty. There is nothing in this Bill to deviate from that general burden of proof. What this subsection says is that the possession of certain documents could he evidence which, of course, the judge could take into account, and accept or reject as he liked and as to whether he has reasonable doubt at the end of the case. The noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, said suppose I had gone to Northern Ireland. I have gone to Northern Ireland. Suppose I had a document in my possession which appeared to be of an incriminating kind, what then? The answer is that I should tell the court exactly how I got it and they would believe me, if I were telling the truth. One must, I think, have some sense of proportion about this and one ought to consider the kind of conditions we are fighting against in Northern Ireland. The subsection provides that if someone has an incriminating document in his possession and will not give an explanation of it, he could be convicted, and I think that most people would consider that to be plain commonsense.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 [Failure to disperse when required to do so]:
On Question, Whether Clause 21 shall stand part of the Bill?
7.16 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: The only point I want to raise on Clause 21 is the reference to organisations of three or more persons. Subsection (1) refers to "any assembly—and 'assembly' is a rather strange word—of three or more persons which may lead to a breach of the peace and which may be dispersed, and if someone thereafter joins or remains in the assembly he may be committed to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding
1450
£400. I want to submit that the reference to "any assembly of three or more persons" makes this a little ridiculous. I am familiar with similar legislation covering many parts of the world, including Colonial Territories, and the lowest figure which I have ever seen before is five, which in itself is rather ridiculous. But here we have come to the point of referring to three.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The only thing I can say about that is that the noble Lord's studies, although they may have included Statutes of countries in various parts of the world, have not extended to the Common Law. Three is the number which can constitute a riot or unlawful assembly.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clauses 22 to 26 agreed to.
Clause 27 [The Scheduled offences]:
On Question, Whether Clause 27 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD BROCKWAY: I wish to draw attention to subsection (3) which states:
"The Secretary of State may by order amend that Schedule"—
that is, the schedule of offences—
"(whether by adding an offence to, or removing an offence from, either Part of that Schedule, or otherwise)."
I wish to suggest to the Committee that that gives a power to the Secretary of State which is not acceptable to us.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If the noble Lord would look at Clause 29, he would see that these Orders are subject to Parliamentary control.
Clause 27 agreed to.
Clause 28 [Interpretation]:
7.20 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 28 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD KILBRACKEN: I should like vto draw the attention of your Lordships to the offence of terrorism. "Terrorism" is defined as meaning,
"the use of violence for political ends, and includes any use of violence for the purpose of putting the public or any section of the public in fear."
I wish to put it to the Committee that the definition of "terrorism" here is far too wide. It quite simply stated that it

1451
means, "the use of violence for political ends". It does not specify any degree of violence, nor does it define "violence". So far as I can understand it, if I become engaged in a political argument in a public house and my opponent in an excess of fury strikes me on the nose, he is guilty of terrorism and is a terrorist. I have given a rather frivolous example, but surely we cannot be expected to accept a definition which puts terrorism at such a low value.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I can only say that we have accepted the definition of "terrorism" broadly as it is set out in paragraph 3 of the Diplock Report, and I think it is reasonable. I do not know whether the noble Lord's blow on the nose which he proposes to deliver in a public house after a political argument—
LORD KILBRACKEN: I postulated that I received the blow.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Nobody would think of hitting the noble Lord. But his assailant might or might not be guilty of terrorism. It would be a question of whether he was using violence to a political end, or because he had lost his temper. But he would be tried in the magistrates' court for that triviality, and not before a recorder or a High Court Judge. He would be tried in a magistrates' court just as he would be for any other public house brawl.
LORD KILBRACKEN: It is all very well for the noble and learned Lord to say that, but if we had been having a political argument and we were differing on a political opinion and he had struck me for political ends because he thought that would further his argument, then there is no doubt that he would be guilty of terrorism: and if he was guilty of terrorism he would not be tried by the ordinary courts, because it is a scheduled offence.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord is confusing himself, but he is not confusing me. There is no political end to be gained if you hit an opponent on the nose. You do it because you lose your temper, and that is a common assault. If you are trying to persuade him not to give evidence by hitting him on the nose, then you would certainly be
1452
guilty of terrorism: and so you should be.
Clause 28 agreed to.
Clause 29 [Orders and regulations]:
On Question, Whether Clause 29 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD BROCKWAY: Subsection (3) of Clause 29 says that the Secretary of State may by reason of urgency make an order or regulation without the draft being approved by the two Houses of Parliament. I would suggest that if such an order or regulation is made it should be announced to both Houses of Parliament on the date it is made or immediately after, and that there should be the possibility of a debate on it in either House if it is announced in that way without previous approval of the Houses of Parliament. Subsection (4) says that acts done before approval shall be permitted. That again seems to me to be going rather far, and I should like to hear some justification of it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There are occasions, of course, when matters in this unhappy Province are urgent. I know that the Secretary of State has had to make use of these powers under the previous law, and I do not think there is any evidence to show that he has abused them. Unfortunately, in moments of disorder these things are necessary. I take the noble Lord's point about there being a Parliamentary debate and will refer it to my right honourable friend. If the noble Lord wishes to raise it again, I will write to him, or we can deal with it on Report.
Clause 29 agreed to.
Clause 30 [Commencement, duration, expiry and revival of provisions of this Act]:
On Question, Whether Clause 30 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD BROCKWAY: Under Clause 30 the Commissioners and the Appeal Tribunal are to be composed of judges, barristers and solicitors. I recognise that legal knowledge is necessary for their judgment as to whether laws have been departed from, but I suggest that there is a danger of too much authority without any qualification being placed in the hands of the legal profession. I am

1453
wondering whether Her Majesty's Government might not be ready, as in the case of other tribunals, for the legal representatives to be accompanied at least by advisers from trade union organisations, civil rights organisations, the churches or social workers, who could balance the representation only by the legal profession. Would the Government be prepared to consider such a proposal? There is a separate point on subsection (2) which limits the emergency to 12 months. I should like to see the limit of emergency to be less than 12 months. One does not know what is going to happen in Northern Ireland during these next 12 months. There are some hopes of an easier situation. Surely we must not wait 12 months before there can be some reconsideration of this law.
LORD KILBRACKEN: I should like to mention that there is a great deal of scepticism in Ireland about just how long this Bill, or the Act when it becomes an Act, will remain in force. It is impossible to forget in Ireland that the Emergency Powers Act, which this Bill supersedes, was also said at the time it became law to be going to be in force for, I believe, one year, and it was in force for about fifty years. So when we are told that this is a temporary measure that will be in force for 12 months, there are some people who think that that is perhaps a rather optimistic estimate.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I cannot find in Clause 30 the reference to the Commissioners' qualifications. I thought that they were in Schedule 1. But certainly it is true that they must belong to the legal profession: that is our intention. So far as the duration of the order is concerned, it is for one year as laid down unless prolonged by a Resolution of both Houses. It can be less if the Secretary of State provides by Order, which is again subject to Parliamentary control. I do not think we can better that.
LORD KILBRACKEN: Or it can be more if it is continued.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It can only be more, as I said two sentences ago, if Parliament so approves by Resolution of both Houses. Whether the scepticism which is shared in Ireland is generally held I do not know. All I can
1454
say is that if terrorism stops, the Bill will be mercifully short-lived; if it does not stop it will not be short-lived.
LORD BROCKWAY: I apologise to the noble and learned Lord. The reference was to Schedule 1.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I thought it must be. I do not find it easy to find my way about particular revisions always in the course of debate, and I wondered if I had missed something, or I should not have drawn attention to it.
Clause 30 agreed to.
Clause 31 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Detention of terrorists]:
7.30 p.m.
LORD GARDINER LORD GARDINER moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 25, line 11, at end insert ("but with a right to appeal within twenty-one days of his recall to the Tribunal referred to in Part III of this Schedule against his recall and, if he has not already appealed to the Tribunal against the detention order, with the same rights of appeal as if the detention order had been made on the date of his recall").
The noble and learned Lord said: As the Committee know, under this Schedule there is normally first an interim custody order; then there is an adjudication by a Commissioner, who may either order the release of the detainee or make a detention order, and if he makes a detention order there is then a right of appeal within 21 days to a tribunal. It is in these circumstances that paragraph 36 is as follows:

"(1) The Secretary of State may direct the discharge at any time of a person detained under an interim custody order.

(2) The Secretary of State may direct the release, subject to such conditions (if any) as he may specify, of a person detained under a detention order.

(3) The Secretary of State may recall to detention a person released subject to conditions under sub-paragraph (2) above, and a person so recalled may be retained under the original detention order."

The object of this Amendment, which I do not for one moment suppose is properly drafted, is to achieve two things. The first is to give to the person who is released on conditions and is then recalled because somebody has informed the Secretary of State that he has broken a condition (it may be a condition to live

1455
in a particular town) in circumstances in which there are many people with scores to pay off against other people—though it is reported to the Secretary of State that a man has broken his condition, it does not necessarily mean that it is true —an opportunity at some time or other and in some way or other of proving that he did not break that condition. No way is provided by the Bill of doing that at all. I am not in the least contending that he should not be recalled before being given that opportunity—I should quite expect the recall first—but at some time after he has been recalled surely he should have some opportunity of proving that he should not have been recalled for breaking a condition, because he did not break a condition. When this point was raised in another place it was suggested there should be a right of appeal to a commissioner. That was said to be "infra dig" so far as the Secretary of State was concerned, he being superior to the commissioner. I have suggested, therefore, that there should be a right of appeal to a tribunal.
The second point is this. I have no doubt that ordinarily a man will not be released probably for quite a considerable time, but it occurred to me that the Secretary of State may think that a particular commissioner in a particular case was probably mistaken in making a detention order at all. The Secretary of State may say to himself, "I can quite safely release this chap at once, subject to conditions, or even without conditions." If the man is released in those circumstances, then he obviously will not appeal to the tribunal. Why should he? —he is free. But if later on he is recalled, for whatever reason, or if he is not released for more than 21 days, then he will have lost his right to appeal to the tribunal and will be in a much worse position than if he had never been released by the Secretary of State at all. Here again, I am suggesting that there should be some means of preserving his position if his time for appeal has expired by the time he has come back. No doubt the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has given attention to these two points.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I did consider this matter. Though I am of course in charge of this Bill—and I con-
1456
sidered this in that way—it is not a matter which falls within my particular expertise, and the reasons which put me in charge of this Bill do not really apply to this particular matter, so I hope the noble Lord will forgive me if to some extent I regurgitate some of the points I have been given. I made some inquiries about this. I can talk with more confidence about the question of principle, of which I should like to remind the Committee, though I touched on this to some extent in my reply on Second Reading.
The procedure, as your Lordships will be aware both from the previous debates and from the text of the Bill, is as follows. The Secretary of State makes a temporary order only if lie is personally satisfied that the person concerned is both a terrorist or concerned in terrorist activities and that his detention is necessary for the protection of the public. Both conditions have to be fulfilled before the Secretary of State is entitled to exercise his power. That power is purely temporary. The man goes before the commissioner, who will either confirm the Secretary of State's order—in which case the man stays inside because the commissioner is satisfied both that the man is a terrorist and that his detention is necessary for the protection of the public—or he does not confirm it, in which case the man goes completely free. In the former case—that is, where he stays inside—the man has a further right of appeal to the tribunal, which he must exercise, as the noble and learned Lord rightly says, within 21 days. At the end of a year his case must be reviewed—I am assuming that nothing else happens. It can be reviewed at any time by the Secretary of State by referring him to the commissioner again, and after a year it must be reviewed every six months.
This particular power of releasing on condition has never been used, so in some sense we are both of us jousting in the dark. However, I am informed that the Secretary of State would never consider its use in the event of the commissioner upholding his original decision within 21 days which are allowed for appeal. Thus, the particular situation envisaged by the noble and learned Lord would not arise. The man would only lose his right of appeal after he had stayed inside for 21 days without having

1457
been released on conditions. That particular problem would not arise. If the Secretary of State began to have qualms about whether the man ought to be kept inside at all he would ensure his release in one way or another unconditionally; that is, not being released on condition of good behaviour, or something like that. This is not a binding-over condition.
What the Secretary of State has in mind when he retains this power is that it could be that after a period of time a terrorist gives an undertaking, which is believed, that he wants to leave the Province altogether, perhaps because he has a job in another part of the United Kingdom or abroad, and in that case (assuming the Secretary of State was satisfied that this was so and that the man meant to abide by it) he might release the man on condition that he did whatever he said he was going to do, and then, if he came back, he would be put inside again. But, as I say, so far the actual power has not been used. Therefore, except for what I have told the Committee, we can only speculate as to what use might be made of it in the future. The noble Lord's Amendment assumes that use would be made of a quite different kind from that for which it is required, in such circumstances that a question of fact could arise as to whether or not a breach of condition had taken place.
What the noble and learned Lord seeks to do is to interpose the commissioner again in order to determine the question of fact as to whether the breach had taken place. This, I think, is the purpose of the Amendment he proposes. As to that, I would respectfully say to him that of course the Secretary of State can refer a disputed question of fact, and the case itself, to the commissioner again under the Bill, but the person who is released on condition is not to be treated as an innocent person for the purposes of the detention provisions. He is a person as to whom the Secretary of State has formed the opinion that he is a dangerous person whose detention is necessary for the protection of the public and that view has been ex hypothesi confirmed by the commissioner if he has appealed to the Appeals Commission, and if he has not
1458
appealed because he has not exercised his right of appeal to the Appeals Commission. In other instances of recall I do not think it is usual to submit the executive action of recall by the Secretary of State to a further quasi-judicial inquiry.
We are talking about highly hypothetical circumstances. I should have thought that on the whole if one takes the side of leaning towards private liberty, if one can, the Secretary of State might be deterred from releasing a man on conditions, if he were otherwise minded to do so, if those conditions were not so simple as the case I have given, of leaving the country or the Province altogether, by the knowledge that he would have to submit the whole case again to the tribunal. This is not an argument about which I can pretend to have expert knowledge of any kind. I put it forward to the noble and learned Lord as the reason why, on consideration, my right honourable friend does not feel able to accept this suggestion, rather than one of great legal principle upon which I can cross swords with my doughty opponents. Although the noble and learned Lord's argument has some weight —and there are considerations both ways —my right honourable friend did not feel it right to advise me to accept it on behalf of the Government.
LORD GARDINER: If the Secretary of State asserts, as I understand he positively does, that he would never release anybody within 21 days of a detention order being made, I obviously cannot ask the Committee to divide on this to-night, because I could not substantiate the second half of the Amendment. I am not at all happy about the first part. It is the difference between liberty and no liberty. If a man is brought back to prison for an alleged breach of condition there ought to be some way in which, through some form of inquiry, he could establish that he did not break the condition. I am not impressed by the bureaucratic answer, "If anybody is going to inquire as to whether I am right in finding that you have broken a condition I shall not release you at all". That is a typically bureaucratic attitude. I hope that the noble Lord will think about this first part again before the next stage of the Bill, when perhaps we might return to it.

1459
It would be very simple to provide a forum in which, through a Commissioner or in some way or other, a man had some right after being recalled at the Secretary of State's convenience to establish whether or not he had broken the condition. With those observations, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.43 p.m.
On Question, Whether Schedule 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD BROCKWAY: Paragraph 38(c), on page 25 of the Bill reads:
Any person who …
(c) knowingly harbours any person required to be detained under an interim custody order or detention order, or gives him any assistance … shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to a fine, or both.
I suggest to the Committee that that is a very extreme punishment for circumstances which may have very human considerations. One can easily see a situation where a mother harbours a son knowingly, knowing that he is a person required to be detained. But to say that, because of those human feelings, quite apart from political convictions, she should be liable to serve a term of imprisonment not exceeding five years or a fine in addition to that, seems to be going very far. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will give some consideration to changing those terms.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am not sure that I wholly agree with the noble Lord. These are the maxima; they are not what would happen on indictment. For instance, if I steal a milk bottle I become liable, I think, to seven years' imprisonment. But this is not what happens. Probably I would be given a conditional discharge in view of my previous good character. This is true of all indictable offences. Knowingly harbouring a detainee was, I should have thought, a serious offence. If a widowed mother allowed her son who was on the run to sleep at her house at night she might well be given a conditional discharge or whatever the Northern Irish equivalent is. The Committee will probably take the view that it is a serious offence which can however be mitigated considerably in individual cases. I suppose the Northern Irish
1460
courts would not impose a custodial sentence if they did not think it was justified by the circumstances. I do not think it differs in principle from any other indictable offence.
LORD KILBRACKEN: I should like your Lordships to turn back to paragraph 16 of Schedule 1 which tells us:
On the hearing of a reference a commissioner may—
(a) receive oral, documentary or other evidence, notwithstanding that the evidence would be inadmissable in a court of law;
I raised this matter on the occasion of the debate on the Detention of Terrorists Act, on which this Bill is in principle based, when it was debated some eight months ago. I asked the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, who was then in charge of the Bill, if he could give an indication of the kind of evidence which would normally be inadmissible but which could be accepted on the hearing of a reference. The reply he gave was that this referred in general to hearsay evidence. He advised me to read very closely what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, had said earlier in that debate on that subject. I did so. In the noble and learned Lord's speech the only type of evidence that he seemed to foresee might be normally inadmissible but here acceptable would be hearsay evidence. I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor whether he can confirm that that is his understanding, and that the effect of this paragraph is no more than to admit hearsay evidence. I can appreciate that in some circumstances in Northern Ireland it might be necessary to accept such evidence. If there is a case I would far prefer that it said so in the paragraph.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Obviously hearsay evidence is the principal case envisaged. It is also, I suppose, envisaged that where evidence of a witness is given in the absence of the accused under one of the other paragraphs, even though it would be otherwise admissible, it would not be admissible in a court of law. Equally, hitherto in many of the possession cases, where the obvious inference has been that a person is a terrorist but technical rules of evidence lead the court to direct an acquittal—to which it would not be led if this Bill is passed—such evidence would be admitted for the purposes of the detention proceedings. I

1461
do not think it would be fair at all to assume that tile only possible evidence is hearsay. A number of technical rules of evidence might be breached so as to render the evidence inadmissible before a jury or before the court under Part I of the Bill. But I would not be prepared to say at all that hearsay evidence was the only kind which is inadmissible. Far from it. But I would not be prepared to say, equally, what other kinds of inadmissible evidence—evidence inadmissible in a court of law—would be available to the tribunal. I think I should have to have much wider experience of the actual operation of these tribunals in the last 12 months before I could give a useful or categorical answer to that question.
LORD KILBRACKEN: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord and regret that I did not give him notice that I was going to raise that point.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Proscribed Organisations]:
7.51 p.m.
LORD KILBRACKEN LORD KILBRACKEN moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 26, line 15, leave out ("Sinn Fein").
The noble Lord said: I beg leave to move Amendment No. 5. There are three Amendments standing in my name, though they all relate to the list of proscribed organisations which form Schedule 2. I put them down as three separate Amendments because I suppose there is some small hope that the Government might accept one or other of them, and in that case I should be only too happy to move them separately. But it is my intention, if your Lordships agree, to speak in general terms about all three of them but then to move them separately.
I had better go back to Clause 19. Clause 19 of the Bill states that
"any person who belongs or professes to belong to a proscribed organization … shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months",
et cetera. Schedule 2 sets out the proscribed organisations. Your Lordships will notice that there are six such organisations on the list. Perhaps I could begin by pointing out that two of them have been spelt wrongly. I think that if organisations are going to be
1462
proscribed the facts may as well be put down correctly. The word "mBan" meaning "when", in "Cumann na mBan" does not have an apostrophe; nor does the word "hEireann" in the phrase "Fianna na hEireann". The correct ways of spelling them are "mBan" and "hEireann", without the apostrophes. Perhaps those could be deleted by some "usual channel" before the Bill becomes law.
Of the six organisations that are proscribed, your Lordships will see that five are what I would call Nationalist or republican organisations and one is what I would call an extreme loyalist organisation. In the first of my Amendments I propose to delete Sinn Fein from the five former ones, and in my second and third Amendments I propose to add the Ulster Defence Association and the Ulster Freedom Fighters to the loyalist organisations that I think ought to be proscribed. In proposing that Sinn Fein should be deleted from the list I do not want it to be imagined for the smallest moment that I am a supporter of Sinn Fein, let alone the Irish Republican Army, of which it is the political wing. But I want to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that in the Republic of Ireland it has been accepted that Sinn Fein is a political organisation and its members are not members of the Irish Republican Army.
Of course in this list of proscribed organisations there is a strange situation in that it refers to the Irish Republican Army and Sinn Fein, whereas of course there are two Irish Republican Armies and two Sinn Feins which are completely different and diametrically opposed to one another. I suppose it must be taken that it refers to the Official and the Provisional I.R.A. and to the official and the Provisional Sinn Fein. But it seems strange that in each case two organisations which are totally different, diametrically opposed to one another, should be covered under the same name.
Then when we come to consider Sinn Fein, it is remarkable that the officials were able to circumvent the fact that their organisation is proscribed for the purpose of putting up members for election to the local government, by using the name of the Republican Clubs. Everyone knew that the Republican Clubs was official Sinn Fein, but nobody

1463
stopped their members from taking part in the elections. I suppose it would be equally possible for the Provisional Sinn Fein to call themselves by some other name and possibly—who knows?—the organisation might turn a blind eye again. But the main two points I want to make are these in recommending that Sinn Fein be as it were legalised. It is indeed accepted that Sinn Fein and the I.R.A. are two separate organisations; that the I.R.A. is devoted to means of violence and Sinn Fein are devoted to political means. But if Sinn Fein were—and by that of course I mean provisional Sinn Fein—to be removed from this list, surely it would have the effect of diverting much of their activity, much of the activity of the Provisionals, from—I am sorry; I could not concentrate; it was my own fault.
LORD SHACKLETON: I apologise to the noble Lord. My noble and learned friend came down to speak to me and I said I wanted to listen to the noble Lord.
LORD KILBRACKEN: I did not mean to stop. I lost track of what I was saying. It would be my hope—and I believe it would be the case—that the Provisionals would divert much of their energies from military to political aims, Furthermore, I believe it would be the base that if Sinn Fein were thereby enabled to put up candidates for the different elections it would show to the Province as a whole and to the world at large the very small degree of support that they in fact have in the country, and also, as a matter of interest, where that support was located.
It is perhaps preferable that I should go on to speak about the loyalist organisations while moving this particular Amendment. The organisations which I have proposed should be added to the list of proscribed organisations are the Ulster Defence Association and the Ulster Freedom Fighters. I do not propose to read out a catalogue of all the deplorable, vicious, cruel acts that have already been carried out by those two organisations. I would be the last person to deny or to try to condone in any way the terrible things that have been done by the Provisional I.R.A. I weep for Ireland when I think of those things. But if any credibility is to be given to the impartiality of the Government in this unhappy
1464
matter, then those organisations on the other side of the fence whose actions in many cases have been every bit as deplorable must be included, too.
The Ulster Defence Association is a para-military force: they wear uniforms, they use violence, they have fired on the British Army, they have used intimidation, and whether or not they are worse —and how can one compare such things? —than the Provisional IRA for heaven's sake! how can they be compared with Fianna na hEireann? Probably your Lordships have never heard of Fianna na hEireann; probably your Lordships have never heard of Cumann na mBan, but the nearest equivalent I can give to the former is to say that it is the Republican Boy Scouts or the Nationalist Boy Scouts or the Catholic Boy Scouts. I am not pretending that a lot of those lads in the present circumstances do not grow up to be members of the IRA, but these are kids, and what Fianna nah Eireann is doing compared with what the UDA or the UFF are doing is nothing. Cumann na mBan is the women's organisation—the corps of women. Of course they are being used. They are taking part in violence but can one compare what they are doing with terrorism, with UDA and the UFF? Saor Eire is included in the list of proscribed organisations. That means "Free Ireland". There is an organisation called Saor Fire. How many noble Lords have heard of it? How many members of Saor Eire have been brought up in the courts in the last two years? I do not know. Yet this organisation is proscribed and the UDA, which your Lordships will have seen on television on many occasions, and the kind of acts of terrorism which they perform, is omitted.
Now we have the Ulster Freedom Fighters. Many people have surmised that the Ulster Freedom Fighters are an extremist branch of the U.D.A. I am not in a position to say whether or not that is true, but I can say that whatever is said about the U.D.A. the actions of the U.F.F. are, in my opinion, even more horrible, even more desperate, even more vicious and even more inhumane than those of the Provisional I.R.A. Here is an organisation that goes out night after night with the sole object of murdering men and women, for the sole reason that they are Catholics. That is their avowed aim. May I just say in parenthesis that

1465
I am a Protestant. It has come through on the news to-day that last night six uniformed masked and hooded young men wearing red jackets with U.F.F. badges walked into a pub in East Belfast. It was a Protestant pub. I have to use the language "Protestant pubs" and "Catholic pubs". In that pub they boasted that six Catholics would be murdered by the U.F.F. this weekend to avenge the death of a Protestant last week.
I ask the Committee, and I ask the noble and learned Lord who has accepted one Amendment to-day, to accept another Amendment. Will he believe how much it would mean in Ireland if the Government could show their sincerity when they speak of impartiality by accepting at least this Amendment? I beg to move.
8.8 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Amendments discussed are of two kinds. One proposes to delete certain names in the Schedule and the other two Amendments propose to add certain names to the Schedule, and I will deal with them in that order. I cannot claim any knowledge whatever of Gaelic orthography and therefore I will not dispute with the noble Lord as to whether the names are accurately spelt. I am told that so far as the British Government are concerned the names have been spelt in exactly the same way since 1922, but that does not mean that the spelling is necessarily right. I can only say that we have done the best we can with a singularly intractable subject.
So far as their identities are concerned, these are all organisations—to quote from Clause 19 of the Bill—that the Secretary of State considers to be concerned in terrorism or in promoting or encouraging it. If the noble Lord has any evidence that we are wrong in thinking that the named organisations are concerned in terrorism or in promoting or in encouraging it, no doubt my right honourable friend would be prepared to consider it; and as the noble Lord will see from subsection (5) of Clause 19, the Secretary of State has power to remove it by order, subject of course to Parliamentary control, if he is so satisfied. Personally, I do not feel any doubt from the little I have seen and heard about all these organizations—and I have read something
1466
about each one—that I would not be readily persuaded that they are not concerned in terrorism in Northern Ireland, or in promoting or encouraging it. But if the noble Lord thinks he can satisfy my right honourable friend it is open to him to try.
As regards Protestant violence, which has erupted to a lamentable extent recently, let me say at once that my right honourable friend views it with every bit as much horror as violence from the other community. I do not propose to discuss whether the extent of the Protestant violence is equal to, less or more than the violence which comes from the other side. It is equally lamentable and equally detestable wherever it comes from and whatever actions are done in support of it. So far as the organisations are concerned, the addition of names to the list—although the noble Lord proposed to add them to the Schedule to the Bill—must really be judged by the criteria set forth in subsection (4) of Clause 19. If he has hard evidence that an organisation as a whole is concerned with terrorism or with the promotion or encouragement of it, I have no doubt that my right honourable friend will add it to the Schedule with the utmost diligence, but at the moment my right honourable friend is not satisfied that the U.D.A. as a whole is concerned with terrorism or with promoting or encouraging it, although I would not say that of some of its members.
As regards the extraordinary series of murders which are claimed to have been done under the banner of the U.F.F., or Ulster Freedom Fighters, I entirely agree with any condemnation the noble Lord chooses to heap upon those murders. They are every bit as detestable as murders in the opposite direction or acts of violence in the opposite direction, and if my right honourable friend becomes satisfied that there is an organisation, as distinct from a number of individual murderers using that name, I have no doubt that he will add it to the Schedule.
At the moment it is difficult for me to ascertain very much about this. The only information I have got, which of course is all I can work on, is that it is not clear what organisation, if any, exists under the name of the U.F.F.; but may I say straightaway to the noble and

1467
learned Lord that I, too, am Protestant although I do not usually find it necessary to say so. So far as I am concerned he can feel safe in condemning anybody who is executing a dastardly act and claiming it to have been done under this title. I am sure my right honourable friend will add it to the Schedule if and when it becomes established that there is such an organisation, and if and when it becomes possible to identify who belongs to it. But do not let the noble Lord have any misapprehension about this, either about me or any other member of the Government. If anything, I view the actions of murderers of my own so-called religious faith with even greater horror than I do the actions of those people who believe in a faith which I do not share. It is far more awful to see people who ought to be agreeing with one doing these horrible things than it is to see people with whom one disagrees doing them.
As regards diverting Sinn Fein into respectable channels, I only have to say that all they have to do is to stop murdering our children and their fellow countrymen and then perhaps they will not be on the Schedule.
BARONESS WHITE: I must say I have been impressed by some of the arguments put up by the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, and although I appreciate the Government have not had much time —the Amendments have been put down only recently—none the less when one considers the balance of advantage in the very difficult political situation in Northern Ireland, would there not be a great deal to be said for at least accepting Amendment No. 7? I felt that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was to some extent splitting hairs. He said that we are not sure who actually belongs to this organisation. Are the Government sure who belongs to these other organisations? One of their characteristics is precisely that one does not know exactly who belongs to them, or how they are organised. I would have thought when one has that long list of proscribed Catholic organisations, one would surely be well justified in adding to the Schedule the U.F.F. What do they exist for, except terrorism? That, after all, is the whole object of such
1468
organisation as there may be. It seems to me there is advantage, in the situation in Northern Ireland, in adjusting the balance somewhat in this Schedule by including an organisation of this kind, even if one cannot define it. It has its name. It purports to act in the name of the organisation. Its whole object is exactly what would make it a prescribed organisation; namely, that it believes in methods of terrorism. I would have thought it was the path of statesmanship to include this particular Amendment.
8.13 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: Before the noble Lord comes to speak again, if he is going to, may I intervene? Curiously enough, I find myself more in agreement with my noble friend Lord Kilbracken than with my noble friend Lady White at this particular moment. I think we are in very real difficulty. For a start, I dislike intensely the fact that there is a Schedule of this kind at all. If I may say so without being patronising, I think the noble and learned Lord who has been so extremely helpful to the Committee to-day, did not entirely appreciate the force of argument of my noble friend Lord Kilbracken; namely, that ultimately bodies like Sinn Fein have got to return to civilised society, and the noble and learned Lord did in fact say that they had only to give up murdering and they could do so. But as my noble friend pointed out, the Republican Clubs in a sense were Sinn Fein for this purpose, and this is a very difficult political judgment.
If I may give my own views on the Amendments before us, I would have been inclined, for reasons that I will give, to have deleted Sinn Fein, but I am opposed to adding other names to the list for reasons partly given by the noble and learned Lord and partly because of conclusions that I have come to myself. There is no doubt of the existence of the organisations already in the Schedule, but my own information is similar, namely, that a group of murderers choosing a name, of which they are certainly not worthy, will not be restrained, and may even be encouraged, by the addition of their name to this Schedule. My noble friend Lord Kilbracken I know feels very strongly, and I fully acknowledge his sincerity I absolutely agree with him that

1469
it is extremely important that the Government should show complete impartiality. It happens to be my personal view that the Secretary of State in fact passionately believes in achieving this impartiality, and since there are powers under Clause 19 to add or subtract to the list, I would ask the noble and learned Lord, because I know the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and the noble Lord, Lord Belstead are listening to this debate, to consider the argument. We do not have the information in this House to come to a conclusion. We have sought always to act responsibly in this matter. My inclination would be in fact to remove Sinn Fein from the list, but not to add the others, for reasons that I have partly given in this matter. But I am bound to say I am not in a position to form a judgment on this, and therefore I can only urge the Government to bear the matter in mind for the future. The time may come; I am still not despairing in spite of the awful things. I find it difficult to differentiate between the more extreme murders on either side. This is the awful nature of the situation.
So while I welcome the fact that my noble friend Lord Kilbracken has raised these matters, because it is right we should face them, my own firm view is that we ought not to take a decision to include these organisations. I am not saying that either to save the Government or myself from embarrassment; nor am I in favour simply of a gesture. But I do ask the Government—and perhaps either the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, or the noble and learned Lord, when they come to reply, will say that they will look scrupulously at this matter. They have included the Ulster Volunteer Force. There may be other wild groups. Nobody has suggested proscribing the Tartan gangs; it is not really possible. I would not know who the Ulster Freedom Fighters are. It is deplorable that they should do what they do. But we all agree on this question, regardless of our religious beliefs.
The most substantial part of the argument is that Sinn Fein should return. We pressed quite hard that the ban on Sinn Fein should be lifted for the election, but for reasons that were partly political within Northern Ireland, the problems that the Government themselves have with extremist Protestants—and not always
1470
extremist Protestant movements—they decided against that course. I hope these arguments will be seriously considered by the noble Lord. If he wishes to divide the Committee that is a matter for him, but I certainly should not find myself, for reasons which I have given, able to vote for his Amendment.
8.20 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: First of all, may I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the kind things he has said about me and for the arguments which he has deployed, some at least of which I find wholly acceptable. I suppose in a sense everybody in the Committee dislikes having a Schedule at all, and I certainly wish that there were no such thing. If we could get out of the situation in which organisations had to be proscribed nobody would be happier than I, except perhaps my right honourable friend. But the fact is that it is no good talking about acts of statesmanship or wisdom or anything like that, or about what is honest and what is not. That is really nonsense; you have to apply your mind to questions of fact. Is there an organisation? Is it a terrorist organisaton, or is it concerned with the promotion or encouragement of terrorism? Those are the criteria, and impartiality does not mean finding two names to proscribe which are Roman Catholic in origin and have Gaelic surnames, and two which call themselves loyal and fight the Queen's Forces on the other side and proscribe them. You have to ask yourself seriously whether the criteria are satisfied. If they are, they go on; if they are not, they do not go on.
LORD SHACKLETON: May I interrupt the noble and learned Lord? With the greatest respect, I do not think it is only a matter of fact; it is to a very considerable extent a matter of judgment and to some extent a matter of political judgment. The case here concerns listings, bearing in mind that the Republican Clubs were not banned. Therefore it is not only fact, it is a matter of political judgment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not wholly agree with that. I do not think my right honourable friend would relish, and I do not think the Leader of the Opposition would relish, the right to proscribe an organisation, that is to say

1471
to make membership of it a criminal act, as a matter of judgment or equality. You must be satisfied that it is a criminal organisation as a whole. It shocks me profoundly that it should be suggested that just because you think it is politically desirable to remove or to add an organisation to the list that you should do it just because it is politically desirable, as a matter of political judgment. We are talking here about calling an organisation, a criminal association, a criminal conspiracy, with the effect that everybody who belongs to it is automatically a criminal. I simply cannot accept that a member of the Executive ought to approach this in anything except a quasi judicial spirit. I think it would be absolutely destructive to our liberties if we were to do so, and I feel certain that my right honourable friend or any member of the Government would not wish to do so.
The noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, referred to the Republican clubs. That is precisely, I should have thought, a case in point. No one could wish more than I do that the people who are now murdering our children and one another should stop doing it and go back to some form of political activity; and no doubt my right honourable friend was so satisfied about the Republican clubs, and they were able therefore to put forward candidates. If he were satisfied about the other organisations no doubt he would remove them from the list too; and they have only got to stop doing what they are doing now, according to his information, for that to happen. The noble Lord appealed to me. Of course I shall report to my right honourable friend what the noble Lord has said, and I can assure him that he will require no prompting whatever—although he will of course pay additional attention to anything the noble Lord says—and if there is hard evidence that these people are not concerned with terrorism or with promoting or encouraging terrorism, he will be only too pleased to remove them from the list.
When you come to the other people, the noble Baroness really misunderstood me when she said that I was saying that you must not put them on the list because you do not know who belongs to them. I never said anything of the
1472
kind. What I said was—and I think the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition got it right—that we do not know that there is such an organisation. I received a letter the other day from somebody who complained because we did not proscribe "Hell's Angels" in this country in exactly the same way as the I.R.A.—so she said (I think it was an old lady who wrote it)—was proscribed in Northern Ireland. I had to write back to the dear old thing and say to her "Well, 'Hell's Angels' is a name which is given to groups of people who wear a particular sort of clothes, but so far as I know they are not an organisation in a sense in which you can put your finger on them". The people here concerned are murderers; these murders have been committed; they are horrible murders. There are two people, who for some reason were interviewed by members of the Press, who claimed —and apparently with some justice—to be guilty of those murders. They deserve the most complete condemnation, and if they are guilty they certainly ought to be punished as murderers. But in order to proscribe an organisation you must be satisfied that there is the organisation there. It is no good saying that about "Hell's Angels" or "Teddy Boys" or something like that, and my right honourable friend is not yet so satisfied.
In addition, of course, it is necessary not indeed to know who belongs to them, but to believe that the organisation is of a kind of which you can identify the members by some test which will enable you to punish them, otherwise you achieve nothing except words by saying that you proscribe them. I was very grateful for what the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition said about my right honourable friend. He has, I think, established a quite extraordinary reputation for sincerity and fair-mindedness about this. Of course he will put organisations on if he feels that that is justified by the event, although I do not think he will do it as a matter of political judgment alone. The noble Lord wishes to intervene?
LORD KILBRACKEN: Does the noble and learned Lord know that Saor Eire exists?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble and learned Lord does not know of

1473
this. The noble and learned Lord is a member of the Government, but not the member of the Government personally responsible for knowing that these things exist. I have read a good deal about Saor Eire, and what I have read I do not like. I have not verified it of personal knowledge and have naturally had to rely on information. My right honourable friend is no doubt in a better position. If the noble Lord has some hard evidence that it does not exist, or is a respectable organisation, no doubt he will submit that to my right honourable friend and my right honourable friend will listen to it with all the patience for which he is remarkable.
8.29 p.m.
LORD KILBRACKEN: There are three separate Amendments on different subjects, but I think the best thing I can do is to reply to the debate on all three Amendments and then consider the movement of them separately. It is, of course, true that under Clause 19 the list of proscribed organisations can be extended or diminished; but there are obvious cases in regard to which changes should be made, albeit not perhaps to-day, or next week when I shall not be here.
If I may speak first about Sinn Fein, the noble and learned Lord said that if Sinn Fein wanted to be removed from the list of proscribed organisations all they had to do was to stop murdering other people. The official Sinn Fein managed to get themselves removed from the list simply by changing their name to the Republican Clubs. But as to the Provisional I.R.A., I hold that is not the case; that they are murdering people, not the Provisional Sinn Fein. It may be —I do not know—that some members of the Provisional Sinn Fein are also members of the Provisional I.R.A., but that certainly does not appear to occur in every case, and in general the way they are organised is that Sinn Fein is in charge of the political side and the I.R.A. are responsible for the violent side. Therefore I do not think it is quite enough to say that if Sinn Fein were to stop murdering this would make it possible for their name to be removed.
However, although my noble Leader said that this was the Amendment for which he felt most attraction, and I was most grateful to him for his intervention, I must say that the ones to which I attach
1474
much greater importance are that the U.D.A., or, even more so, the U.F.F. should be added to the list of proscribed organisations. The point has been put, how do we know that the Ulster Freedom Fighters exist? That sounds like a philosophical question. How does one know that anything exists? How does one know that Saor Eire exists or Fianna na hEireann. They do not go round in any particular uniform; they do not declare themselves as members. But the U.F.F. does. We cannot say that in order to be proscribed an organisation of violence has to register or apply for a licence to be an illegal society. It is illegal; it is underground; it is performing horrible acts. And it tells us that it exists; it wears a uniform and it has U.F.F. on the band. It wears a red jacket. It rings up the newspapers and say, "This is the Ulster Freedom Fighters calling and this is what we have done: we have just killed two more women", or whatever they have done. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that it was desirable to prove—or this was the gist of his remarks—that everyone engaged in the organisation was involved in violence.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord has got it wrong. I said that the organisation as a whole was involved. That does not mean everyone in it; it means the organisation as a whole. And I chose my words carefully.
LORD KILBRACKEN: That the organisation as a whole is involved in violence. Is it possible to say of any of the proscribed organisations, except perhaps the I.R.A. and the U.V.F., that the organisation as a whole is involved in violence from any facts that are available? And we are not going to get them handed to us by the organisation concerned. We have to go on information coming into the security offices or through the Press. Does it not, on the contrary, seem that the Ulster Freedom Fighters as an organisation are much more generally involved in violence than Fianna na hEireann, for instance, and Cumann na mBan, a women's organisation, where I know there are two or three or four unhappy girls who are involved in violence of this sort, but not the great mass of them? But the Ulster Freedom Fighters are there. They go out at night in armed bands and kill men and women because

1475
they are Catholics. I do not intend to press my first Amendment, No. 5, to a Division, but, on the other hand, I should find it hard to withdraw my Amendment No. 7 when the time comes.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD KILBRACKEN: I beg to move Amendment No. 6.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 15, at end insert ("The Ulster Defence Association.")—(Lord Kilbracken.)
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD KILBRACKEN: Is it possible for me to ask the noble and learned Lord whether he will make representations that the U.F.F. should be added to the list? Could he ask his right honourable friend to consider most seriously—and I ask with great sincerity—that that action should be taken?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: What I have said, and I say it again, is that I know my right honourable friend will add them if he feels the facts justify it. My noble friend Lord Belstead is sitting beside me and is, I hope, agreeing with most of what I say. My noble friend will pass on what the noble Lord has said to my right honourable friend. But my right honourable friend needs no urging; he detests these things every bit as much as the noble Lord does—and I can say that from intimate knowledge of him—and as I do.
LORD SHACKLETON: I am in a slight difficulty because I do not think this Amendment has been moved. If the noble Lord would move it, I would say a few words.
LORD KILBRACKEN: I beg to move Amendment No. 7.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 15, at end insert ("The Ulster Freedom Fighters.")—(Lord Kilbracken.)
8.35 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: I must say I find this an extremely difficult question. If they are not an organisation, I am very averse to dignifying these thugs in any way at all. For that reason I should find it difficult to vote for this Amendment. I think some of the evidence my noble friend has given suggests that there is perhaps a little more to this. I have no
1476
doubt that the matter is being considered. I would just ask the noble and learned Lord to consider any balance of argument about the facts on this issue—and I am not saying it in terms of political judgment, because that really does not arise. If they are in fact only a few horrible murderers there may be no point. It would appear to me that anybody who goes under the name of "Ulster Freedom Fighter" is almost certainly someone who is either a murderer or has aided and abetted; I would not know about that. But if there is the slightest evidence that there is some sort of organisation, if they wear their particular coloured clothes and so on, I hope the proposal will be considered. I know the right honourable gentleman the Secretary of State is constantly considering these matters. At the same time, he has listened a great deal to the advice given him by others, and we are very grateful to him, and it is advice that I think my noble friend is seeking to give tonight. I would still urge him not to press his Amendment to a Division. None the less, I hope that the strength of feeling that has been expressed will be considered. I am sure it will be.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It will not only be considered but it is very largely shared, and certainly by my right honourable friend and myself. I absolutely agree with what has last fallen from the Leader of the Opposition.
LORD KILBRACKEN: In view of what the noble and learned Lord has said—and I appreciate the way he has put up with what I have said to-night—and in view of the advice given to me by my noble friend (and again I appreciate the support that he has given me), I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Remaining Schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments; Report received.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read—I am in some doubt here. There is the Report stage and I have still to move that the Report be now considered. I had thought that the Third Reading was for another day, but I was

1477
being urged on by the Chief Whip, and, under such goading, I was about to commit a folly—and I believe that it would have been a folly.

NORTH WALES HYDRO-ELECTRIC POWER BILL
8.42 p.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª. —(The Earl of Listowel.)
LORD HINTON OF BANKSIDE: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will not jump to the conclusion that because I am the first speaker on this Bill I have been put up by the Central Electricity Generating Board as their champion. I speak first simply because the noble Baroness, Lady White, used all of her charm to persuade me that it would he better if I spoke before she did. I still hope to convince your Lordships that I am an unbiased judge in this matter.
I must confess that I still have a frail and tenuous connection with the electricity supply industry in that I am a member of what is called the Electricity Supply Research Council. This is a very part-time body which meets four times a year, and is made up of independent scientists and industrialists. It is run by the Electricity Council and not by the Generating Board. I was chairman of the Generating Board until nine years ago, but, as some of your Lordships may already have learned, and others will learn in due course, there is nothing quite so "ex" as an ex-chairman. My technical contacts with the Board have probably been more frail and tenuous since I left than they would have been if I had never worked for the Board. The last thing that Boards want to have is an ex-chairman breathing down their necks.
Although I left the Board nine years ago, their system has changed little since then, and I think that I am sufficiently well informed about the problems that they have to meet to give your Lordships some information which may possibly be of help in your consideration of this matter. The Dinorwic Bill or, to give it its correct title, the North Wales Hydro-Electric Power
1478
Bill, is a Bill dealing with a highly technical project. It has, in another place, gone through what I suppose is the most rigid routine of examination. It has been debated at some length, and has been examined with great care by a Committee set up there. But when matters of such a technical nature are being dealt with, I think there is always bound to be a suspicion that the Promoters have got the "inside track", and that because they are dealing with these matters constantly they, with their detailed knowledge, are able, as it were, to blind with science their opponents, however skilful their witnesses and their counsel may be.
I have read almost all of the evidence that was given before the Committee of the other House. I speak, I hope, without any bias, and if I have bias it may very well be against the Generating Board, because I think that there is a tendency, when one leaves organisations with which one has worked—and I have done this on many occasions during my lifetime—to look back on them rather as one looks back on one's old school or college when one visits there and says, "Well, undergraduates are not what they were in our day. We never did quite such stupid things as that." So, as I say, if there is any bias on my part, I think that it may be against the Generating Board rather than in their favour.
Speaking, as I believe, without bias, I do not think that in this case the Generating Board have overstated their case. In fact, if I had been presenting that case to the Committee I would have put forward a stronger one than the one which was in fact considered by the Committee. I think that this is perhaps understandable. The Generating Board tried to confine their arguments to financial questions arising in connection with the operation of a complex scheme, and which could be tested by economists or by financial analysts. They did not put forward matters of opinion. This may have been extremely laudable but, after all, engineering is still an art, and it will be a sad day for engineering when projects are decided simply on the basis of figures produced by financial analysts. I think that there are many points where experience, knowledge and judgment still count, and still have to be superimposed on the figures which are produced in support of a

1479
scheme. I may perhaps give your Lordships examples of what I mean.
In the first place, as your Lordships know, we have a fairly large nuclear programme in this country and most people would agree that the percentage of nuclear plants in the overall mix of generation plants will have to increase as time goes on. Those nuclear plants have been justified in the past, and for a long time into the future will have to be justified, on the assumption that they are worked at full load whenever they are available. But the load on the electricity system in this country is a very variable one, and the load in the summer months at the time when I was at the Generating Board was little more than 15 or 18 per cent. of the peak load in winter time. That position has been improved since I left, largely as a result of efforts on the part of the industry to improve the load factor by introducing night storage heaters both for water and for space heating, so that the problem of providing a full load for nuclear power plants throughout the whole year is less pressing than it was. But we are still fairly near the bone, and judgment would lead me to feel that it is very advisable, provided that a satisfactory financial case can be made, to have that little bit of extra freedom which enables us economically to increase the amount of nuclear power in the overall mix.
May I give your Lordships another example of where judgment would lead me in the direction of putting forward stronger arguments for this scheme? The Board have now a large number of big high pressure, high temperature generating sets in commission. Those sets have given a good deal of odd trouble in the start-up period, but I am quite sure that the trouble will be cured with the passage of time; and I am also quite sure that it was a wise decision to put in sets of that sort. It was realised when they were bought that these 500Mw. and larger sets would have to work for some of their life taking part load, and it was specified that they should be so designed that they could do that. But when you part load one of these large heavy sets, you put it through cyclical temperature changes which are damaging to the set and which increase the cost of repairs. Once again, the provision of pump stor-
1480
age enables one to minimise that trouble and so to run the system more economically. As a third example of the conservatism of the Board, I should like to mention the fact that they have taken, as the obsolescence period for the pump storage scheme, only 55 years, whereas general international practice would lead one in the direction of assuming a considerably longer period—perhaps between 70 and 90 years. I mention those examples simply to show your Lordships that, in my view, the case which has been based largely on economic figures is stronger than the one which has been put forward.
Since leaving the Board, I have worked for one of the independent agencies under the United Nations and have seen something of electricity schemes in many other parts of the world. Many other countries have far greater hydro resources than we have and are able to have reservoir hydro storage, which makes it less necessary to install pump storage schemes. But even some of those countries are converting reservoir hydro schemes into pump storage schemes, and so are providing themselves with hybrid schemes which enable them to meet the problems of variable load. Pump storage is a well-established and universally accepted method of meeting the problem of load variation. Opponents of the scheme put forward in Committee suggestions that, instead of using pump storage to smooth out the load on the new high efficiency sets, storage of compressed air should be used. What one does in this system, instead of pumping water to a high level during periods of low load and then letting it down through turbines when the load is high, is to compress air into a rock chamber and use that air in a gas turbine at times of peak load. Schemes of this sort have been under examination by the Generating Board for many years and have been turned down as being uneconomic.
The new factor which was introduced to the Committee was the use of the salt chambers in Cheshire. It just so happens that I have a certain amount of knowledge of those salt chambers, because they are worked by I.C.I. Salt underlies quite large areas of Cheshire where it occurs in keuper marls. At certain points in the sea, water finds its way down

1481
through fissures in the marl on to the rock head. It runs along the rock head dissolving the salt, and it is this brine which was pumped and used for salt manufacture and in the various alkali processes. But as far back as 1926, Brunner Mond and Company, who were the predecessors of I.C.I., decided that the damage caused by uncontrollable subsidence when brine was pumped in this way was insupportable, and they moved to an area East of Northwich where there is about 600 feet thickness of rock salt and produced brine artificially by pumping water down into the salt and forcing brine up. The system—and it is a sophisticated one—by which this was done was worked out between 1930 and 1940, when I happened to be chief engineer of the Alkali Division of I.C.I. and as such was responsible for the whole development.
I should like to point out to your Lordships that you are quite wrong if you envisage these chambers as being nice clean holes inside a solid bed of rock salt. In the total thickness of salt, there are bands of marl which vary in thickness from a few inches to a few metres. Some of those marl bands fall while the salt is being dissolved; some of them stay there. If the chambers are used for air storage, they will quite certainly fall and marl dust will be carried forward and cause trouble. This cannot be considered as an immediate and tried solution to the problem. It is something which may work but which would need long trial. So on all technical and economic grounds, I suggest that the scheme which hiss been put forward by the Generating Board is well justified. But it is a scheme part of which falls in a National Park and part of which falls in an area adjacent to a National Park. The upper reservoir is in National Park area. I do not think that I would consider it as being a particularly beautiful part of the National Park, but it is remote, it is isolated and, as such, it has attractions. It will be necessary to build a dam there; it will be possible to do away with an unsightly road that exists at the moment; and I understand that road access to the area is not going to be permitted by the Generating Board.
The other works which are necessary are in the area of Llanberis. Llanberis itself is not, I think, a beautiful town;
1482
and the Dinorwick area is very badly scarred by the slate workings. But I do not think that, as in the debate in the other place, those points should be argued in favour of the scheme. In that debate it was said that Llanberis was not really a beauty spot, and that the Dinorwick quarries were an awful and unhealable scar on the landscape. My own view is that the beauty of the whole valley is such that as one looks down it one can overlook the scar of the Dinorwick quarries; and what I would say is that the work that is proposed in that area will do something to tidy up some of the dereliction which has been left by that quarry.
My Lords, it would be quite wrong to visualise the dams which are proposed as the straight, level banks which one sees in, for instance, the Woodhead Park. The art of landscaping has been applied only in recent years to industrial projects, and I think the Generating Board, under the wise leadership of Lord Holford, can claim some credit for developing that art. But the dams which are proposed here are moulded into the hillside. They are curved both in plan and in elevation; and although the water in the upper and the lower lakes is bound to vary in level, it is possible to landscape the inter-water levels so that, I think, they will have something of the attraction that one gets in the tidal stretches of the coast.
So I feel that this scheme is well justified. It is, of course, a scheme which falls, as I say, partly within a National Park and partly on the fringe of a National Park. It would be quite wrong immediately to give to such a scheme a green light, and what was wisely done in another place was to give it an amber light. I believe that the time is coming when the light should be changed, and I hope that when that change becomes due your Lordships will change it not from amber to red, but from amber to green.
9.4 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, we are very greatly in the debt of the noble Lord, Lord Hinton of Bankside, that he should have attended this debate and given us the benefit of his very wide knowledge and experience. I have listened with intense interest to what he has said because much of it was relevant to the evidence given by the

1483
Petitioners to the Select Committee in another place. I think that at the outset I should make it clear that I have some slight degree of personal embarrassment in this debate because some ten days ago I had the honour to be elected the President of the Council for the Protection of Rural Wales, and that body was one of the bodies which petitioned against this Bill in the other place. When that course of action was decided, I was not myself in any position to claim to be consulted; and I must say that I have very little doubt that the great majority of the members of the C.P.R.W. would remain in opposition to the Bill. If I was speaking to a Petition I would have to speak as a representative, but that, of course, is not the situation tonight. Tonight we are having a general debate on the Second Reading of a Bill. Therefore, mindful as I obviously must be of what I think are the fairly widely held views of the membership of the C.P.R.W., I think it is my duty tonight to speak as frankly and as honestly as I can on the merits and demerits of this Bill as I see it.
I would say that I find this Private Bill procedure for matters of what are really national interest extremely unsatisfactory. What we ought to be doing tonight, in my view, is having a debate on the principles of development in National Parks, and we ought to be discussing this straightforwardly with Ministers who are responsible for policy concerning the environment. But as this is a Private Bill it is at least conceivable that we may have no intervention from the Government Front Bench. There is no obligation upon them; it is not their Bill. Therefore it puts us in a difficulty, because so many issues are in fact raised. There are the issues raised by the Promoters of the Bill, and, if I may say so without the slightest touch of patronage, I think they have been extremely ably put forward and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Hinton. He has said, and I think very convincingly, that the technical arguments for the particular type of power station and pump storage scheme are very strong, and that in his view—and again one defers to his knowledge and experience—the economic arguments are also very strong indeed
1484
But of course those of us who are looking at this in a much wider context are, I think, bound to be concerned because there are very strong feelings on the other side. For example, I have here a note passed to me by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, who would have been here had there not been the change in the time of business—and this applies to some other noble Lords who also had hoped to be here to discuss this Bill but who, because of the change, were simply not able to be here at this hour of the night. My noble friend Lord Chorley made some slight protest about this earlier on, and I know that one or two other noble Lords had wished to be here. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, who holds a most distinguished position in the mountaineering fraternity, enjoined me to make it clear that he himself would have been in opposition to this Bill. He opposes it because of the feelings of the British Mountaineering Council and mountain lovers generally regarding the danger that they think will be done to the amenities of the Park by the proposed scheme.
"This in our view is another instance of whittling away the essential purposes of National Parks for reasons of material expediency."
I quote those words of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, because he puts in a nutshell the opposing view. It is a view which I think is shared by many people, particularly by members of the various amenity societies, that one does not know how far this whittling away is to go.
I was attending a conference in Aberystwyth this week at which Professor Sir Robert Grieve, the former chairman of the Highlands and Islands Development Board, with his great knowledge, was speaking of Scotland where one has a far larger scale of landscape than the compressed scale of North Wales. He was pleading for what he called "wilderness areas" within the National Parks. One cannot oppose development of all kinds in National Parks; for people live and work there and that would be unreasonable. But there is no security for these who feel that for the salvation of their soul they must somewhere be able to find Wordsworthian solitude if we are to endorse development of the kind described to-night. The corollary of that would be that we should have a national

1485
policy for "wilderness areas" and that there should be some areas which might be selected by agreement where one could condemn all development if it is of an intrusive nature.
I do not regard Llanberis as coming within the range of any such area. One does not wish to be too derogatory, but I cannot myself regard Llanberis itself as a place of outstanding beauty. It is the views away from it which are sublime. Therefore, my own considered opinion of this Bill is that on balance, although I want to come to various reservations that I have, it will do more good than harm. I say this partly because while I am concerned that we do not have the guarantees which I think are becoming essential in some of these areas, nevertheless one must accept the situation that there is an increasing number of people visiting these areas and one must make provision for them. I am looking at this from the point of view of amenities and recreation, leaving aside the more technical arguments.
I was very sorry that rather inadequate consideration was given to all this in what I thought a superficial debate in another place. It was late at night; but there was a good deal of special pleading and no one tried to put it into a wider context. But the way I look at it is this. Unless one is prepared to close to vehicular traffic all the roads in the vicinity of Snowdon, with the possible exemptions for doctors, nurses, undertakers and all such absolutely essential persons, these roads will become more and more saturated every year. I was at Penygwryd last Bank Holiday Monday. One might have been at Piccadilly Circus. There were cars, coaches, ice cream vans and other vans of all sorts. The big petrol firms put up a ghastly and obtrusive sign in the heart of Snowdonia. On Snowdon, the paths are becoming more and more worn by erosion caused by
"Boots, boots, boots,
Stamping up and down…".
In these circumstances, unless one is prepared to take Draconian measures and restrict almost all wheeled traffic, surely the right strategy is to adopt what is known in planning circles as the "honeypot policy". In other words, you deliberately attract as many people as
1486
possible to certain selected places with the aim of protecting other areas from intrusion. I should have thought Llanberis an ideal "honeypot" area. It is an area which could be developed for even larger-scale tourism than at present. It is the terminus of the Snowdon railway. It is a favourite staging point for tourists. It has an additional amenity started very recently to which I wish to refer later: the new slate quarry at Dinorwic which is an outpost of the National Museum of Wales. There is the evidence of its industrial past, the slate debris to which the noble Lord, Lord Hinton, referred, but it is a place where I believe there could be considerable development. It is because on balance I think that the "honeypot" strategy is one which should be adopted in Snowdonia, in order to protect other sensitive areas in the neighbourhood, that I should be willing to agree that, on the whole, the Generating Board's proposals in such a context can be fitted in without too great an outrage particularly the lower reservoir and the works associated with it; although I am concerned about the proposed height of the lower dams.
I think that the people who move in the high hills are much more concerned about the change of character of the upper reservoir at Marchlyn Mawr. Climbers coming down from the Glydyrs particularly regard that as a wild and remote area which for them is part of the whole Snowdon complex. I repeat that on balance I think there is a reasonable case made out for the scheme as a whole, if only one could be assured that this was not the beginning a series of pump storage schemes which the C.E.G.B. may have hidden away in its pigeonholes. There is great suspicion about this. We have one at Ffestiniog which, although it got an award some ten years ago, I think sticks out like a sore thumb. I am glad to learn that the landscaping proposals for the proposition before us to-night are likely to be a good deal more sympathetic. Nevertheless, there are various practical matters which have not yet been fully resolved. I refer more especially to the question of the height of the lower dams.
If one studies the evidence given by Sir Frederick Gibberd, the landscape consultant to the Promoters of the Bill,

1487
one finds that he referred to Llyn Penis dams as the most critical, particularly the one at the North end. As he says,
"It cuts across the views of the Snowdon Range"
as, indeed, it does. I have been quite unable to discover what precisely is to be done about the height of the dams. Proposals have been put forward on behalf of the county council for a much lower dam than that suggested by the C.E.G.B. I understand that conversations and negotiations are taking place which may be all to the good, but we are asked to pass this Bill, and I am not at all clear about what the outcome of this matter may be.
Similarly, I am not at all clear about the real situation with regard to the quarry museum at Dinorwic. I went, at his request, to meet the Director of the National Museum of Wales recently, and he has since written to me. It is quite plain that no real conclusion has been reached, apart from safeguarding the actual building itself, as to the surroundings of this museum. The Director sent me drawings, showing the proposed approach road in relation to the museum and he writes:
"It crosses an area where we had hoped to have outdoor exhibits. We understand also that the C.E.G.B. propose to establish a vehicle and plant compound within about 100 yards of the front entrance to our museum. We have not been able to obtain any drawings from them about this."
He goes on to say that they were hoping to have meetings between the local authority and the Department of the Environment:
"but no doubt any decision we take could be upset later by the C.E.G.B."
These are just two matters which, I believe, are of some consequence and which are not yet fully determined.
There is also the, perhaps, more important constitutional position. We have received correspondence from those who petitioned in the Commons indicating quite clearly, as the noble Lord the Lord Chairman of Committees indicated in his Statement to the House the other day, that had they been in a financial position to do so, they would have petitioned your Lordships' House. This brings out a very important point in the whole procedure for dealing with these major matters on what is, after all, a very large-
1488
scale development in areas which are either in or abut on to the National Parks. It is, to my mind, quite wrong that voluntary organisations should have to bear unaided the whole brunt of standing up to very large bodies, whether they be public, as in this case, or private, as in the recent case of the Shell Company at Anglesey.
It seems to me that we have a constitutional responsibility to examine this Bill further and to make quite certain that any remaining doubts are adequately dealt with. I was therefore very glad when the noble Earl the Lord Chairman indicated that he would be prepared, if this feeling was expressed in the House, to send this Bill to a Select Committee for such further examination as seemed necessary, in spite of the fact that there are no formal Petitions against it. I say this without committing myself to the merits of some of the points put up by the Petitioners, but on the principle that it is, as I say, an extremely unsatisfactory state of affairs that bodies which have worked extremely hard but have now exhausted their funds—they have spent some £3,500—just have not the money yet again to brief counsel, to bring in experts, and all the rest of it. I find this a most distasteful aspect of our public life. I was particularly concerned with it in Anglesey, where one had not only a Private Bill but also a very lengthy planning inquiry, and where in the planning inquiry (which does not apply in this case, admittedly), there is not even a transcript of the evidence supplied and one has to provide this at one's own expense. It is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs, and if only for that reason I hope very much that this Bill will go to a Select Committee.
I think one ought to say, in fairness to the Generating Board, that they have endeavoured to be very co-operative indeed as to the general amenities in the area: they have agreed to put the cables underground; they have agreed to landscaping; they will provide extra roadworks, and so on. Nevertheless, there is going to be considerable disturbance in the area over a period of up to seven years. That means that there will be building work going on, large earth-moving equipment, mud and muddle over a long period. I should hope that we

1489
might in this situation adopt the provisions which were approved in the Water Bill, which has recently gone through your Lordships' House. Clause 22 provides that it is a duty in Wales
"for a water authority who are carrying out works for or in connection with the construction or operation of a reservoir which permantly affects one or more communities, when it is not primarily intended by the authorities to benefit the inhabitants of those communities, to provide, or assist others to provide, facilities for recreation or other leisure-time occupations for the benefit of those inhabitants."
It seems to me that if that is sauce for the water supply authorities, it should also be sauce for the electricity supply authorities. They are both constructing reservoirs for a purpose which is not primarily for the benefit of the local inhabitants.
It seems to me that it will be most encouraging if the Generating Board could go even further than they have, and adopt what I call the honey-pot policy for Llanberis. They can do something really outstanding and distinguished there by way of an interpretation centre for the whole of the Snowdonia complex. This is not the occasion to go into the details. I have been up to Scotland and seen what has been done in the Cairngorms areas. I think this is something to be discussed with the amenity societies. Of course they would not be reconciled to the main scheme; I do not think that could be hoped for. But this project might be a bridge between those who are putting over £100 million worth of industrial development in the area and those who are concerned with the amenities of the National Park. I think this would be a constructive and, I would hope, a pacifying gesture on the part of the C.E.G.B. in relation to those who, like my noble friend Lord Hunt, really do feel passionately against what they regard as an intrusion into this area. I repeat my hope that the Chairman of Committees will carry out his suggestion that the matter might be further considered by a Committee.
9.26 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the Motion before the House is that this Bill be read a second time and, as far as I know, the noble Earl has not yet given any undertaking or indeed has not specifically suggested that this Bill should go to a Select Committee. I intervene only very briefly, tempted as I am to follow
1490
other noble Lords and my noble friend into discussing this acute and difficult problem of how to handle matters that are becoming increasingly of national interest although naturally dealt with under Private Bill procedure.
I think it is a miracle how well our Private Bill procedure works as greater national interests arise. I personally am pretty sceptical that we are going to find Solutions to these problems in the near future, much as I personally would like to join in the debate, as one who originally voted in the famous Ullswater debate and on other occasions. Knowing the area as I do, and the arguments in favour of total conservation everywhere, I happen to believe that there is rather a strong case for this development—and indeed my noble friend Lady White did concede, despite the position that she holds (on which, incidentally, I should like to congratulate her) that there is a special case. It is the case that this Bill is widely supported in North Wales on various grounds, including of course employment. Naturally, the employment issue is an important one, and in this connection one might argue as to whether real employment is affected.
I would rather hope that one of the things the Bill would do would be to improve the environment, which in certain respects has a rather disfiguring aspect. However, it is not for me now to come to a view, and there is no doubt that there are very strong feelings which exist on the part of the amenity interests. There also still remain points of disagreement which, so far as I have heard, may not have been fully cleared up in another place. And it is, of course, an illusion that we can ever achieve certainty: we can only search for the best solutions possible. What we must do is to decide whether we wish to give advice to the noble Earl as to how he should exercise the undoubted discretion he has under Standing Order No. 92 to send the Bill to a Select Committee, despite the fact that it has not been petitioned against. He has this prerogative, and I am bound to say—although not so long ago I strongly opposed sending another Order to a Select Committee—that here nevertheless is a classic example of one that ought to go. I fully concede there may have been a thorough discussion on Committee in another place. I have not read

1491
the Report, but counsel will have been present. It is not so long ago, in the case of the Ashdown Forest Bill, that because of a procedural reason certain Petitioners were unable to petition because the Petition on which they were relying was withdrawn and it was then too late to take the matter further.
I am really referring to our duty as a House, without forming a judgment, but with a good deal of sympathy for those who feel that this development would be in the interests of the local people. I would in fact ask the noble Earl whether he will consider exercising his prerogative in this matter. The House ought not to consider that even this is a satisfactory procedure because counsel will not be appearing. It will fall very much on the Chairman of Committees, or whoever chairs this Committee, and the Committee, both to examine witnesses and make up their own minds. Equally, it will be even harder to ask the noble Earl, who personifies the Unopposed Bills Committee, to tackle such a "hot one" as this on his own. Without going into the merits of this matter—and there are strong feelings on both sides—I hope that the noble Earl will consider exercising his prerogative and that in due course he will ask the House (and when I say "in due course" there is a later Motion for a carry over into another Session which I hope the House will approve) to resolve that there should be a Committee which will be empowered to send for witnesses and examine them. That is my feeling as to what is best from the standpoint of the duty of the House of Lords, and that, if I may make so bold, is the advice I would give to the noble Earl.
9.32 p.m.
LORD CROOK: My Lords, I am most anxious to support the Second Reading and express a completely contrary view about another Select Committee. I do not think we need another Select Committee. If we come to the machinery which my noble Leader has been talking about, from the Committees I have sat on dealing with water power and so on, it is absolutely ludicrous that people should go to the Commons for day after day sitting in front of a Committee with counsel and then come to this House to
1492
a Select Committee. Counsel, who do not even give the Committee the documents regarding what happened in the Commons, will say, "Tell me, did you say to the Commons X, Y and Z?" The witness then says, "Yes". I do not know why there are two Select Committees, but I am not allowed now to discuss this. My noble Leader raised the general point and I could not agree more with him that we should look at the whole procedure.
So far as this Bill is concerned, I think it is excellent. We all talk about energy, safeguarding energy and stockpiling it. You can stockpile coal, you can put gas in gasometers and oil in tanks. There is only one way to store electricity and that is by water. That is exactly what is proposed in this Bill. You have a lake which is not less than 800 feet above the lake below and you turn on the flexible power that is yours—something which is unusual and astonishing. The flexible power involved in what is before your Lordships to-night is such that the machine can go from zero to 1,320 meggawatts in ten seconds. It can build up to 1½ million kilowatts to feed into the grid. When we talk about energy, and what we ought to do about conserving it, when we talk about the difficulties that we may get with a sudden shutdown of a power station or troubles, we realise that this is not to be lightly looked at.
So far as the site is concerned, I think we are going to see an improvement of the area, not the opposite. The two lakes are there. We do not have to make a new lake. When we started on a similar scheme in Loch Lomond many years ago, we had to build the lake at the top to get the water to run down, to pump up the next morning. Here we have a drop of 1,600 feet from existing lakes anyway. It would be quite wrong to believe that all Wales—and I am so glad that my Welsh noble friend said this—is unspoiled and beautiful. Much of it we see is. But here there will be bad points of the Welsh countryside which are made better. As I understand what the C.E.G.B. have done, they will take over the break in some of the sides of the slate quarries and will do away with the slate quarry buildings down below, taking away dreadful eyesores rather than anything else.

1493
No one has mentioned so far—and at this late stage I cannot develop it—that this is one of the few occasions on which we can build a power station that one will never even see. The water will come down; it will cut inside the mountainside; it will go through an internal power station; it will do its job and then come on out. It is much better than the one at Loch Lomond, better than the one at Ffestiniog, better than anything that has so far been done. Mention was made of mud and mess. I am bound to say from what I know from local authorities there, the works of the C.E.G.B. are going to include £500,000 worth of improvements which will assist the whole locality. There are to be expenditures of gigantic amounts by C.E.G.B. in order to look after amenities: £4¼ million in undergrounding cables; there will be fewer pylons than there are now, not more, and a total of £5¼ million out of the £75 million cost will be spent in that connection.
I understand that employment is very bad in that area, that it is always running at somewhere over 10 per cent. There are men there who have written to me and to others who have been 17 years without work. I believe there will be employment for 1,000 local people for seven years—the period my noble friend referred to. There will not be a lot of permanent work afterwards it is true. It will be available for only forty or fifty, but that is something. There are many more things I should have liked to say. My noble friend has referred to the awards given. They were given by the Civic Trust, the Welsh Tourist Board and the Welsh Tourists' and Holidays Association in respect of Ffestiniog. I cannot believe that when this is finished, as I hope it will be, this will not have a very beautiful effect, not the opposite. This is so unlike the project I spent 22 days on for your Lordships—Cow Green and going round and climbing up the mountain to look at what we were to do there. Here we have beauty that we can take and improve. I commend the scheme to your Lordships.
9.39 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, as your Lordships are aware, I am not permitted to speak on behalf of the
1494
Promoters of a Private Bill and I cannot therefore answer any of the criticisms that have been made of this Bill, but this purpose was admirably served, if I may say so, by the speech that we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hinton of Bankside. I will of course draw the attention of the Promoters to everything that has been said by noble Lords and by the noble Baroness in the course of this debate. I am sure it will be perfectly clear to your Lordships that the House regards the preservation of amenity as a most important consideration. I have noted that the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition and the noble Baroness, Lady White, wish me to refer this Bill, whch is unopposed, because there is no Petition in this House, to a Select Committee, as if it were an opposed Bill. Before I decide whether to do so I should like first to consider the position of the former Petitioners. I referred to one of these Petitioners, namely, the North Wales Hydro-Electricity Protection Committee and Commons, Open Spaces and Footpaths Preservation Society, of whose position I am aware, in my Statement on Tuesday, but I should like to ascertain the position of the other three Petitioners who petitioned against this Bill in another place but have not done so here.
I will consider most carefully the advice, for which I am indeed grateful, that I have received from your Lordships to-night, and if I come to the conclusion that the Bill should be considered by a Select Committee I will inform the House accordingly at the earliest opportunity. I will also consider whether I should ask the House to give the Select Committee power to order evidence other than that tendered by the Promoters.
On Question, Bill read 2£.

NORTH WALES HYDRO-ELECTRIC POWER BILL
9.41 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, in moving the Motion that stands in my name on the Order Paper I should like to give a very brief explanation. It is the usual form of Motion required to enable a Private Bill to continue its progress through Parliament in the next

1495
Session. It was in no way the fault of the Promoters of this Bill that it will not have been through both Houses before the end of this Session. A similar Motion will be moved in another place before the Summer Recess. I beg to move.
Moved,
That the Promoters of the Bill have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon, in order to proceed with the Bill, if they shall think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so be lodged in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than three o'clock on the day before the close of the present Session, and that all fees due thereon up to that period shall have been paid:
That, if the Bill is brought from the Commons in the next Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration, signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Commons in the present Session:
That the proceedings on such Bill shall, in the next Session of Parliament, be pro forma only in regard to every stage through which the same shall have passed in the present Session and that no new fees be charged in regard to such stages:
That the Standing Orders by which the proceedings on Bills are regulated shall not apply, in the next Session of Parliament, to such Bill in regard to any of the stages through which the same shall have passed during the present Session.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL
The Queen's Consent signified, and Bill reported with Amendments.
TYNESIDE METROPOLITAN RAILWAY BILL
The Queen's Consent signified, and Bill reported with Amendments.
  NORTH SEA POLLUTION: RUSSIA AND OSLO CONVENTION
  NORTH SEA POLLUTION: RUSSIA AND OSLO CONVENTION
  SOVIET SHIP AND NORTH SEA OIL POLLUTION RESEARCH
  SOVIET SHIP AND NORTH SEA OIL POLLUTION RESEARCH
  HOUSE-BUILDING PROGRAMMES IN NEW TOWNS
  HOUSE-BUILDING PROGRAMMES IN NEW TOWNS
  COLOURED IMMIGRANTS AND PASSPORT CHECKS
  COLOURED IMMIGRANTS AND PASSPORT CHECKS