Sitting of 24 July 1973

Preamble
The House met at half-past
Two o'clock

PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
DEE AND CLWYD RIVER AUTHORITY BILL
Lords amendments considered and agreed to.

GREATER LODDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL
Ordered,
That in the case of the Greater London Council (Money) Bill Standing Order 208 (Notice of Consideration of Lords Amendments) be suspended and that the Lords Amendments be now considered.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Lords amendments accordingly considered, and agreed to.

TRENT RIVER AUTHORITY BILL
Ordered,
That in the case of the Trent River Authority Bill Standing Order 208 (Notice of Consideration of Lords Amendments) be suspended and that the Lords Amendments be now considered. —[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Lords amendments accordingly considered, and agreed to.

HARWICH HARBOUR BILL [Lords]
Ordered,
That the Promoters of the Harwich Harbour Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend further 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 of their intention to suspend further Proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and
1378
That all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid.
Ordered,
That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords 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 Lords in the present Session.
Ordered,
That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office that a declaration as mentioned above has been deposited has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill 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.
Ordered,
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.
Ordered,
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
To he communicated to the Lords.

NORTH WALES HYDRO ELECTRIC POWER BILL
Ordered,
That so much of the Lords Message [23rd July] as relates to the North Wales Hydro Electric Power Bill be now considered.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Considered accordingly.
Ordered,
That the Promoters of the North Wales Hydro Electric Power Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with that Bill in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid.
Ordered,
That on the third day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House.
Ordered,
That there shall be deposited with a Bill a Declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill. stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session.
Ordered,
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 deemed to have been read the first, second and third time and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read.
Ordered,
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 First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

EXPERIMENTS ON LIVING ANIMALS
Address for Return,
of Experiments performed under the Act 39 and 40 Vict. c. 77, during 1972.—[Mr. Lane.]

OFFENCES RELATING TO MOTOR VEHICLES
Address for Return,
showing the number of offences relating to motor vehicles in England and Wales, the number of persons prosecuted for such offences, statistics of court proceedings and the number of alleged offences in respect of which written warnings were issued by the police, together with the number of persons concerned, during the year ended the 31st day of December 1972. —[Mr. Lane.]

LODDON BRIDGE COLLAPSE
Address for Return,
of the Report of Her Majesty's Factory Inspectorate on the Collapse of Falsework for the Viaduct over the River Loddon on 24th October 1972. [Mr. Malcolm Macmillan.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

    Class Size
    Mrs. Kellett-Bowmanasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proportion of primary classes contained more than 40 pupils in January 1970 and in January 1973.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): In January 1970, in England and Wales, it was 6–6 per cent. The figure for January 1973 is not yet available, but in January 1972 it was 2·5 pet cent.
    Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Will my hon Friend congratulate my right hon. Friend on the steady improvement throughout her record term of office? Will he ask her, when planning future teacher-training programmes, always to bear in mind that unfortunately a great deal of remedial teaching is still required? Will he urge his right hon. Friend to do all she can to encourage the courses required for specialisation in this most worthwhile branch of the profession?
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: I shall certainly convey the good wishes of my hon. Friend to my right hon. Friend. I assure my hon. Friend that I regard remedial teaching as extremely important, but we hope that as it gets under way the nursery school programme will reduce the need for this type of education by bringing children into the educational system earlier.
    Mr. Marks: When the Under-Secretary conveys his congratulations, will he point out to the Secretary of State that all the teachers concerned were in college when his party took office? Does he not accept that within the figure he quoted of 2·5 per cent. there are many variations? Is he aware that in Lancashire the proportion is twice as great and that in a number of schools in my constituency more than half the classes contain more than 30 children? Will the hon. Gentleman accept emergency building plans, particularly from Lancashire, because housing authorities are giving permission for the building of hundreds of houses

    1381
    which could be built within a year, while school building is at least two years behind?
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: I accept that regional variations exist. I quoted an overall figure. I assure the hon. Member that the needs of Lancashire will always be given appropriate consideration. However, to put the situation into perspective, the hon. Gentleman should take account of the fact that the incidence of team teaching in primary schools is increasing, which means that many of the apparently large classes are, in fact, groups of children under the guidance or control of more than one teacher.

    Manningtree County Secondary School
    Mr. Ridsdaleasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science why she refused the Essex Local Education Authority's submission for the remodelling of the Manningtree County Secondary School to 450 places for inclusion in the 1975–76 or 1976–77 secondary replacement and improvement scheme.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: The Manningtree project was carefully examined, but the resources available had to be allocated to cases considered to be more urgent. It is open to the local education authority to resubmit the project for subsequent stages of the secondary improvement programme.
    Mr. Ridsdale: Is my hon. Friend aware that that is a most disappointing reply, particularly as in this expanding area the school wishes to be remodelled and it is necessary to find more buildings in which to accommodate all the children in the area?
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am aware that my hon. Friend would have found that reply disappointing. I am sorry not to be more forthcoming. The Department and my right hon. Friend are aware of the strong feelings among parents in Manningtrec and that the lack of suitable buildings may delay the intended reorganisation of the school as a comprehensive school for the 11-to-16 age group. As my hon. Friend knows, however, the low rate of growth of the secondary school population in the area makes it difficult to justify additions to the existing Manningtree buildings on the basis of basic needs.

    Maintained Schools (Status)
    Mr. R. C. Mitchellasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the average time taken by her Department to reply to applications for changes of status of maintained schools under Section 13 of the Education Act 1944 in the year ending 1st July 1973 and what was the equivalent time taken in the years ending 1st July 1971 and 1st July 1972.
    The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): To answer this Question would involve a special analysis of some 3,000 proposals. The information cannot therefore be provided without disproportionate cost.
    Mr. Mitchell: Is the Secretary of State aware that there is increasing concern among local authorities about the length of time which her Department takes to deal with these applications and that the delay is growing? Because of escalating building costs, every month of delay costs local authorities large sums. Will she do everything possible to speed up her Department's replies to these applications?
    Mrs. Thatcher: Section 13 notices and the building programmes are quite separate and decisions on one are given without prejudice to the other, and that is always stated. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that within the past five months we have been gaining on the waiting list.
    Mr. Haftersley: Would it not help local authorities by speeding matters if the hon. Lady laid down criteria for what she would regard as acceptable reorganisation proposals? Why does she not do that?
    Mrs. Thatcher: Because many of them are different and each has to be judged on its merit. One of the other factors in delay may be that a local authority might ask us to hold things up to see whether it can make some of the required changes.

    Adult Education
    Mr. Boydenasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress she has made in her consideration of whether to appoint a development council for adult education.
    Mr. Sydney Chapmanasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when she now proposes to have discussions with the local authority associations, the appropriate teachers' associations and other interested bodies, on the Russell Report on Adult Education.
    Mr. Bidwellasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she has yet arranged discussions with interested persons about the Russell Report on Adult Education.
    Mr. Barnesasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress she has made in her discussions with interested parties on the recommendations of the Russell Report on Adult Education.
    Mrs. Thatcher: I have not yet completed my consideration of this comprehensive and detailed report, one of whose proposals is for a development council for adult education. As soon as I have done so I shall arrange discussions with the local authority associations, the relevant teachers' associations and representatives of the other main interests in adult education about the report's recommendations. Meanwhile, I am not ready to comment on particular recommendations of the report.
    Mr. Boyden: Does not the Secretary of State realise that those who are interested in adult education are becoming irritated about the delay? The right hon. Lady has had the report since January. How much longer does she require before her Department comes to a view on the matter?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I think the hon. Gentleman forgets that the report took four years to compile by people specially sitting to consider the subject. I hope it will not be long before it goes out to consultation. In the meantime, the number of people availing themselves of the splendid adult education service is increasing. It has increased by three-quarters of a million since the Russell Committee started its work.
    Mr. Bidwell: Would the Minister recognise that there is great feeling about this matter in many organisations traditionally concerned with adult education?
    1384
    Would she think seriously about giving a date for stimulating discussion and getting the funds necessary to implement the report?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I share the lion. Gentleman's sympathy about the subject and I wish to do more to help adult education. It is a highly complex report. We need more time to analyse it and to consult interested parties, but I hope that it will not be much longer.
    Mr. Chapman: When my right hon. Friend discusses the report with interested parties, would she agree that crucial to the expansion of places for adult education must be the use of existing facilities in primary and secondary schools, colleges of further education and universities?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I will certainly bear that in mind. It was a subject to which the report gave a good deal of attention. We are all anxious that capital and equipment facilities should be used to the maximum.
    Mr. Barnes: With the demand for adult education growing as the Secretary of State has said, would she not agree that it is important that the development council, if there is to be one, should have sufficient funds of its own, as the Schools Council has, to carry out its own research into varying needs and new curricula?
    Mrs. Thatcher: The development council was one of the proposals put forward by the Russell Committee, and I would rather not comment on it at this stage.
    Mr. John E. B. Hill: I realise the vital importance of full consultation, but can my right hon. Friend say to what extent the recommendations of the Russell Committee are likely to be covered by existing education commitments rather than by any extension of them?
    Mrs. Thatcher: Extra money has been allocated since the Russell Committee started to sit, otherwise we could not possibly have had the growth of an extra three-quarters of a million people in the system. There is a certain amount of growth built in as we do our ordinary projection on the existing rate of expansion of numbers in adult education.
    Mr. Moyle: Is the right hon. Lady aware that we on this side of the House accept the Russell Report in principle? Can she say the same? If she cannot find it in her heart to do so, will she at least say that she considers adult education to be important?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I have already said that I am sympathetic to the ideas contained in the report.
    Mr. Grylls: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that about 50 per cent. of industrial workers—those doing shift work—are effectively excluded from adult education? Can she give a date when statutory release for education courses will be the right of every citizen?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I am sorry, but I cannot satisfy the last half of that supplementary question. It is a broad question on its own. Some authorities, of which mine is one, have adult education centres during the day. For example, I know of one that uses a previous secondary school, which has been replaced, for daytime adult education purposes.

    Pupil-Teacher Ratio
    Mr. Montgomeryasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT details of the pupil-teacher ratio in primary and secondary schools in each of the past five years.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate the details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Montgomery: Can my hon. Friend confirm that the figures show an improving trend, particularly in the primary sector? If so, does not this show up the hypocrisy of the Labour Party, which launched a recent attack on the Government on this issue?
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am glad to say that my hon. Friend is right and that the figures show a steady improvement. The position concerning primary class sizes is improving faster than that concerning secondary class sizes. As the figures in the report show, the ratios for 1969–70 are much higher than those for 1971–72. The earlier figures are based on teaching staff and later ones are based on qualified
    1386
    teachers only, so that the figures understate the true improvement.
    Mr. Carter: Is the Minister aware that, as a result of his right hon. Friend's refusal to implement the Birmingham Local Education Authority's proposals for the reorganisation of secondary education in the city, many schools will have a full complement of staff this coming year, though an insufficient number of pupils, because parents refuse to allow their children to travel from one side of the city to the other to attend an appropriate school? Can he tell the House on what criteria the education system in Birmingham has been so disrupted?
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: Any disruption of the Birmingham education system is not due to my right hon. Friend's decisions. She has based her decisions on educational considerations, local needs and wishes and, above all, on the needs of the children concerned.
    Mr. Sydney Chapman: Is my hon. Friend aware that, even if my right hon. Friend had accepted the radical proposals for secondary reorganisation in Birmingham, it was pointed out to the Birmingham education authority on repeated occasions that it would not be practicable to implement those proposals this September? Therefore, any blame to be attached must fall squarely on the shoulders of the chairman of the local' education authority.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: That is an interesting point, but it does not arise directly from the Question.
    Mr. Hattersley: Since the Secretary of State took her Birmingham decision with such objectivity, why did she think it right to brief Conservative Members of Parliament about her decision before she told either the Catholic Church or the local education authority?
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: My right hon. Friend took the proper steps to inform all interested parties.
    Mr. Hattersley: Since the right hon. Lady claims such objectivity in these matters, why did she think it right to brief Conservative Members of Parliament before she notified either the Catholic Church or the LEA of her decision?
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: I did not realise that the hon. Gentleman's hearing was

    1387
    defective. I made it clear that my right hon. Friend took entirely proper steps to inform all interested parties.
    Following are the details:

    Maintained Schools

    January

    Primary

    Secondary

    All

    1969

    27·7

    17·9

    22·9

    1970

    27·4

    17·8

    22·7

    1971

    26·9

    17·9

    22·6

    1972

    26·1

    17·6

    22·0

    1973 (provisional)

    25·5

    17·2

    21·4

    Under-Fives
    Mr. Robert Cookeasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many children under five years of age are attending nursery schools or primary schools at the latest convenient date; and how this figure compares with those for the previous five years on the same date.
    Mrs. Thatcher: The provisional figure for January 1973, for maintained schools in England and Wales, is 394 000. This compares with 351,000 in 1972, 318,000 in 1971, 291,000 in 1970, 275,000 in 1969 and 257,000 in 1968.
    Mr. Cooke: I am sure that the House will wish to congratulate my right hon. Friend on this great progress. Perhaps she will tell the House whether it will be maintained. Does she agree that a really good start at that end of the education process is worth almost more than anything else that we can give to the children? Will she ensure that, in the work of the nursery classes and so on, parents are brought into the picture wherever possible so that education complements the home influences?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I am happy to say that I agree with my hon. Friend on most of those points. It was for that reason that we put so much stress on the primary school programme first. We are having for the first time a 10-year nursery programme on the education budget and we shall put stress on parent-teacher relationships in the way my hon. Friend wishes.
    Miss Lestor: I welcome any extension in nursery education, but will the right hon. Lady make two matters clear? First, on her figures, will she explain how much of the increase is due to the fact that many places that were full-time and taking one child are now part-
    1388
    time and taking two children? Secondly, will she explain why she continues to include in figures for nursery education what is implied in the Question: that many children in primary schools—rising fives and four-year-olds—are receiving nursery education? Anyone who has looked at this matter, especially in the North of England, knows that many of these children are going into reception classes and are not receiving nursery education, despite what has been spelt out in the circular.
    Mrs. Thatcher: I think the hon. Lady will agree that the reply which I gave answers accurately the Question. When I first went to the Department I was requested by the National Union of Teachers and many education authorities to admit children at the beginning of the year in which they were five. This was not previously allowed under the old Circular 860 but it obtained during the hon. Lady's tenure of office.
    Miss Lestor: Will the right hon. Lady answer the supplementary question? How many of the full-time places are now part-time places, which has the effect of raising the figures, and what does she intend to do about the rising fives and four-year-olds in primary classes who are not receiving nursery education?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I think that the hon. Lady will find the answer to the last part of her question in the circular which said that it was better, as I have said many times in the House, for children under five to have full-scale nursery provision. It is better for children to be in school than not there-at all, for them to be where their parents wished them to be. Many parents prefer their children, before the age of five, to go to school part-time, but there will be some provision for full-time education.
    Mrs. Renée Short: As the education authorities have put in considerable demands for a share of the money allocated under the White Paper—this has now been exceeded will the right hon. Lady say what she is doing to make more money available to meet the demands of the LEAs?
    Mrs. Thatcher: This 10-year programme is a great advance on anything which has been achieved before, and the

    1389
    first two years of the programme will go ahead with the money allocated which, as the hon. Lady knows, was increased by 22 per cent. because of the recent cost limit increase.

    Degrees and Qualifications
    Miss Fookesasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will issue a list naming the institutions offering bogus qualifications.
    Mrs. Thatcher: No, Sir. I have issued a list of authentic degrees and equivalent qualifications awarded in the United Kingdom. This is a more effective safeguard and anyone in doubt can consult the list.
    Miss Fookes: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the only effective way of dealing with this matter is by legislation prohibiting completely the activities of such institutions?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I am not sure that that would be the only effective way. It would mean setting up a vast registration system, which would mean yet another extension of bureaucracy. At present the best way is to have a list of authentic degrees and to see that it is readily and easily available. The fault is not limited to bogus degrees in this country; many are granted abroad.
    Mr. Lipton: Is the right hon. Lady aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Wandsworth, Central (Mr. Thomas Cox) has introduced a Bill that would go some way to deal with the racket of "phoney" degrees? Will she see that the Government expedite the passage of that Bill?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on asking that question a day before the House rises. I hardly think there would be time before then.
    Mr. Boyden: Surely the Government could prosecute firms in England which issue bogus degrees. Will her Department consider that?
    Mrs. Thatcher: Prosecutions are not a matter for my Department they would probably be for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
    Miss Lestorasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she is
    1390
    satisfied with the distribution of the information she has prepared on recognised degrees and qualifications; and in how many countries this is now available.
    Mrs. Thatcher: Yes, Sir. The number of countries to which the information has been sent is 134.
    Miss Lestor: Is not the right hon. Lady aware that the whole education world is angry about the attitude of the Government, particularly her own attitude, to the whole question? Many of my hon. Friends and I agree with the hon. Lady the Member for Merton and Morden (Miss Fookes) about legislation. Has the Secretary of State had any discus. sions with the people my hon. Friend the Member for Wandsworth, Central (Mr. Thomas Cox) and I have mentioned who have done a great deal of work Mr. Day and Mr. Lydden-Jones—on bogus qualifications and their repeated recommendations about legislation?
    Mrs. Thatcher: The subject was brought to my attention by the Council for the Accreditation of Correspondence Colleges. As a result, we went into the problem and we have taken steps of which the hon. Lady knows.

    Arts Council Grants
    Mr. Iremongerasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will introduce legislation to enable grants made by the Arts Council to be subject to parliamentary approval and control.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: No, Sir. My noble Friend is satisfied with the present procedures for the grant-in-aid.
    Mr. Iremonger: How am I to get some money for the Redbridge Youth Brass Band?
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: Not from me, I am afraid, nor from the Arts Council, since the Arts Council does not make grants to individual local bands, brass or otherwise. Local authorities are able to make grants to students to attend the National Youth Brass Band courses, of which there are two a year, and many students do. I do not know whether the local authority represented by my hon. Friend makes grants, but that could be another source of income. About 100 youngsters a year attend each course. They obtain modest grants of about £5

    1391
    and 1 believe that they are extremely profitable.
    Mr. David Clarkasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what has been the percentage change in the amount of money granted to the Arts Council since June 1970.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: Eighty-seven per cent. more.
    Mr. Clark: Hon. Members will be pleased with the considerable increase in the amount of money granted to the Arts Council, but will the Minister draw to the attention of the Arts Council the importance of the brass band movement to culture in certain parts of this country and request it to give money either through the regional councils to individual brass bands or direct to the National Youth Brass Band?
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: It is not my function to make such a request but I have been in correspondence with the Arts Council about this topic, in which the hon. Member has for a long time taken a keen personal interest. I am pleased to be able to say that I heard recently from the Chairman of the Arts Council that its music panel reacted encouragingly to general proposals from the bands' musical adviser and that the musical director of the Arts Council has written for costed, specific proposals that will enlarge its musical scope. Although the responsibility rests with the Arts Council, I am sanguine that the hon. Member's campaign will eventually have a happy outcome.
    Mr. Robert Cooke: Is not this a classic example of the way in which popular art receives far greater emphasis under the present Government? Will my hon. Friend encourage this trend?
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: I think that we need both popular and elite art.
    Mr. Faulds: Does the junior Minister realise that it is well past time that his right hon. Friend increased Arts Council funding specifically to deal with the great needs of housing the museums, as recommended by the latest report which, apparently, the Paymaster-General has peremptorily dismissed, and housing music throughout these islands?
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: I think that the junior Shadow, if there be such a creature, has not studied his Order Paper, because there is a later Question on this subject in his own name.

    Careers Guidance
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she has yet received the report of Her Majesty's Inspectorate on careers education and guidance in secondary schools; and whether she will make a statement.
    Mrs. Thatcher: The report which has just been completed reached me yesterday. I have not yet had time to study it fully.
    Mr. Knox: In view of the considerable public interest in this matter, does my right hon. Friend intend to publish the report?
    Mrs. Thatcher: Yes, Sir.

    Scientific Research
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions she has had with the European Space Research Organisation on the level of the British contribution to scientific research.
    Mrs. Thatcher: In December 1971 the future total level of expenditure on the scientific programme of the European Space Research Organisation was agreed by member States of the organisation and the British contribution to it remains in line with that agreement.
    Mr. Dalyell: Is it accepted that on 15th August the Government will have to make a critical decision for high technology in this country, namely, whether to accept the American offer of participation in the post-Apollo programme? In these circumstances, what is the position on the crucial question of a maritime satellite?
    Mrs. Thatcher: The hon. Gentleman is asking about the technology side of the space programme, which he knows full well is a matter for the Department of Trade and Industry. I am responsible for £3·2 million on the fundamental research side and a £500,000 contribution to ESRO, which was in line with the December 1971 agreement. The hon.

    1393
    Gentleman is asking about the contribution from the Department of Trade and Industry. Negotiations will be conducted through it between now and the middle of August.
    Mr. Marten: Does my right hon. Friend relish having responsibility for matters of space satellites in her Department?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I am always happy to have fundamental research done on a budget within my Department. It is a limited amount of the space programme.

    Office for Scientific and Technical Information
    Mr. Adam Hunterasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she is satisfied with the results being achieved by the work of the Office for Scientific and Technical Information; and if she will make a statement.
    Mrs. Thatcher: I am satisfied that there is wide recognition of OSTI's work in investigating thought about information needs, methods of handling and presenting information, and problems of system management and of professional and user education. All projects supported by OSTI are independently refereed and the balance of work so supported is reviewed annually by the Advisory Committee for Scientific and Technical Information.
    Mr. Hunter: Is the right hon. Lady satisfied that all computerised technical information services are more efficient and less costly than other systems? Is she aware of the strong feeling that there has been a great deal of wasteful expenditure by the Office for Scientific and Technical Information? Would not the right hon. Lady agree that, because the argument about manually operated and computerised services will continue for some time, an independent inquiry should be held and a committee composed of nonscientists should be set up to discover the merits and demerits of both systems?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I doubt very much whether, on research projects, a committee of non-scientists could adjudicate on computer or manual methods for the retrieval of information. I think the hon. Gentleman knows that OSTI receives few applications for work of a manual kind and that none has yet won support from
    1394
    independent referees. OSTI has set up a committee to consider this matter, and one of the persons about whom the hon. Gentleman is particularly concerned has been invited to attend.

    Student Unions
    Mr. Norman Lamontasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans she has for the reform of student unions.
    Mrs. Thatcher: Responsibility for approving changes in student union constitutions rests, generally speaking, with the authorities of universities and colleges. Proposals to change the present system of financing the unions have been under discussion between my Department and the various interests concerned, but no agreement has been reached. I propose to consider the matter further in the light of the Government's decision to finance 90 per cent. of the cost of mandatory student awards.
    Mr. Lamont: Does my right hon. Friend remember the case in which Mr. Justice Brightman recently ruled that student unions were educational trusts and could disburse their funds only for educational purposes? Is it not also the case that the Secretary of State has responsibility for educational trusts stemming from the 1944 Act? What action does my right hon. Friend propose to take to exercise those responsibilities and to prevent the abuse of student union funds, which I believe was one of the reasons for her previous proposals?
    Mrs. Thatcher: The charitable jurisdiction of the Department is in process of being transferred, but from my recollection the case to which my hon. Friend refers was a specific one. It would not mean that all unions were themselves charitable trusts. Therefore, the rule in that case would not apply to them all.
    Mr. Moyle: While we are on the subject of students and mandatory awards, may I ask whether the right hon. Lady knows that the regulations she is laying before the House this afternoon for improving student awards do not include provision for the £20 increase for married women about which she made such great play in her announcement on 15th May? Is not this either massive cynicism towards married women students or massive incompetence?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This Question is about student unions.
    Mr. John Mendelson: Will the right hon. Lady bear in mind that a large body of opinion both inside and outside the universities is completely opposed to any action which would stifle freedom of expression for student unions and which would stifle the growing interest among students in public affairs and their bearing witness to the moral involvement they feel, which they also want to show by contributing their funds? Will she retuse to listen to the reactionary voices behind her?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I do not think that many of the hon. Gentleman's questions arise from the original Question. Other people, who feel equally strongly about moral involvement, think that there should perhaps be, for the better freedom of expression, rules which monitor student unions as regards their regulations with regard to elections and taking decisions, to make certain that they are properly and democratically taken. The objective may well be the same as the hon. Gentleman's, but there are different arguments about the way in which those objectives should he achieved.

    Provincial Museums and Galleries
    Mr. Straussasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she can now state what action she proposes to take on the recommendations contained in her departmental report on provincial museums and galleries.
    Mr. Fauldsasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action she intends to take following the publication of the report on provincial museums and galleries.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: I would refer the right hon. and hon. Members to the answer given by my right hon. Friend on 28th June in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke). My noble Friend has sent the hon. Members copies of his speech to the Museum Association conference in Dundee on 13th July.
    Mr. Strauss: I appreciate that the Minister is increasing the purchase grant for the provincial museums and galleries, but does he not realise that their out-
    1396
    standing need is money with which to improve the wholly inadequate accommodation in which the present exhibits are shown? In view of the recent resolution passed by the Museums Association deploring in the strongest possible terms—those words were used —the rejection by the Minister of the Wright Committee's major recommendation that a fund should be established for the housing of the museums similar to the housing of the arts, will he rapidly reconsider his regrettable decision?
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: I know that the right hon. Gentleman's disappointment is shared by a number of people, but to set up such a fund at a time of cutback in general Government capital investment would be merely to stimulate demands which could not be met and which would, therefore, increase frustration. I am happy to say that the Government are prepared to consider, together with 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 this will go some way towards meeting the point made by the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Crouch: May I remind my right hon. Friend that there are many of us who are particularly interested in pianos and organs? Could he pull out a few more stops and endeavour to rehouse the British Piano Museum at the David Salomans House, about which I have written?
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: I share my hon. Friend's interest in those instrument, as I play both of them myself. However, the responsibility for David Salomans House lies with the Department of Health and Social Security and not my Department.
    Mr. Faulds: I thank the hon. Gentleman for salvaging my Question from the end of the Order Paper. As it is known that the committee, with the exception of the two departmental members, was unanimously in favour of a mandatory rate, will he get his right hon. Friend to carefully consider this proposal—
    Mr. Fell: Carefully to consider.
    Mr. Faulds: To carefully consider—I will use my own words; we need no

    1397
    training from whippersnappers—because, contrary to the Paymaster-General's assertion, this does not involve centralised control?
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: If I may intervene in this grammatical seminar, my noble Friend the Paymaster-General attaches the greatest importance to voluntary local effort and believes that a mandatory rate would not be appropriate but that we should encourage local authorities to fulfil their responsibilities in this respect.

    School Transport
    Dr. Marshallasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many meetings have been held by the Working Party on School Transport.
    Mrs. Thatcher: Fifteen.
    Dr. Marshall: Does the right hon. Lady agree that the working party, which was set up on 7th March 1972, is taking too long over a most urgent problem for my constituents—those who live in old Goole, Knottingley, Ferrybridge and Darrington? Will she specify dates by which the working party should make its final report to her?
    Mrs. Thatcher: The working party has three more meetings arranged and I hope that the report will be available by the end of the year.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Does my right hon. Friend realise that there is considerable urgency in this matter? I have been pressing her for over 18 months to come to a conclusion about changing the existing system. By the end of the year for the working party's report is too late. Cannot she hurry on the working party and give the House her conclusions when we come back after the Summer Recess? The matter is urgent.
    Mrs. Thatcher: There will be more meetings before the House returns. I have been squeezed between both sides of the House, if I might put it that way. I shall convey the views of both sides of the House to the chairman of the working party.

    Deprived Areas
    Mr. Deakinsasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is her policy regarding the provision of
    1398
    additional teaching resources for schools in areas of social deprivation.
    Mrs. Thatcher: Authorities can apply for an increase in their quota of teachers to meet the needs of these areas.
    Teachers in schools designated as of exceptional difficulty receive special additions to pay.
    Capital programmes for the replacement or improvement of primary and secondary schools give some preference to deprived areas and a degree of priority will also be given in the new nursery programme for bids in respect of these areas.
    Mr. Deakins: Is the right hon. Lady aware that one of the major difficulties facing London local education authorities is the worsening housing situation which affects their ability to attract and retain younger teachers? Is there anything further she can do to help local authorities like mine in this respect?
    Mrs. Thatcher: As regards the housing problem, local authorities themselves have the best means to make houses available to teachers if they wish to do so. The initiative lies with them.
    Mr. Meacher: Is the Minister aware that the latest Schools Council survey shows that no fewer than one-fifth of those leaving school at the age of 16 are judged to be capable of GCE A-level and that most of them are the children of semi-skilled and unskilled parents? Cannot she provide more precise information about how she intends to stop this continuing massive wastage of ability in our education system?
    Mrs. Thatcher: We have taken the major step of raising the school leaving age. It has been raised for only a term and it is too soon to judge the effects. If young pupils wish to do so, they can stay on voluntarily after the school leaving age, or alternatively, go into the further education system.

    Student Grants
    Mr. Dormandasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will make a statement on maintenance allowances paid to pupils attending maintained schools beyond the compulsory school leaving age.
    Mrs. Thatcher: I have nothing to add to the reply given to the Question by the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) on 15th May.—[Vol. 856, c. 1213.]
    Mr. Dormand: Inadequate maintenance allowances are the biggest deterrent to pupils staying on at school. Is not that particulary true of pupils in the Northern Region? Has not the time now arrived when there ought to be national scales for maintenance allowances instead of having some of the pitifully inadequate allowances which some local education authorities provide?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I do not believe that that is the biggest deterrent to pupils staying on after the compulsory school leaving age. Again, however, the remedy lies with the local authorities, and if we are to take ail their discretions away there will be little point in having local authorities.

  EXPORT DRIVE (AWARDS)
  Mrs. Castleasked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Departments of Employment and Trade and Industry in monitoring the effect of the prices and incomes policy on the export drive.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): Yes, Sir.
  Mrs. Castle: Does not the Prime Minister think it absurd that under the pay code the firm of Singer in my constituency, which has recently won the Queen's Award to Industry for its outstanding export performance, has been refused permission to make a modest monetary award to its employees as a token of appreciation of their share in this achievement? How does the Prime Minister hope to promote exports by such meanness? Would he not have an exception made in a few clearly defined cases?
  The Prime Minister: I have looked into this question carefully since I saw the right hon. Lady's letter. I agree that the workers and the firm are to be congratulated on winning the Queen's Award. I think the right hon. Lady will recognise, however, that in stage 2 it is not possible to have a definition which could be
  1400
  clearly limited to cases of this kind. Obviously, the distribution of bonuses generally would have been a complete loophole in the whole of the arrangements under stage 2.
  On the other hand, I think that it would have been possible for the firm—and, indeed, may still be possible for it if it so wishes—to do something as a firm which would benefit the workers as a whole. For example, if it could do so by provision of facilities for social or sporting activities that might well be considered by the Pay Board as suitable?
  Mr. Tapsell: Is it not a fact that while the volume of our exports is already rising twice as fast as the volume of our imports, the extremely competitive price position which our goods now possess in many Western European countries presents British industry with a wonderful opportunity which it has a duty to seize?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right, and it is not only in Europe that it has this opportunity, but right across the world. Our exports this year are already 15 per cent. up in volume and 23 per cent. up in value, and that is a quite remarkable achievement for exports.

  REGIONAL EMPLOYMENT PREMIUM
  Mr. Dormandasked the Prime Minister whether, in any future talks with the TUC and the CBI, he will discuss the proposal to phase out the regional employment premium.
  The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. John Smith) on 19th July.—[Vol. 860, c. 205.]
  Mr. Dormand: The Prime Minister knows from our correspondence on this matter that I can speak on behalf of the 30 Labour Members in the Northern Region. Will he also be assured that I have the support of the trade unions in the region in urging the retention of REP beyond 1978? Is he aware that every organisation which has commented on REP has urged that it be retained, including the CBI which says that it should be retained in its present form

  1401
  until at least 1978? In view of his continuing obstinancy in this matter, will the Prime Minister tell the House his reasons for contravening the views of all these responsible voices?
  The Prime Minister: I told the House that the Government would carry out consultations with the CBI and TUC and take account of the other views that have been expressed. Those consultations have now been carried out and the Government are considering the best way of dealing with this matter and the phasing out of REP. When we have reached our conclusions, a statement will be made to the House.
  When REP was introduced, it was for a period of seven years and the Labour Party, which introduced it, said it would then be phased out—[HoN. MEMBERS: "No."[Yes, indeed. The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) said:
  "In our view it is right, as my right hon. Friend said, that the scheme should exist in full for seven years and that it should then begin to phase out—obviously a review will be made nearer to the time to see how it is going"—
  That is what we are doing, and we have carried out the consultations—
  "but this is our present intention—coming to an end theoretically after 10 years or so, because we could take two or three years to phase it out."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th June, 1967; Vol. 747, c. 750.]
  That was the Opposition's position when they were in office. There is no point in their trying to deny that their intention when they introduced REP was to phase it out after seven years.
  Dame Irene Ward: As I feel strongly about this matter, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether since the TUC and the CBI both feel that, especially in the part of the country which the hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand) and I represent, something should be done about the regional employment premium, he will give an undertaking, after taking the advice of those bodies, that he will reconsider the Government's attitude? I am perfectly sincere in my request.
  The Prime Minister: We are prepared to consider the matter further with the CBI and the TUC in the discussions we are having with them. The Government have announced their intention to carry
  1402
  on REP for the full length of time and then to consider how it might best be phased out. What the Government have to consider is whether the use of the money in REP is the most cost-effective way of helping regional development. It must be of some importance that, since the Government reaffirmed their intention of having discussions and phasing out REP, unemployment in the development areas in which REP is paid has gone down by 108,000 and is continuing to fall.
  Mr. Ewing: Is there not a great danger that the Prime Minister is open to the allegation that he does not want tripartite agreement in these talks? If, as the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) has said, the CBI and the TUC both want the regional employment premium to be retained, what valid reason can the Prime Minister give for withholding his agreement? The Prime Minister seems to be ruling this out, in addition to ruling out food subsidies and the withholding of rent increases. Are the talks worth holding in those circumstances?
  The Prime Minister: I told the House that I am prepared to listen further to the CBI and the TUC. We can discuss this matter in the context of the economic situation. But what the Government wish to ensure is that the money spent on REP is the best means available of getting industry into the development areas and reducing unemployment.

  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  Mr. Deakinsasked the Prime Minister what plans he has for further meetings with Heads of Government of EEC countries.
  The Prime Minister: I expect to have further bilateral meetings with Heads of Government of EEC countries as the need arises but there are no arrangements for such meetings at present.
  Mr. Deakins: At the next meeting with his colleagues, whenever that occurs, will the Prime Minister make two issues clear: first, that this country cannot be committed to European economic and monetary union until a decision has been taken by this House; and, secondly, that until such decision has been taken by

  1403
  this House no one can commit this country to the second stage of the Common Market economic and monetary union?
  The Prime Minister: The position on the question of the development of the Community in relation to economic and monetary union is the same as on any other aspect of Community development. The Government must retain the support of the House of Commons in carrying through the policies which were agreed at the summit.
  Sir D. Walker-Smith: At the meetings will my right hon. Friend consider putting forward a suggestion which I have made in recent months both in this House and in the European Parliament? Will he advocate that the legislative processes of the Council of Ministers should be, as far as possible, held in public? Would not this have the advantage of making the Council, when it is formulating directives on matters which touch closely the lives of citizens in the member States, additionally sensitive to the views and feelings of those citizens, including our own?
  The Prime Minister: I have seen the suggestion of my right hon. and learned Friend and noted it with great interest. As he will realise as well as anyone from his experience in the European Parliament, there are two sides to this question. The European Parliament—the report I have just received from our own representatives there emphasises this—feels somewhat frustrated by what it regards as the slow and clumsy method of operation of the Council of Ministers in Brussels.
  The alternative proposal being put forward is that instead of a gathering of this kind being as large as it is, with almost all speeches immediately being relayed outside, it should be treated more on the basis of the Cabinet system in this country in which the Ministers can discuss among themselves in the customary way the policies they want to put forward. The proposals could then he put before the Parliament at Strasbourg or the Ministers' national Parliaments. Both these aspects need to be carefully considered.
  Mr. Pardoe: Will the Prime Minister state his priorities vis-à-vis monetary union and political union in these dis-
  1404
  cussions? Is he aware that many people consider that in the short term monetary union would be an unmitigated disaster for the British economy, and that the important priority is the democratic development of a United States of Europe?
  The Prime Minister: That seems to be an unduly provocative question on the last day before we go on holiday. The concept at the summit meeting, which was embodied in the communiqué, was that political, economic and monetary developments would move together towards 1980. On the question of political consultation, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has just returned from Copenhagen and Brussels, where there were detailed political consultations about relations between Europe and the United States.
  I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's remark that monetary union would be disastrous for the economy of the country, provided that we maintain the position that we have always maintained, namely that it can be brought about only if there is economic development at the same time. This involves regional policy to a large extent.
  Mr. Benn: Will the Prime Minister be discussing with the Heads of Government of the Common Market countries the widening trade deficit between Britain and the Common Market? The gap has been widening sharply and cannot be explained by imports of raw materials. What action have the Government in mind to correct that situation?
  The Prime Minister: As I have said that there is no plan for a meeting with the Heads of Government, the question does not arise.
  The gap between the growth of our exports and imports between Europe and the United Kingdom is less than with the rest of the world. I am afraid, therefore, that the doctrine put forward by the right hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends, including one who is not on the Front Bench at the moment, that the trade gap is due to our entry into the Community and a failure of trade with the EEC is unsustainable.

  COUNTER-INFLATION POLICY
  Mr. Adleyasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his latest talks with the CBI and TUC.
  The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) on 19th July.—[Vol. 860, c. 203.]
  Mr. Adley: Whilst recognising the electoral popularity and political attraction of worker participation, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he agrees that, if closer liaison between management and its work force is to be meaningful, it should be two-way participation? Will my right hon. Friend, when he next meets the TUC, discuss with it the possibility of management participation in the day-today affairs of trade unions in relevant companies?
  The Prime Minister: I think that worker participation, which covers a wide range of activities in firms, is not a matter of interfering in management. It would therefore not be appropriate to say that management should interfere with or take a part in trade unions. What is required is that the two parties should discuss, and be as fully informed as possible about, the affairs of a company. In that way they can each contribute to the improvement and effectiveness of a company.
  Mr. Atkinson: Will the Prime Minister make it clear to the House whether the Government will insist upon the trade unions accepting threshold agreements as a precedent to any further talks? Secondly, will he accept that it is an economic contradiction to rule out subsidies and price regulation while at the same time insisting upon threshold agreements?
  The Prime Minister: What I said in my speech in the debate was that the Government would propose to both parties that threshold agreements should become part of the arrangements for stage 3 because we believe that that would be a valuable safeguard for everybody working in this country.
  Of course the talks will go on. Each side is able to put forward proposals of
  1406
  this kind to try to achieve the aim of the talks. It is our intention to look at the picture as a whole. I do not see any contradiction of the kind which the hon. Gentleman suggests. We have, in any case, price regulation in this country.
  Mr. Hugh Fraser: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the extreme danger hi threshold agreements is that they institutionalise inflation and make the maximum the automatic minimum? Surely it would be better to look at productivity agreements rather than threshold agreements, which automatically mean inflation permanently installed.
  The Prime Minister: The two matters are not mutually exclusive. I agree with my right hon. Friend that if threshold agreements are badly constructed the danger to which he refers exists. When this matter was first raised more than two years ago, that was the reason why it was remitted to "Neddy" for examination by the three parties. A great deal of work has been done since then, and I think that the TUC, the CBI and the Government are agreed that it is possible to construct threshold agreements that are valuable safeguards but not in themselves inflationary. Productivity agreements are a major item for discussion in these talks, and we recognise the importance that is attached to them.
  Dr. Gilbert: When will the right hon. Gentleman be able to tell the TUC that the Price Commission will do something about bank profits? I ask that question in the light of the fact that the overwhelming proportion of the record increase in bank profits has come not from invisible exports but from gouging-out of the ordinary individual who happens to be in debt to the bank as a result of the Government's monetary and fiscal policies.
  The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman is aware of the terms of reference of the Price Commission and of the price code, he will know that there are full powers to act in the matter. The banks' profits have just been published. The Price Commission has full power to act. The controls since the standstill apply to dividends.
  Mr. Prentice: Are we to take it from the Prime Minister's reply and from his speech last week that the concept of

  1407
  threshold agreements is the only new initiative being proposed by the Government in the talks? If that is so, and if the Government are sticking to all the other policies which have contributed so much to inflation, does not that lend force to the view that the Government do not really seek agreement in the talks and that they are treating them as a public relations exercise?
  The Prime Minister: Nothing of the sort. There is no point in the right hon. Gentleman and Opposition Members trying to discredit the talks. Neither the CBI nor the TUC has any intention of doing so. They are absolutely genuine in the part they are playing in the talks, and so are we.
  The right hon. Gentleman asked whether any new initiatives are to come forward. That is a matter for the talks themselves. I took this specific initiative to tell the House before we go on to the next stage that it is a matter to which all three parties attach great importance. As to the rest, they will come forward in the rest of the talks.
  Mr. Adley: I used the word "participation and not" interference "in my supplementary question to the Prime Minister.

ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS
Mr. Clinton Davis Mr. Clinton Davis (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement concerning the action he proposes to take relating to 36 illegal immigrants now held in custody.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Robert Carr): I have considered these 36 cases very carefully and have taken into account the length of time each man has been here; the strength of connection, if any, with this country; personal history, including character, conduct, employment record and the like; domestic circumstances; age and medical condition; any other relevant factor, including compassionate circumstances; and any representations made to me. Having done so, I have decided to allow nine of these men, exceptionally, to remain here. In the case of one other it has been decided that his entry was not illegal. One has already been sent back
1408
at his own request, and arrangements will now be made for the others to be returned overseas.
Mr. Davis: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the situation could be eased considerably if he were to follow the example which has been set by the French Government? A limited amnesty would avoid much of the difficulty with which we are now confronted. Is he aware that the French Government have granted a limited amnesty for one year? Further, is he aware that they have done so because they feel that it would he a matter, of compassion to follow that course?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, notwithstanding the instruction which he has given to the police, that it is all too easy for a police officer to say to someone, "I suspect you of being an illegal immigrant", whether or not that belief is well justified? Would not a limited amnesty for this specific class of immigrant solve much of the difficulty which we are bound to have and which is bound to arise in future?
Mr. Carr: The occasions when individual police officers do that sort of thing are, luckily, extremely limited in Britain. It is a risk which any of us run when suspected, rightly or wrongly, by a police officer. It is by no means a risk confined to immigrants. I have noted the action of the French Government. I believe that for many reasons, including scale, the circumstances in France are very different. In any event, the House considered and decisively rejected the question of an amnesty two or three weeks ago.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. How did the last Question come within the orbit of a Private Notice Question? [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has tried this before. He is not entitled to ask that. Whether a Question comes within the orbit of a Private Notice Question is entirely a matter for me until the House decides otherwise. I should not mind if it did, but until it does so it is a matter for me.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order. Under the rules of the House Question Time ends at half-past three.

1409
This Question would seem to be an ordinary Question which has been put out of its normal order. I should have thought that the House would like to know how is comes within this category so that hon. Members may make use of this procedure.
Mr. Speaker: No.
Mr. Grieve: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that the sort of amnesty which he has been invited to introduce by the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) would constitute an invitation and an encouragement to the international organisations which are now engaged on a large scale in bringing illegal immigrants to this country?
Mr. Carr: I have already explained to the House why the Government do not believe that it would be right to grant such an amnesty and why it is right to deal with cases in the way in which they are now being dealt with.
Mr. Bidwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the amount of trafficking in illegal immigration is a tiny proportion of the totality of the problem? Further, is he aware that what he has just announced will go hardly a step towards allaying the natural fears of many citizens of this country who settled here quite legitimately and who are hardworking people? They are fears which are natural in the present climate and the present situation.
The right hon. Gentleman has announced that nine of the 36 immigrants in Pentonville are to remain. Does that mean that in the remaining number there are heads of families? Does it mean that children born in this country who are patrials will also be asked to accompany their parents? The right hon. Gentleman has no legal entitlement to deport such children? Will they be asked to leave with heads of families?
Mr. Carr: I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman's assessment of the danger, actual and potential, of traffic in illegal immigration. It is impossible to quantify, but I think that anyone with experience in this area knows of the danger. The actual danger is a real one and if we did not deal with the matter firmly the potential danger would be even greater.
1410
It is important not to arouse needless fears. I am sure that that would not be the wish of the hon. Gentleman, having regard to the constituency which he represents. Perhaps it was of some value that he should have raised the matter so that some of the fears implicit in his question could be dealt with.
It may interest the hon. Gentleman, his constituents and the House to know that of the 36 immigrants, only two had wives in this country. The other 34 were either unmarried or, in most cases, married but with their wives and children overseas and not in this country. There is no question of removing families. Of the two with a wife in this country, I am granting one person with a wife and family the right to stay. The other was married for precisely one day and his wife had already started divorce action against him.

HOTEL FIRE (OBAN)
Mr. Noble(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the hotel fire in Oban, Argyll this morning.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell): Just after four o'clock this morning a fire call was received from the police about a fire at the Esplanade Hotel, Oban. The fire station at Oban turned out two fire engines immediately and at the same time summoned assistance which was provided from Lochgilphead and Inveraray. When the Oban fire engines arrived at the hotel they saw flames coming from the upper floors and in the roof of the six-storey building.
A full report on the incident is not yet available, but I regret that it appears that at least nine persons have died and that about 20 are in hospital, some with serious injuries.
I know that the House will wish to express its sympathy with all those who have been bereaved or injured.
The circumstances are being immediately investigated and my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate will then consider whether a fatal accident inquiry should be arranged.
Mr. Noble: May I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement? Is he

1411
aware that I am glad that an appropriate inquiry will take place in due course? At this stage may I simply express on behalf of my constituents and myself, and particularly those in the Oban area, our deep regret over this tragedy and our sympathy for the relatives of those who died in the fire?
Is my right hon. Friend aware that this morning I spoke to the Provost of Oban on the telephone? Is he further aware that I would like to express my gratitude and I am sure that of the House to the fire brigades and the police and hospital services as well as to all the voluntary services and the large number of members of the public who did everything they could to minimise the suffering of those involved?
Mr. Campbell: I am sure that the services will appreciate what my right hon. Friend said.
Mr. William Hannan: While I join in the expression of sympathy and thank the Secretary of State for his statement may I, without trying to prejudice any inquiry, ask whether the Secretary of State recalls the Press concern, expressed in the Glasgow Herald and the Scotsman on behalf of some local authorities, over the slowness with which hotels are registering under the Fire Protection (Loans) Act, whereby hotels may obtain loans to carry out fire protection schemes? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the inquiry will be reminded of the circumstances of this Act?
Mr. Campbell: Without commenting on this case, I am aware of the concern expressed. I, too, am concerned that we should proceed with inspections following the Fire Protection (Loans) Act as quickly, and in as orderly a fashion, as possible.
Mr. Carmichael: May I associate the Opposition with the expressions of sympathy, particularly with the relatives of those who died in the fire? May I express the hope that those who were injured will soon recover? Dealing with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. William Hannan), may I also ask the right hon. Gentleman to look at the
1412
question—during the inquiry or subsequent to it—whether the loans granted under the Act are sufficient to allow hotels to install adequate fire protection?
Mr. Campbell: I will certainly look into that again.
Mr. Ronald King Murray: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the fire engines had to cover a distance of 40 miles? Will he look into this unsatisfactory situation particularly in view of the large population that Oban has, especially during the summer holiday period?
Mr. Campbell: That is not the case. The hon. and learned Member clearly did not hear what I said at the beginning of my statement. The two fire engines at Oban were on the scene within five minutes of receiving the call. Other fire engines from places nearly 40 miles away came in about an hour to give added assistance.
Mr. William Hamilton: May I ask at this point whether this hotel is conforming with the fire regulations?
Mr. Campbell: That is a matter which will have to be gone into. I cannot at this notice make any comment upon it.
Mr. Edward Short: Will the right hon. Gentleman look rather wider, at the large number of deaths which have taken place through fire in Scotland in the last year or so, with a view to establishing whether there is a common factor? For example, there has been modernisation of old stone buildings. Will he see whether there is a common factor in these terrible tragedies?
Mr. Campbell: There have been a number of fires in Glasgow which have given cause for concern. I take it that that is the area to which the right hon. Gentleman is referring. We are looking for any common factors, and we know of some. There could be more arising from this further fire.

CONFERENCE ON ELECTORAL LAW
Mr. Speaker: I told the House on 16th March that I would announce when final agreement had been reached on the terms of reference of the Conference on Electoral Law over which I preside.

1413
The terms which are now agreed are these:
To examine, and if possible submit agreed resolutions on, the following matters relating to parliamentary elections:

1. The franchise, particularly in relation to British subjects normally resident in the United Kingdom but temporarily living abroad.

2. Electoral registration, particularly—

(a) the registration timetable, and the frequency of publishing the register;

(b) multiple registration and the definition of "residence";

(c) registration of Service men.

3. Minimum age for election.

4. Election expenditure generally.

5. Conduct of elections, particularly—

(a) candidates' descriptions;

(b) problems relating to committee rooms;

(c) absent voting;

(d) appointment of polling day as a public holiday;

(e) day of the week for polling day;

(f) polling hours;

(g) marking of electoral numbers on ballot paper counterfoils;

(h) timing of by-elections.

6. Cost of election petitions.

7. Rules 4–7 in Schedule 2 to the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1949.

The House will be aware, from my announcement on 16th March, that the Conference has already been considering Items 2 and 3—"Electoral Registration", and" Minimum Age for Election "—and has reported its conclusions on some of the issues raised.
Communications relating to the other items will be welcomed by the Conference. They should be addressed to one of the joint Secretaries, Mr. Pring, The Journal Office, House of Commons, in order to reach him before the House resumes on 16th October.
Mr. Edward Short: The House will be grateful for that statement, Mr. Speaker. You used the expression" final agreement." Will you confirm that in a sense
1414
this is an interim agreement and that, provided that the parties can agree, there is nothing to prevent items being added later?
Mr. Speaker: The words "final agreement" were not intended to mean agreement excluding anything else. It was the wrong use of the word "final". What I really meant by the use of the epithet was that it was an agreement that had taken a very long time to reach.
Mr. Short: Will you confirm that additional items can be added later?
Mr. Speaker: Certainly—if there is agreement and if the Conference also agrees.

CHANNEL TUNNEL
The Minister for Transport Industries (Mr. John Peyton): I will, with permission, Mr. Speaker, make a statement about the Channel Tunnel.
The House will recall that on 15th June I said that if the Government were to decide in favour of the Channel Tunnel I would announce the fact and publish a short Money Bill before the recess.
Financial negotiations between my French colleague and myself and the private interests are still continuing but they have not yet been concluded. This is necessary before the Government can take their decision on the project as a whole and I am therefore not yet able to announce one today.
The Government's decision, when it is taken, will be announced in the form of a White Paper. If it is affirmative, draft clauses of a Money Bill which we would propose to introduce into the House immediately we resume in October would be included in the White Paper. There is, of course, no question of signing any agreement or Anglo-French treaty before this Bill is passed.
I am sure that the House will agree that it would be wrong for the Government to decide on a matter of this importance before all aspects of the proposals, including the financing terms, have been satisfactorily resolved. Equally, once a decision is reached, it would be wrong to delay an announcement. We would wish to provide the fullest possible opportunity for it to be considered, by the public as

1415
well as hon. Members, before we resume in October.
Mr. Crosland: What an admirable Minister we have! He is a true object lesson to his colleagues. He keeps his word to the House, he wants us to have the fullest information before we come to a decision, he refuses to sanction gigantic expenditure on grandiose projects without adequate discussion. He is a man of great virtue—at least on this occasion.
We must contrast him, inevitably favourably, with his colleagues the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for the Environment, determined to push on with their mad plan for Heathograd in South-East Essex. Is he aware that, while many of us feel that there is a prima facie case for the Channel Tunnel on certain conditions, the House must have, before it reaches a final decision, the following studies: first, a study of the regional effects, promised in the Green Paper; secondly, a study of the balance of payments effects, which was also promised in the Green Paper; thirdly, a statement about the consequential rail investment which will be more than is stated in the little, glossy and flimsy brochure produced by British Rail; fourthly. a definite decision on the site of the London rail terminal on which the Greater London Council is still undecided; and, fifth, perhaps the most important, that a Government analysis should be provided with consideration of the case recently argued by Professor Bromhead, amongst others, and by more and more people, of confining the project to a rail-only tunnel without car and lorry shuttle services and therefore without a huge terminal in Cheriton in Kent. Without this further information it will be impossible for anybody to come to a rational decision and we shall have the tragi-comedy of Maplin all over again.
If the Minister provides this information to the House before a decision is taken, as I am sure he will, then he will genuinely earn the gratitude of the House and the country.
Mr. Peyton: I am half grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his compliments, because one has to judge a compliment not only by its content but by the direction from which it comes. On this occasion the right hon. Gentleman
1416
might have been doing me a doubtful service. Nevertheless, in a manner of speaking, I am grateful. Of course, I take note of all the important matters to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. If the Government were to reach a favourable decision on the matter to go ahead with the next phase, naturally many of these points would be fully dealt with in what would be a large White Paper.
Mr. Crouch: I take my right hon. Friend's answer in a somewhat different attitude of mind from that of the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland). I take it with a considerable degree of caution, although I am glad that my right hon. Friend and the Government have given themselves more time to consider not only the financial arrangements but the whole proposals. I am not dog-in-the manger about the proposition for a Channel Tunnel, and nor is anyone in Kent, but there is growing anxiety among the people of Kent that their views about the protection of their environment may not be taken sufficiently into account. With great sincerity I ask my right hon. Friend to consider the question of there being no terminal at Cheriton but that a loading stage in London for roll-on, roll-off vehicles would overcome a great deal of opposition which otherwise would undoubtedly grow in Kent.
Mr. Peyton: I shall not be tempted even by my hon. Friend to go into details at this stage. I am glad to recognise, however, that he is not a dog and he is not in a manger.
Mr. Jay: In order to earn further gratitude from the House, will the Minister tell us whether the project, if it goes ahead, will involve extensive widening of railway lines in South-West and West London?
Mr. Peyton: The answer is that it probably will not. I prefer not to go into detail, but British Rail has given some idea, in an admittedly slim brochure, of its approach to the tunnel if the Government give it their approval. In the event of that approval, it would be for British Rail to develop its attitude to the project much more clearly.
Mr. Peter Rees: In view of the widespread concern in my constituency about the impact of the tunnel on East Kent,

1417
and in view of the feeling that a hybrid Bill may not give sufficient scope for objectors, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will make himself available for consultations with local authorities and interested parties before any major decision is taken?
Mr. Peyton: I have been in regular contact with hon. Members who represent Kent constituencies. I have been also on a number of occasions to Kent and had regular contact with Kent County Council and other local authorities. If we decide to go ahead it will be my immediate concern to do all I can to minimise the inevitable nuisance and inconvenience which will be caused.
Mr. Pardoe: Did the Minister approve the glossy leaflet sent to hon. Members by British Rail? Did he approve of the implication that British Rail would have monopoly services through the tunnel? How does that fit into the Government's competition policy? Will he refer to the Monopolies Commission before making a decision?
Mr. Peyton: That is an original idea, but not one that I shall follow to its ultimate conclusion. It would be strictly accurate to say that British Rail let me see a copy of the brochure before issuing it. But it is British Rail's document and I do not believe in running its business.
Mr. Fell: Will my right hon. Friend, who has come half way to agreeing with the Opposition, help some of his hon. Friends to agree with him by giving us a promise that no Government or taxpayers' money would be involved in building the Chunnel if it ever happened?
Mr. Peyton: It is impossible for me to give that sweeping guarantee. The finance for the project is to be raised by private sources, but there will be Government guarantees. It is unlikely that we would go ahead with the project if there were any foreseeable likelihood of those guarantees being called. Even in the most perfect organisation things can go wrong. One must always admit that possibility.
Mr. Charles R. Morris: Will the Minister say that financial considerations will not be the sole criteria for determining the Government's policy on building the
1418
tunnel? Is he aware of the widely-held belief that building the Channel Tunnel will have a contradictory impact on the French and British economies, that it will go some way to alleviate French regional problems while accentuating Britain's regional problems by encouraging a drift to the South-East? Why is the Minister reluctant to give an assurance that a study of the impact on Britain's regional problems will be undertaken before the Government's decision is finally made on the project?
Mr. Peyton: The regional aspects of the problem have been carefully considered. It is no fault of mine that the South-East of England happens to be the bit nearest to the Continent of Europe. It happens to be one of those mischances of geography for which not even the Department of the Environment is to be blamed. The hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Woodside (Mr. Neil Carmichael), who made an interesting speech on this subject in the recent short debate, pointed out that undoubted advantages were to be gained in Scotland from having the tunnel because it would introduce a long rail haul from Scotland and other regions of the country to the Continent of Europe.
Dame Irene Ward: Has my right hon. Friend seen my motion on the Order Paper arguing that expenditure on the Fleet Air Arm is more important than expenditure on the Channel Tunnel? Will he bear in mind when he is discussing all these factors about the Channel Tunnel that I would far rather see the Fleet Air Arm satisfactorily settled and its expenses met before we take a decision about the Channel Tunnel? It is far more important for the defence of this country that the Fleet Air Arm is properly provided for. If my right hon. Friend does not bear that in mind, I shall vote against the Channel Tunnel.
Mr. Peyton: I am covered in confusion and shame, because I have not seen my hon. Friend's motion on the Order Paper. I shall immediately remedy that dreadful omission, for which I apologise to her. I must also apologise to her for the fact that my responsibilities at the moment do not include the Fleet Air Arm, greatly as I should wish to support that important arm of our Services.
Mr. Sheldon: Will the right hon. Gentleman use the coming two or three months while making up his mind on this project to examine further the alternative forms of a Channel link? Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that when a group of international civil engineers visited him a couple of months ago and discussed these matters with him they were far from satisfied that there had ever been even a cursory examination of other forms suitable to modern technology?
Mr. Peyton: Bitter experience has taught me that it is very hard to satisfy some people, however much one tries. Alternative means have been studied exhaustively throughout the period—
Mr. Sheldon: They have not.
Mr. Peyton: The project which has been brought to a certain stage of development now is that of a bored rail tunnel under the Channel. We have to decide yes or no about that one. It may be that we ought also to start looking at other projects. But there is no question of any alternative being available to meet the needs of traffic in the 1980s.
Mr. Deedes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we may find ourselves in a difficulty? To judge from the plans which have appeared on paper, what is planned by British Rail for this project may be more environmentally disruptive than the tunnel itself. If the Government propose to produce a White Paper during the recess, a number of matters such as this will remain highly speculative and we shall not be able to give the public the material on which to make up their minds until British Rail has gone a lot further in its planning.
Mr. Peyton: I readily acknowledge the difficulty to which my right hon. Friend draws attention. The exhaustive study
1420
which will have to be made by British Rail will take place after and not before the Government have made this decision. This decision is merely to go ahead to the next phase, after which a hybrid Bill will have to be produced, which would take some time before it completed its passage through Parliament. During that time it would be for British Rail to carry out far more detailed study than any thing that they have done to date and to make the results available.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, at this day's Sitting, Mr. Speaker shall put any Question necessary to dispose of Proceedings on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House moved by a Minister of the Crown not later than Seven o'clock.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Mr. Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your guidance on a matter involving gross discourtesy? I put down yesterday for answer a Written Question about the imposition of museum charges. Today I have had a reply referring to a Question, which my own Question pre-dated, tabled by the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke). Is there any step that I can take to rectify this gross discourtesy? If the Government intend to press ahead with the imposition of these ridiculous charges on 1st January 1974, why have they not the guts to say so in this House?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds) has raised a point—it is not necessarily a point of order. Nevertheless, he has made his point. I hope that those concerned will have regard to what he said and will consider it.

HOUSING (OWNER-OCCUPIERS' UNDER-OCCUPIED HOMES) BILL
4.5 p.m.
Mr. Robert Cooke: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to facilitate the letting of surplus accommodation in the possession of owner-occupiers to provide homes to rent and for purposes connected therewith.
No one will disagree that there is at present a great need for more homes. In certain areas there is a crying need. One solution which is being tried is to build more new homes. Progress is being made in that direction. But the building industry is overstretched and unable to cope with the present demand. It will be some time before it can do so.
This process is not the whole solution, anyway. These will all be homes for sale. That presupposes that there are those who can afford to buy, and that means that they will seek mortgages. There is at present great difficulty over mortgages. I can only reflect that if it were possible to halve the cost of mortgages we might end up by doubling the price of the scarce houses which people seek to buy with mortgages—so that it is no solution to enable more people to chase after the scarce commodity in limited supply, namely, homes.
There is an undoubted need for more homes to rent. Young people especially are immensely mobile and expect to move about from year to year in the course of their jobs. Any ambitious young man or woman wanting to work his or her way up the promotion ladder must expect to have to move about the country. Certainly in central Government and local government service and in the professions one must expect to move about in order to gain promotion. These young people, who are desperately anxious to buy in many cases and who put pressure on the scarce commodity, mortgages, would rent if they could. But they cannot because there is a diminishing supply of rented homes available.
The reason for this is that all the pressures are against any increase in the supply, certainly in the sector about which I am talking. The owner of a house who wants to make another home available in some spare accommodation
1422
can, under the existing law, find himself stuck with a tenant for ever at a controlled, uneconomic rent. This is the situation which has grown up over the years.
In my Bill I propose that new homes may be created out of existing owner-occupied houses. The speculator does not come into this. It has to be an owner-occupied house with a spare room or rooms which can be turned into another home. But in this case I believe that we should take a fresh look. These newly-created homes should not be subject to the restrictive Rent Acts and all that has been piled on them. They should be subject to proper leases agreed between the owners and those who will occupy the accommodation. They should be leases for a minimum period, both sides to an agreement knowing exactly where they stand. There should be a proper period of notice to terminate an agreement written into the lease. If Parliament insists that someone should act as a kind of "nanny" in a situation of this sort, it will be seen that I have written into my Bill a provision for the rent officer to be brought in to approve leases, though I doubt whether that will be necessary.
I believe that we should start afresh in an attempt to release some of this vast untapped wealth of potential homes. The Government cannot say that there is not a vast wealth of homes which could be made available, because they have no figures. I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction on the Treasury Bench because he has answered a great many Questions from me and he will have to admit that the Government have not the information on which to answer the case that I am making.
A couple of weeks ago I was told in a Parliamentary Answer that the Government were thinking of trying to tackle this problem in the way that I am suggesting. I hope that as a result of what I say today and with the holiday before them, they will be able to think again. There is a vast number of potential homes for rent, perhaps as many as a million in the country as a whole. Many are in the areas of greatest need in the great cities where new building will never solve the problem.

1423
So far all other attempts to bring this wealth of accommodation on to the market have failed. Bribes, in the form of grants, have not had the dramatic effect some of us had hoped. Threats and coercion through the rates have done no good to help the situation. The uncertainties created by those who by political threats say that they will take away the freedoms which exist do nothing to help the position. I hope that if the matter is considered dispassionately both sides of the House will be prepared to give freedom and to strive for change. It is worth a tiny. We cannot afford to neglect this untapped source of homes which are so badly needed.
I have received a good deal of encouragement from my hon. Friends on this matter, but I come before the House this afternoon without any sponsors for my Bill. This is deliberate. I hope in the new Session to introduce the Bill again, but I regard today as an opportunity to ventilate the matter. Only the Abdication Act went through both Houses of Parliament in one day, and there are not many Members left who remember how that went through. It is significant that hon. Members from both sides of the House have combined to make this a worthwhile effort in seeking to increase the number of desperately needed homes for rent.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Robert Cooke.

HOUSING (OWNER-OCCUPIERS' UNDER-OCCUPIED HOMES)
Bill to facilitate the letting of surplus accommodation in the possession of owner-occupiers to provide homes to rent and for the purposes connected therewith presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 204.]
ADJOURNMENT
Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

METRICATION
4.14 p.m.
The Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): This is the second occasion in the last three years on which the House has had an oportunity to debate the subject of metrication. It was last discussed in October 1970. In February 1972 the Government published the White Paper on metrication. It is right that we should have this further opportunity of discussing the subject. I say this not only because it is important for the House to have such an opportunity but because I know that this is a subject on which many people outside this House are interested. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are the Opposition?"] I am grateful for the support of my hon. Friends.
Attitudes towards metrication are not based on party lines but still tend to divide into two different groups. On the one hand, there is anxiety among a number of people at the idea of this change. On the other hand there is anxiety—indeed more than anxiety, very real pressure—for the change to be made at greater speed and indeed with more enthusiasm. The arguments in favour of change spring principally, but by no means only, from those who are responsible for the future of British industry. The House may have seen that only two weeks ago I received a deputation from the CBI which expressed the view that a
"decisive lead and specific action by Government are urgently needed".
This is in line with the view that has been expressed on behalf of industry since at least 1965.
One reason why industry argues in favour of change is that the metric system is simpler. The combination of decimal currency and metric quantities greatly simplifies price calculations.
The most important reason springs from the extent to which we are as a country dependent on the prosperity and expansion of our international trade. The fact is that for some years now British industry has been competing in world markets at an increasing disadvantage. As this fact is recognised by more and more other countries around the world, the disadvantage is growing. Perhaps the most significant fact is the

1425
extent to which this message has been taken on board by almost every one of our partners or former partners in the Commonwealth.
Australia and New Zealand, who started after us, have now overtaken us. Many of the African States in the Commonwealth have already changed and the Caribbean States are beginning their own change. South Africa, one of our most important markets, will have completed the change by the end of this year. Canada is committed to changing without waiting for the United States, to which critics of the change still point as being out of step with this trend. But even there change is imminent. A large number of the most important American companies—General Motors, Ford, IBM and others—have announced their support for the programme, presented to Congress in August 1971. General Motors has already said that its new developments will be metric from the outset. Once the United States changes, then almost the whole of world trade will be conducted in metric units.
It is worth reminding the House that the only countries that have still to announce plans to change are Brunei, Burma, Liberia, Nauru, Sierra Leone, Tonga, Western Samoa, Yemen Arab Republic and, last but not least, the Yemen People's Democratic Republic.
Against this background, from the point of view of the trade and industry on which the people of this country depend, the only question that really ought to come to mind is how much longer we can sensibly remain out of step. This is the background against which large sectors of British industry have worked out their programmes of change, and are indeed well on the way to implementing them.
A recent survey of engineering production showed that less than a fifth of firms are still working entirely in imperial units. The construction industry's changeover programme is well on the way to completion. The change over to metric tariffs for overseas freight is the way to completion. The changeover of inland freight is well under way. The parcel and letter postal services will have metric charges in 1975. The energy sector has a programme for the metrication of sales covering the period March 1974 to April 1975. This does not, how-
1426
ever, include retail sales of coal and of fuels for motorists. We have for many years bought our electricity in metric units. The programme for agriculture and horticulture is centred on the farm year 1975/76.
Textile fabrics will be made in metric from 1st January next year and practically all clothing will be dual marked, that is to say in centimetres and inches, by June 1974.
There can be no doubt that this pattern of change has brought, and will bring, real benefit to the trading prospects of British industry.
I should like to quote two examples of experience which has been gained. British Insulated Callender's Cables Ltd. said of metrication:
"The overall benefit to customers was a price saving of about 5 per cent.".
Ford Motor Company said of it:
"The advantages we expected from the metric change have been exceeded by a very great deal."
This is the background against which some spokesmen of industry have sought to criticise Government for lack of leadership in the metrication programme. I confess that I regard this charge as one that the Government are well able to rebut. We have always made clear that progress towards metrication is voluntary. The Government have, however, supported—and will continue to support the work of the Metrication Board in helping industry with the process of change. It is with the help of the board and I wish to pay tribute to the painstaking work that has been done by each and every member of the board under the chairmanship of our former colleague, Lord Orr-Ewing and of his predecessor Lord Ritchie-Calder—that industry has been able to work out and carry through the important changes that have been made. That is why, for example, the Government have been and remain at pains to adjust their own policy for public purchasing in line with the programmes that industry itself finds acceptable.
I recognise that there is some legislation which prescribes imperial units for various purposes, and that some of this inhibits changes by industry. Where this is the case the Government Department responsible for the legislation has been, and will always be, very ready to discuss

1427
with the industry the changes which will be necessary, and—this is an equally important point—their timing to ensure that the industry's own metrication programme is taken fully into account. It is upon that basis that those firms which have been waiting to make the change should approach the matter, bearing in mind, indeed, as the CBI has argued, the best interests of this country's commercial future.
I turn to the problems of metrication from the point of view of the consumer, of each one of us about our ordinary business in the shops. It has always been clear that the process of change can involve problems from the point of view of the ordinary retail customer. But despite these problems, there are many who believe that they need not stand in the way of change. The consumer organisations are prepared not merely to accept the prospect of change but to urge, as one of them did in a letter to me at the end of last week, that the process of change should not be unduly prolonged. Educationists have, for the most part, positively welcomed the change, because there is no doubt that there are attractions from the point of view of the schoolboy or schoolgirl at his or her desk in having to accommodate himself or herself to a single system of calculations rather than to two. The dismal decimal point can be seen from their point of view as an agent of simplification.
Even so, it is argued that those opinions are not representative of the total mass of public opinion. Some argue that for this reason trade at the retail level need not follow a general metric change in industry. But the truth is that metrication cannot stop at the factory gate. It is not practicable to confine metrication to some aspects of life while others remain entirely imperial.
Living with two systems of measurement would become increasingly confusing and costly. If both systems continued to be used, many of the benefits that can be obtained from metrication would he lost, for the goods produced by industry for the market at home as well as abroad enter into daily life. The ordinary citizen is, therefore, involved. His position in a progressively metric environment would be difficult, to say the least, if he had to keep switching from one system
1428
of measurement to another in each of his activities. That situation could be even more difficult for the retailer with the problems of purchasing, stock control and pricing.
But the ordinary citizen is clearly en-entitled to be assured that the change takes place only to the extent that it is necessary, only in a way which he or she can understand, and only in a way which will inform him as to the way in which it is taking place. This underlines the importance of the information which the Metrication Board has been providing and will continue to provide.
It is important to understand just how far the change has to take place, as far as the ordinary consumer is concerned, and at what speed. It is important, too, for the consumer to understand that the change can bring positive benefits.
This is the point at which I should explain to the House the extent to which the pace and style of change—but not, I emphasise, the fact of change—is affected by our accession to the European Communities. When we were negotiating to join the Community there was an important directive on Unit of Measurement that had already been adopted by the Six. Naturally that took the use of metric units for granted. But we negotiated that the future of imperial units would be considered by the member States after our accession. So far as there was not agreement in relation to this, we had full authority to retain them until the end of 1979, and beyond that by further agreement.
By late 1976. however, we have undertaken not to discriminate against the use of metric units. This will mean that we shall need to lay some orders under our Weights and Measures Act to permit —I emphasise the word "permit"—goods to be sold in metric units. If our consumers are to receive the extended range of choice that comes from membership of a unified European market, it makes good sense for us to take account of this.
Those are the reasons why we have thought it right that the whole of this process of change should be studied in the interests of the consumer, by people who can see the practical view of the implications of the change.
Mr. John Page: I have been listening to what my right hon.

1429
and learned Friend has been saying on the important point about accession to the EEC. He said that there must be no discrimination against goods sold in metric measurements by 1976. Does that include the range of goods covered by the Weights and Measures Act 1963?
Sir G. Howe: As a general proposition, it includes them, save in so far as there have been exceptions negotiated until 1979. I emphasise again the word "permit". It is to permit the circulation of goods sold in metric units. That is the obligation—and only that—which arises in 1976. But one would then create a situation in which metric and non-metric units would be alongside each other.
Mr. Page: I was afraid that that was what my right hon. and learned Friend meant.
Sir G. Howe: This is one of the reasons why the Government have thought it right that the whole of this problem should be studied very closely in the interests of the consumer. It is one of the reasons why we secured the appointment of the Metrication Board's Consumer Safeguards Group, and it is why we are paying the closest attention to the report of that group which was published earlier this summer. The Government attach the highest importance to the way in which and the speed at which the change takes place. The Government are determined to see that the consumer is not taken for a ride.
Mr. J. C. Jennings: May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend a simple, straightforward question? What parliamentary enactment would make metrication legal?
Sir G. Howe: It was made legal 76 years ago by the Weights and Measures (Metric System) Act 1897. That made it clear that both metric and imperial measurements and units were equally permitted to be used for trade. That was confirmed by the Weights and Measures Act 1963. There is and has been for many years no need whatever for express authority from Government or Parliament for an industry to discontinue the use of the imperial system and adopt the units of the metric system, which are also set out in the Act.
1430
This is the permissive position as it stands at present. I shall deal in a little more detail with certain prescribed quantity commodities shortly.
Those who have considered the problem so far—the pattern and timing of the change—bodies such as the Consumers Association, alongside the Consumer Safeguard Group, all favour and recommend a quick change-over in relation to the entire range of commodities. But we recognise that some others suggest that some consumers, especially no doubt the older members of our society, would prefer a long transition period. That is the complex problem which is no doubt in the mind of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page). One can see advantages both ways, in having only one standard range of sizes in current use or, on the other hand, retaining two standards alongside each other, with the risk of confusion if both systems operated alongside each other during an extended period.
But these are complex problems on which the Government, and all those concerned, would certainly welcome the views of the House. They are complex problems which lead me to recognise the extent to which the role of the Metrication Board is changing over the passage of time, because, as industrial aspects of change have been completed, so it is that the consumer aspects become the more significant.
With that in mind I have made the following appointments to the Metrication Board: first, Mr. David Hobman, Director of Age Concern; secondly, Mrs. Janet Upward, Secretary of the National Federation of Consumer Groups. In addition, the House would like to know that I am appointing to the board Mr. Brian Baxter, Director of Yarrow and Company, and Mr. Hugh Scanlon, the President of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers.
Mr. John Page: Now we shall get a fair deal.
Sir G. Howe: Probably the most important subject touching the consumer is that to which I have already referred briefly, namely that of prescribed quantities. This is the system by means of which certain goods are marked in

1431
uniform weights and measurements. It is a system on which I have answered questions from a number of my hon. Friends from time to time and I know that some of them wish to see it extended.
It is important that the benefit conferred by this system should be preserved. It is, therefore, important that the replacement of imperial prescribed quantities should take place on the basis of a considered and comprehensible programme. The Government have it in mind to make changes in the prescribed quantities system gradually and in a way to which the consumer can accustom herself. [An HON. MEMBER: "When?"] I will come to that in a moment.
There is one commodity above all others about which all hon. Members will be concerned, namely the pint of draught beer. By no stretch of the imagination is this an item of international trade and, as far as I can see, we shall be calling for a pint for many years to come.
I have had discussions with the food industry and I hope, in the next few weeks, to advertise certain draft orders under the Weights and Measures Act which would provide for the sale of some of these foodstuffs in metric units.
Mr. Alan Williams: I note that the pint of beer is to be preserved. Is the pint of milk to be given the same privilege?
Sir G. Howe: The pint of milk is not outside international trade to the same extent as the pint of beer, although it is largely so, and the Government have at present no plans for changing from imperial units for the sale of milk. But I should not like to convey the impression that milk is in the same category as a pint of beer.
Mr. John Page: I wish to raise an important point regarding draught beer. In paragraph 15 of the White Paper it is stated:
"…but equally if anyone wants to buy it by the litre or half-litre that too should be lawful."
That means that a brewery or public house could sell beer only by the litre, and so push the litre. Does my right hon. and learned Friend feel that it is desirable for the two units, a pint and a litre to be sold side by side?
Sir G. Howe: This goes back to the point I touched on about the extent to which we must be careful about the way in which metric units are used alongside non-metric units. I should be interested to hear the views of my hon. Friend and others regarding beer and other products concurrently used in different measures. There is much to be said for separate retail outlets, one metric and the other non-metric or, at least in relation to products other than beer, separately identified places for the sale of non-metric and metric products. But for beer the case for separation is even stronger.
I have told the House that I intend in the next few weeks to advertise draft orders which will provide for the sale of some foodstuffs in metric units. At present I have in mind two modest commodities, salt and pasta and perhaps one or two others. Other more important commodities will follow in, I hope, an orderly fashion. These orders and their timing will be tailored to the particular needs of the industry and of the consumer. Depending on the reaction of the trade and of consumer interests whom I shall consult, I hope to make the first of the orders, relating to salt and pasta, which will be subject to affirmative resolution, before the end of this Session. The actual changes will take effect later.
I realise that, even with this carefully controlled process, the consumer needs to be assured about the impact on prices. This is why the careful presentation of the facts and information will be essential and this is why we see a valuable role in certain limited cases for the concept of unit pricing. The information will need to be presented in general terms as well as in relation to particular cases through all the media, as well as at the point of sale.
Some manufacturers have already offered to put on the pack in which their products are sold, well before the change over date for their products, information to help the consumer to familiarise herself with the new pack sizes and to continue to be able to choose the best buy for her family. I welcome these efforts, and will give further careful consideration to any other measures which may be suggested to help to meet anxiety on this score.
Mr. John Gorst: Has is been possible to make any estimate of the cost likely to be faced by the consumer in terms solely of food prices as a result of going metric? I am sure that, if my right hon. and learned Friend has seen the table in the consumer booklet which all hon. Members have received, he will realise that, in any rounding, prices will be rounded up rather than down.
Sir G. Howe: It does not follow that all rounding would be towards a higher quantity but I take the point underlying my hon. Friend's question—that the half-kilogram, for example is, broadly speaking, 10 per cent. larger than the pound —but it does not follow that rounding up to a larger unit would mean a higher price per unit. That may be one of the important elements underlying unit prices.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: In view of the sad accident by which the Weights and Measures (Unit Pricing) Bill was blocked last Friday by an hon. Member objecting to it and not knowing that he was objecting to it, and regretting it afterwards, will my right hon. and learned Friend give an assurance that he will do all he can to ensure that the Bill is put on the Order Paper before the end of the Session, as it has already gone through Committee?
Sir G. Howe: My hon. Friend knows that matters of that sort are for the Leader of the House. I will see that the matter is drawn to his attention.
We have already moved a considerable way down the road towards metrication. Industry has already changed over to a considerable extent. It is important for our trade in the modern world, in this increasingly metric world in which we live, that industry should change in this way. Agriculture has a programme which should be completed by 1975–76. Our children, or the great majority of them, are now taught the metric system, which they find simpler than the measures with which most of us grew up.
We are now about to make moves affecting consumer goods. I have explained the reasons for this and I repeat the assurance which I have already given to the House. We shall take closely into account the views which will be expressed in the House and by outside interests.
Mr. Eric S. Heifer: The Minister said that the affirmative resolutions to which he referred will come before the House before the end of the Session. Does he mean that these resolutions will be brought before the House before the Session starting in October or November?
Sir G. Howe: That is the expectation.
I am referring to the particular commodities which I mentioned because the House will appreciate the importance of the matter being approached in a rational and orderly fashion. That is why I have identified those commodities for which orders will come before the House before the end of the Session. We shall take close account of the views inside and outside the House, because we are determined to see that the changes are brought into effect in a manner which fully informs, and, as far as is possible, protects, the consumer.
4.39 p.m.
Mr. Roger White: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend for the way in which he opened the debate. He said it was a non-party issue. The last debate on metrication, on 27th October 1970, was also on a nonparty issue. My right hon. and learned Friend has given lists of imposing supporters for metrication. He has now included in the list some of our friends across the Atlantic in the United States. But we are far more interested in this Chamber about the measures he announced concerning consumers in this country. I welcome the additional members to the Metrication Board.
The debate on 27th October 1970 was a memorable occasion for many of my hon. Friends and myself, because it was the first time that we had had an opportunity to address the House of Commons. We expressed, and I believe we were right, cur concern about the rise in costs to the consumer right across the board. At that time we knew that industry —I am thinking particularly of the civil engineering and construction industries—. had gone a long way towards metrication.
However, it became clear in the debate that in many instances we had already reached the stage of no return. At the same time we expressed the cost in real terms. I believe that £5,000 million was quoted as the estimated figure in 1968.

1435
Frankly, I should like to know a lot more than I have learned from the White Paper or the Metrication Board on the exact cost of this exercise.
Since that time we have had a number of publications, including the White Paper of February 1972. Indeed, the Metrication Board has published seven quarterly bulletins under the title, "Going Metric", and we have had numerous leaflets and guides of many kinds, culminating with the board's report for 1972, under the chairmanship of Lord Orr-Ewing, published this year.
I believe that it is right that we should be reminded of the words of my right hon. Friend the then Minister for Housing and Construction in the debate on 27th October 1970. He said:
"I have made it plain, as did my hon. Friend in opening the debate, that we favour going forward towards voluntary metrication. I have tried to make it plain that we are opposed to compulsion in any respect. I have explained that there would have to be amending and enabling legislation if we were to go very much further down this road, otherwise the whole variety of weights and measures which are now statutorily regulated in imperial terms could not be paralleled by similar metric measures."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th October 1970; Vol. 805, c. 166.]
I believe that was an important assurance. So did many of my hon. Friends.
During the debate I mentioned the word "stealth". I believed at that time that we were having metrication by stealth. I am pleased to see in Chapter I of the White Paper that the reference to stealth has been quoted. Indeed, on page 2 it states:
"So there can be absolutely no question of ' metrication by stealth"".
That is all very well until we get to page 7 where it states:
"The Government in any case regard it as most desirable in the interests of our economic prosperity that the maximum practical progress towards the metric system should be made within the next few years."
I suppose it depends on one's personal interpretation whether we are going to progress or achieve an objective by stealth or otherwise. None the less, it seems that we are heading for metrication in all its forms, and there is ample evidence in the White Paper, particularly in education. The metric system will be employed to such an extent that future generations will have no option available to them other than the metric system.
Sir John Hall: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Schools Council has made it clear that from 1974 onwards examinations will be set only in the metric system and using the international unit?
Mr. White: I certainly acknowledge my hon. Friend's intervention. Indeed, the Kent County Council Education Authority, in its publication "Metrication No. 1", which deals with the teachers' digest of decimal currency, and "Metrication No. 2", which introduced SI units, went as far back as October 1969. So there is no doubt that metrication in schools was to be made very clear to the country in future. Metrication has certainly gone unabated in the schools in my constituency.
Whilst I appreciate what is set out in the White Paper, there are in many respects ample grounds for confirming some of the thoughts and fears that were expressed in the original debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) referred to beer, cider and milk. Those items are dealt with in the White Paper. The White Paper, in Chapter VI,
"The Effects of Metrication on the Consumer",
acknowledges that while there are no restrictions on the quantity of liquids or the manner of their sale, they can be sold in either litres or half-litres alongside traditional pints. If future generations are to learn only the metric system it will be interesting to see where they stand at the bar in another 15 or 20 years. This point is reinforced in other parts of the White Paper.
Another area in the 1970 debate related to transport. Both in the Adjournment debate of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West on 8th July 1970 and in the debate on 27th October, I drew attention to the changes in speed limit signs on our roads. Hey Presto! on page 26, paragraph 107, of the White Paper we have a reference to this point. I certainly welcome the assurance given in the White Paper that there is no reason why we should automatically move to kilometre signs on our roads, and so forth. I am a little suspicious. Does anyone suggest that the skirt has not already been lifted?

1437
In reply to the debate on 27th October much was said about "M day". I recall the late Captain Henry Kirby, when he talked about decimalisation, describing it as funny money ". I should not like to think that we would go ahead with what might be described as muddled measurements. Certainly we can accept that industry has its part to play in terms of metric measurement. I acknowledge the necessity in many ways, through our entry into the EEC, of accepting metrication, but I am opposed to having it forced down our throats through either the Metrication Board or other means until we have had sufficient opportunity to study it far more closely.
Mr. Gorst: I have not followed one of the hon. Gentleman's points, which seems to run through his speech. Is he suggesting that metrication is being brought in by stealth? If he is, I draw to his attention that in its annual report the Metrication Board not only listed the many measures it was taking to publicise what it was doing but also called for a much expanded expenditure on publicity.
Mr. White: I do not question the activities of the Metrication Board, and of course I acknowledge the words of my hon. Friend. I quoted the example of education, where I believe that metrication has overtaken the country by stealth.
It may be a play on words. It is one of the fears that I expressed in October 1970 and again this afternoon.
Sir John Hall: Would not my hon. Friend agree that metrication has been introduced without the consent of Parliament in those areas where its consent is needed?
Mr. White: That is one of the reasons why I welcome today's debate. This is only the second time since 1970 that the House has had an opportunity to discuss metrication. While it is true that the Metrication Board produces excellent documents—I suggest at some considerable cost—which we hope industry and others will read, I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's desire to strengthen the report so that the consumer can understand it, too.
Finally, while we are prepared to understand and examine the Metrication
1438
Board's reports, we none the less expect the Government to provide Parliament with more information than they have given hitherto. Three years is far too long for Parliament to decide an issue of such importance not only to the present generation, but to the future.
4.50 p.m.
Mr. Angus Maude: My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Roger White) was, if anything, too kind and moderate about the situation which has arisen. It is time that as a House of Commons we analysed just what kind of situation we have been brought into.
It is freely said by interested parties that the policy of metrication has been accepted and agreed by Parliament. It never has. The start of the process was in 1965 under the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn). At the beginning of this Parliament the Government gave it a kind of tacit approval, but they never brought it to Parliament for approval, and they never have.
It is as well to remember that in October 1970 all the Government did, as they have again today, was to bring up the subject of metrication for debate on the Adjournment. Even then the Minister winding up for the Government had to back-pedal pretty smartish under pressure from my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) in order to avoid a Division which the Government knew they would have lost.
Now, two years before the end of the 10-year period which was supposed to have seen metrication completed, why do not the Government bring the policy of metrication as a whole to Parliament for approval? Why have they not brought the White Paper to Parliament for approval? Why are we not debating today, or why have we not debated earlier, a motion, "That this House approves the White Paper on Metrication?" Does anyone doubt that it is because the Government know that nine-tenths of the people of this country are against metrication? In every debate we have had the majority of speeches have been against it. They would be lucky to get such a motion accepted.
That is what we mean by saying that metrication has been proceeding, and is proceeding, by stealth. It is clear what

1439
the Government are trying to do: they are postponing a decision for as long as they can while more and more the process of metrication goes ahead, so that the time will come when Parliament will be faced with a fait accompli and it will not be worth standing up against the completion of the process in any detail.
One could go back and show how the process has been going on. We are told that the construction industries have virtually completed the programme, except for small firms, and we are given to understand by implication that it was done voluntarily by the construction industries, the architects, timber merchants and so on. It is true that their so-called representative bodies gave a kind of approval to this process, and some of the larger firms in the industry have enthusiastically supported it—as large firms always support changes of this kind out of which they tend to make a great deal of money—but the smaller building firms and most practising architects were against it. Many of them are still, partly on the grounds of the increased cost of repairs and alterations to existing houses.
It was the Government which by stealth forced this change upon the construction industry by making it a condition of public tendering for the enormous proportion of construction work which was Government originated that tenders should be in metric. It is no good pretending that the Government did not force this on an industry which, if it had been given a chance to vote on it, would not have accepted it.
Mr. Gorst: Is my hon. Friend arguing that by Government diktat the process should be reversed?
Mr. Maude: If my hon. Friend will allow me to make my speech he will find that I shall answer that question, but I shall come to it in my own time.
The other way in which this process has been taking place by stealth and, as one can tell from the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend, is to be continued by stealth. is that the safeguards are to be gradually nibbled away one by one until it is possible to say that over an increasing area metrication is accepted and that so little is left that it is hardly worth complaining about it.
1440
I can understand the frustration, indeed fury, of the Metrication Board over the mess it has been landed in. The board thought that it had a mandate to complete the process of metrication by 1975. I suspect that it thought that the Government were enthusiastically intending to pursue that policy. Not only is the Metrication Board frustrated, but the CBI is issuing statements calling upon the Government to pull their finger out smartly and to get the thing done in the proper time.
If the Government are determined to complete the process of metrication, why cannot they now be honest enough to come to the House and ask it to approve a change in the prescribed quantity legislation for essential foodstuffs? Again, we know the answer. They dare not, because they do not believe that the people would support them, and they do not believe that they could get it through the House. They propose to produce a gradual succession of orders, starting with salt and something which I did not hear.
Mr. John Page: Pasta.
Mr. Maude: No doubt creeping up gradually until they get to essential things such as sugar, butter and the other staple foodstuffs used by the housewife. One can proceed in this way if one thinks that it is an honest way to proceed, but the Government should not imagine that it will be popular.
I do not suppose any hon. Member doubts that the changeover to decimalisation was wildly inflationary in its effect.
Mr. Wilfred Proudfoot: No.
Mr. Maude: If my hon. Friend believes that, he will believe anything. Although I am not suggesting that the possibilities of fiddling in the change to metrication are as great as they were in the change to decimalisation, they are there. Even if it were possible—I do not believe that it is—for the Government, the Metrication Board, the consumer associations and the rest to safeguard the consumer and to keep an eagle eye on every change, the people will not believe that there are not opportunities for fiddling. Psychologically, at a time when inflation is by far the greatest political problem facing the Government, and in terms of living standards facing the

1441
people, it will be folly to make the change.
Far from proceeding in this piecemeal way, hoping to get away with it bit by bit, I believe that the only honest thing the Government can now do is either to take one bite at the cherry if they think they can get it through the House of Commons, or, if they do not think that they can, to state quite clearly that there will be no change in the legislation relating to prescribed quantities of essential foodstuffs within the next five years. If the Government were to say that, the doubts of which the CBI and the food manufacturing industries are complaining would disappear. No doubt it will be inconvenient for a lot of people. A number of people, who have relied on this to make a great deal of money, will be disappointed. However, at least it will safeguard the interests of the housewife.
In my view, it will be politically highly advantageous to the Government to be seen and heard saying this, and they must make up their minds quickly about it. It is no good thinking it can pacify Parliament by initiating an Adjournment debate as a sop every three years and saying that the process of metrication has proceeded another 20 or 25 per cent. until, three or six years from now, during the second or third Adjournment debate, we find the process completed. It is wholly unsatisfactory.
We know it is more convenient for industry, particularly large industries which export, to produce and sell solely in metric quantities. But what we are dealing with and are here to represent is not the interests of British industry, particularly the CBI, but above all, the interests of our consuming constituents. The interests of our constituents, who are consumers, without the slighest doubt demand that they should be safeguarded at this time of inflation against the risk of the kind of metric changes which are now contemplated. I hope that the Government will come clean about this matter and not try to pull the wool over the eyes of Members of Parliament as they have been doing for the past three years.
5.0 p.m.
Mr. A. P. Costain: I heartily agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude) that decimalisation has
1442
caused an increase in prices. I hope that he will agree with me that when decimalisation was brought in hon. Members on the Government side voted for the 10s. unit. Had we had the 10s. unit, I am certain we should not have had as great a rise in the cost of living.
Only last week I asked a Question of the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the halfpenny and said what an inconvenient coin it was. Several members of the staff of the House have said what an awkward coin it is and that they never keep it in their pockets but put it in the box for the blind. This is one reason why people have ceased to understand that it has about the value of an old penny.
But we are not debating that matter today. We are debating metrication, whether we need it, what it is all about and how we can bring it about? I represent a constituency which contains a number of elderly retired people who are frightened of metrication. They do not understand it. They have reached the age at which they look upon any change of this kind as being against them. One of the most extraordinary things about metrication is that when one goes to France or any other country there is little difficulty in translating the currency and the purchasing power into kilograms and the metric system. People are on holiday, it becomes a challenge and they accept the situation and cope with it.
When we introduce metrication in this country people will not be used to it. They do not want it and they can only understand it by translating it. I cannot think in terms of centigrade and Fahrenheit. I have to convert temperature from centigrade into Fahrenheit before I know what sort of overcoat to put on.
Mr. Maude: Can my hon. Friend give any good reason why he should have to think in centigrade? We do not, after all, export thermometers.
Mr. Costain: My hon. Friend always hits the bull's eye with his interjections.
Mr. Robert Redmond: If my hon. Friend proposes to use SI units, the correct term is not centigrade but Celsius. Radio Telefis Eireann gets it right in Ireland, but the BBC, being trendy, still uses centigrade.
Mr. Costain: Yes, but I am one of those sensible chaps who proceed step by step.
Why do we need to introduce metrication? Are we just doing it to help the CBI and industry generally? I do not think that anyone, whatever his views on metrication, can deny that those countries that have not changed to metrication are few—the Yemen Republic and Libya are two of the lesser known countries. Surely we as an industrial nation do not want to follow their pattern.
Some hon. Members have said that we are changing to metrication to help the CBI. We must be realistic. This country depends on industry for its exports, so should we, in this House, make it difficult for our manufacturing industries to compete? I do not think we should.
Sir John Hall: Although there is something in what my hon. Friend says. I am sure he realises that, although about 130 countries are now on the metric system, fewer than 25 use SI unit, which is the one we shall use.
Mr. Costain: We must talk in simple terms. Do not let us make the matter more complicated.
My hon. Friend spoke about the building industry and how it was introduced to the metric system. As Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Secretary of State for the Environment, I usually cannot speak on the building industry, but I am now talking about the past. I had something to do with encouraging the building industry to introduce metrication. One of my colleagues, Ernest Cook, that year was the President of the Federation of Master Builders. He was keen on new ideas and the idea was sold to him by the Metrication Board, and because of his position, he did a tremendous amount to introduce metrication into the building industry.
The industry was encouraged by the fact that Government Departments designed in the metric system. It became almost the going thing to do. That is the problem we have to face. If the Government feel that they need to encourage metrication, surely it is not wrong for them to use their purchasing ability to encourage the use of it. The building industry went into it with a great deal of
1444
enthusiasm seven years ago and has been extremely disappointed that more progress has not been made. Several problems have arisen, not least the difference between the metric size for nuts and bolts. Some trouble has been caused in the local ironmonger's shop by the stocking of wrong-sized bolts for nuts.
The problem is what should we do to encourage it and at the same time safeguard the interests of those who would normally purchase goods that have no real export value? My hon. Friend talked about beer. No one will alter the measurement of a pint of beer. Milk is a marginal item. My view is that the pint of milk should stay.
We cannot change over to metrication by M-day. I thoroughly disagree with the Metrication Board that we should hurry this matter. The conclusions that it puts forward are on the basis, "Let's do it quickly, it will be less painful." I do not believe that is so. The way to educate the public in the use of metrication is to have a dual system, in the same way as a country may have a dual language.
Every package should show the two types of weight. Every package should show the relative price of the two weights. That would gradually educate the public. Children are being educated in the metric system and will accept it. In 10 years' time they will talk in metric terms because it is the modern conception, and some of the children will teach their parents.
In an intervention, my hon. Friend asked "What would happen if a brewer produced litres and pints?". The litre may be found in the private bar and the pint may be found in the saloon bar.
Mr. John Page: Snobby.
Mr. Costain: My hon. Friend says, "Snobby", but that is what two languages are. Is it a crime that there should be two different measures in two different bars? As we move into the next century I am worried that we may be considered to be the odd man out. This House owes some encouragement to industry. I agree very much that we have a deep desire to ensure that our constituents, particularly the elderly ones, are not confused by this system. We must be absolutely certain that no advantage is taken of this, as was taken with the decimal system, to increase prices.

1445
That can be done by adopting the dual system and letting it run a long time, as we have done with the thermometer. I do not take any point about the fact that we do not export thermometers. We are beginning to be educated in understanding the system. There must be a great deal more publicity. We must have scales whereby the two systems can be easily recognised. I do not think people of my generation will ever be completely converted, but I do not see why it should be made so impossible for our children to keep up with the modern trends.
5.10 p.m.
Mr. Edward Taylor: Although one may agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. A. P. Costain) that it is generally a step forward to go metric, or, if one takes the view of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude) that perhaps it is not, the one thing on which everyone will agree is that the metrication story is a lesson on how not to take decisions.
After the television programme last night, to those who still believe that Parliament has a role in taking decisions it may come as a shock to realise that Parliament has never debated metrication fully in the sense of making a decision and has never decided to impose metrication. No metrication Bill has ever clogged up our programme, as did the Industrial Relations Bill. No White Paper has been submitted for a positive decision. Until today, we have only had one full-scale debate on metrication—on 27th October 1970.
I have referred to the HANSARD report of that debate when I was present. It is significant that of the 11 back bench Members who took part, only one, the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) voiced any enthusiasm for the change. Many of us remember, almost with relish, the brilliant way in which the hon. Member for Working (Mr. Onslow) now a Minister in the Department of Trade and Industry, caught the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) in the middle of a eulogy on how all civilised forward-looking men were going metric, by asking him the simple question, "How tall are you?"
However, in this debate we have made some progress. The speech by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for
1446
Trade and Consumer Affairs calls for immediate clarification on two crucial points. My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon rightly says that the important decision we must make is whether we introduce legislation to change the rules on prescribed quantities, on the measures for tea, coffee, flour and cocoa, commodities which must be sold under our present law in prescribed quantities of 6 ozs., 12 ozs., or pounds.
My hon. Friend suggested that we leave those quantities alone for five years, but the Minister clearly said that under the rules which we have now accepted in the Common Market, we can carry on with imperial units only until 1979 and then request permission for them to be continued. But for prescribed quantities there are rules against which we must not discriminate the sale of foodstuffs in metric units in the year 1976.
Parliament and the people are entitled to know, if we cannot decide on this in Parliament, what the scope is for future decision-making. Is the only decision that we can make, as a Parliament, to be whether we change our prescribed quantities, that is, bring metrication into foodstuffs in the shops, in 1974, 1975 or 1976? Is this the full scope of the decision-making we are now entitled to make? We must have a clear answer.
Is Parliament still free to say that it wants to keep the Weights and Measures Acts arrangements until 1978, 1980 or 1982, or is the full scope of our decision-making only that Parliament can make a decision whether the changeover in the shops should be 1974, 1975 or 1976?
The second matter on which we must have clarification is whether the 1979 Common Market rules apply to all imperial measures. My hon. Friend raised an important question about the changeover from the mile. The White Paper was clear about that and said that the mile would continue. But we must consider whether the change must be made in 1979 or must we request permission from the Common Market to carry on after that date? If we can get answers to these two questions, it will help a great deal and the debate will be worth while. What we are entitled to know and what the country should know is whether any estimate has been made of the cost of metrication in limited known areas.

1447
A pamphlet has been issued by the Metrication Board about the cost of going metric in which it says that it is impossible to give a figure. When a remarkably high figure was suggested in a debate in 1970, we were told that it was impossible to cost this change overall.
Replacement by metric machines might occur anyway. What we are entitled to know is what would be the cost in limited respects. For example, if we changed our speedometers and our road signs from miles to kilometres, what would be the cost of that limited change? We are entitled to make the general point, which the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon made tellingly, that there has been no great enthusiasm within industry for the change to metrication.
The CBI document, which I have read carefully, appears to say that if one is to change, if the Government are committed to metrication, we should get it over quickly. That is a separate argument from a group within industry urging a change to metrication because it will save time and money. We have seen no enthusiasm at all.
Let us consider the Government's own industries, for example, the splendid railways, which are always among scientific pioneers. When in its report for 1971 the board was pointing out how everyone was anxious to move to metrication, we had the remarkable admission from British Railways that it fully supported the plan and that its contribution would be to accept parcels in metric units, but on the strict understanding that it would probably then convert the metric weight into imperial measure and charge the customer on an imperial price scale.
The Post Office at that time made its contribution. It said that it did not want to introduce metrication to the posts for parcels and for letters, but would be glad to have post office buildings built in metric because that was Government policy. The Post Office also expressed delight at having components of its existing machines, which were imperial, put in as long as they worked. That was the full extent of the Post Office contribution.
We have the splendid example—always quoted—of the building industry.
1448
The Government know—and my hon. Friend has emphasised this—that the building industry changed largely because of a change in purchasing. It had no option. The Government order a vast number of schools, hospitals, roads, and so on and inevitably that means change, and the Government's power here is important.
If industry is so keen, if industry sees such enormous benefits, why is not industry going ahead and effecting the change? All the indications are that unless there is a specific push, unless there is the push of Government purchasing power, unless the Government declare a whole policy, there is no great enthusiasm for this change.
A number of firms have instanced advantages which they can see in cost terms. We had the GKN example, which did not work out despite being paraded as a great example at the time. We have had Ford's recent statement. From studying these it seems to me that the full cost advantages which they are envisaging come from standardisation, not from metrication.
Has any consideration been given to the protection of the consumer when metrication is applied to spare parts and continuity of service? Three days ago, we put into our own house one of those splendid things called a kitchen fitting halfway round the kitchen. We now want to complete it because, happily, the Government's stabilisation of prices has been more successful than we thought. We expected prices to go up shortly. My wife and I went into Bow's emporium in High Street, Glasgow on Saturday—a real shop, real people—and we said that we wanted to complete the fitting of our kitchen. We were told, "We are very sorry, Mr. Taylor, the firm has stopped making these because it is changing to metric units. You will not be able to get anything for two months and even then we cannot guarantee that they will fit because they may well be a different size." I asked whether the firm would complete production of the old line and the reply was that the line was being discontinued. This is an example of what happened to me in a Glasgow shop, and the salesman will be only too glad to confirm this.
I am a consumer, and I suggest that similar things could happen to many

1449
other people. It was going to happen to the Post Office, because it said that it would be glad to take spare parts for the machine in metric so long as they fitted. The point is, however, that they may not fit. If we are to protect the consumer, it is crucial that someone should investigate what will happen to consumers who want spare parts or modifications and alterations.
Will my hon. Friend take steps to ensure that, if we have to bring metric units to the shops for tea, flour, coffee and all standard foodstuffs, because the Common Market wishes us to do so, whether we like it or not, in 1976, we choose a time when prices are relatively stable?
We must remember that prices rise and fall because of the rise and fall of world food prices, as we are sometimes told, or because the trade unions have been greedy with wages, or because the employers are taking excessive profits, or for other reasons. If we are to ask consumers, particularly elderly consumers, to safeguard themselves against an escalation of prices in metrication, the only possibility of doing this is if one has the changeover at a time when food prices are reasonably stable.
I suggest to the Government, therefore, that if we are to have this change to standard quantities it should be on a day, within a short period, when we are not experiencing an escalation of food prices. I believe that we have made a mistake in not debating this matter at greater length in Parliament and not making a decision. If we are to drive ahead, however, let us ensure that we can take all possible steps to protect consumers from something which will be unpleasant and expensive for them, and something which I believe should be left to the individual decision of individual industries depending on their assessment of the market and exports.
5.23 p.m.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: I would not necessarily endorse the concluding sentiments of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor), although I find myself in agreement with much of what he said. My feelings are with those who oppose this change. I believe that if we allow those feelings to rule our heads, however,
1450
we are being less than wise. We are meeting under the dismal shadow of decimalisation, and it is beyond doubt that decimalisation contributed significantly towards inflation. It contributed more than anything else, because it destroyed our sense of the value of money. This was largely because of the ridiculous unit that was chosen. Had we chosen the 10s. unit I am certain that many of the problems that confront us today would not do so.
I do not believe that I am duller than most people when I go shopping, but I still instinctively think of 30p being 2s.6d., of 40p being 3s.4d., and 60p being 5s. I cannot help it and most people are the same. That situation has been capitalised on by many people and has certainly led to more increases in prices than any other single factor.
Mr. Russell Kerr: Except the Common Market.
Mr. Cormack: I will not be drawn by the hon. Gentleman on that issue, because we are not debating the Common Market.
The 2½p packet of potato crisps-6d. for a packet of potato crisps—illustrates in a nutshell, if I may use an inexact metaphor, what I am talking about. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend and my hon. Friend on the Front Bench will have taken the message that we must not make this mistake again.
I believe that a ghastly mistake was perpetrated. In a sense, if one wanted to be political, one could say that the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) was the father of inflation. Nevertheless, the fact remains that we should be acting like a lot of Mrs. Partingtons, trying to brush back the sea with our mops, if we pretended today that we could prevent metrication. We cannot prevent it, and in the context of the Common Market—I will refer to it—which for good or for ill we are in, we must endeavour to obtain the maximum advantages from our entry.
I know that my hon. Friend, the Member for Cathcart, whose views I respect more than almost anybody's in the House on this matter, is above all a realist. If we are to work within the Community, if we are to have all the benefits that I believe membership can bring, the benefits that are potentially ours, then metrication is something that we must have.
Mr. Redmond: Has my hon. Friend seen the circular issued on 26th June by the Food Manufacturers' Federation Incorporated? That federation warns us of the dangers of rushing into metrication until the harmonisation within the Common Market is sorted out. In other words it is saying, "For heaven's sake, do not make standard packs now, until we know what we are going to do." We do not want two reorganisations of packaging.
Mr. Cormack: I have not read that circular. I should like to see it. Perhaps it has been sent to me among the mass of material sent to all of us during the last few days.
Naturally, I do not advocate a transition tomorrow. I am trying to be realistic. I acknowledge what I believe to be the facts. It is to our advantage to ensure that the matter is managed properly. All the consumer organisations, without exception, I believe—we have had letters from many recently—believe that it is to our advantage.
I do not wish to bore the House with a lot of quotations, but bodies such as the National Federation of Women's Institutes and the National Council of Women have said that this should happen. I make one quotation:
"Women will cope with the new measures admirably and will appreciate the simplicity it will bring"
We should not treat our housewives as a lot of mugs. At the same time we should give them every possible help and assistance. We should make sure that transitions are properly timed, and in that respect I endorse what my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Cathcart and for Bolton, West (Mr. Redmond) said.
I do not relish the thought of hectares and vanishing miles, and still less the disappearance of the pint. If it were to be replaced by the litre in the lounge bar in Folkestone, the incidence of drunkenness in that fair city would no doubt mount overnight. Although I do not relish those things, in the ordinary household commodities our housewives must become used as quickly as possible to the fact that metrication will come.
Generations of school children are being prepared now to go out into a metric world, into a European metric world. It is not for us to wish that that might not happen. We may have
1452
our doubts. Our elder citizens may regret it, deplore it, and think nostalgically of the days of their youth. But if Britain is to make a success of its European adventure, it is essential that our young people should be educated in this way. It is nonsense to try to create a situation in the future whereby they will not be able to practise what they have learned.
On the question of assistance, I blatantly admit that what I want to refer to is special pleading. This is the subject of unit pricing of which my right hon. and learned Friend made passing mention in his introductory speech. I have never claimed, nor do I claim now, that this is a panacea for all ills and that this will make metrication immediately intelligible to every housewife in the land. That would be nonsense. But it is a small, significant measure that could help enormously. It has been recognised as such both in the document which has already been referred to and by the Consumers' Association which wrote to me on the subject on Friday last week and said:
"We hope that the Unit Pricing Bill will be completed since we believe that this could be a most useful piece of legislation during metrication."
On Friday the House of Commons made a bit of an ass of itself—I am glad to see the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams) smiling and nodding. The Bill, which went through Committee last year, ran out of time and did not have full Government blessing and support, this year went through Committee with full Government blessing. On Friday on Report and Third Reading it was ready to go through. Owing to the excessive zeal of an hon. Friend who thought he was objecting to something else, the Bill was blocked.
That illustrates the nonsense of our procedure with Private Members' Bills. But that is another subject which has been admirably touched on this morning in The Times by the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton)—[Interruplion.] I will have my say. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) had his say yesterday. He will have it again today. He cannot repeat his record of last year of speaking five times in five days. The Bill can get on to the Statute Book if time is made available, if seconds can be made available, when we

1453
return in October. I sincerely hope that the Government will do that.
Mr. Russell Kerr: Were not the events of last Friday, which the hon. Gentleman so deeply deplored, brought on the Government by their own cowardice in the handling of the Bill?
Mr. Cormack: I shall not be drawn, and I would not endorse what the hon. Gentleman said. This is a small, useful measure that may help the housewife. It is up to the Government's business managers to find those few seconds of time in October to give the housewife that added help.
I shall heed the requests of my two hon. Friends who oppose metrication to give them a chance to have their say, but I believe that they are trying to turn their faces against the inevitable. We must accept it, we must use the advantages which it will bring, but we must heed the dismal lessons of decimalisation.
5.32 p.m.
Mr. Alan Williams: Sitting on the Opposition benches and listening to the debate, as I did to the debate, as I did to the previous debate in October 1970, it seems to me that much of the discontent that is expressed by Government back benches comes from the impression that the Government seek to give that they are not doing that they are doing, and that they are not doing what be compelled to do.
The Minister has stated the Government's belief that metrication is ecomically inevitable. I expressed my views on this in 1970 and stand by them now. I, too, take the view that metrication is inevitable. I defended my arguments in detail and I should like to touch on a slightly different aspect of the subject today. I believe that, because of the Government's evasion of the responsibility of stating categorically what their policy is, they are mishandling the changeover and are guaranteeing that it will not be carried out as efficiently as it should be.
As a result of the Government's prevarication, the public are getting the worst of all worlds. There is the confusion of a completely unco-ordinated drift towards metrication without the benefits that metrication could and should bring. The Consumer Council, before its demise, said
1454
that it believed that conversion to the metric system in Britain would be an advantage to consumers. In effect, this is what the Minister said in his opening speech.
It will be hard to convince people that there are advantages for consumers in cost gains when prices are being increased on conversion and when no cost saving is being passed on. For example, the Minister referred to Ford's announcing that its savings were greater than expected. Nevertheless, the price of Ford cars is higher. In many cases industry is responsible for bad public relations.
We all know that world wool prices have risen astronomically during the past couple of years. It infuriates a housewife when she goes to buy wool for her recreational knitting, if it is recreational, to find that she can buy an old imperial skein for 96p and that if she cannot obtain that measurement she must buy the equivalent metric measurement and pay 108p, which is an extra 12 per cent. It may well be that that is purely attributable to the fact that the imperial skein is old stock.
It seems that it is bad public relations for firms to confuse the issue themselves. If there is a legitimate increase they should at least try to separate the issues so that the public might understand that metrication is not of necessity the cause of a price increase.
Mr. Maude: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the confusion and the indignation of the lady about whom he is talking will be considerably greater when, while trying to buy a dress, she discovers that her vital statistics are 90–60–85?
Mr. williams: That is so. I beleive the manufacturers, conscious of the embrassment which they may cause to some of our pleasantly endowed lady citizens, are arranging for the continuation of the old size system—namely 12, 14, 16. I assume that there are etceteras. I do not quite understand the citizens the mysteries of that system but doubt the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Sally Oppenheim) will explain these matters to us if she has the oppurtunity to do so.
It will not be absolutely necessary for the housewife fully to convert to metric measurement. She will be able to use

1455
the old standard. The public is understandably suspicious that it will yet again be fleeced. That is understandable when we consider the record of the last few years. I do not intend to make a political point. I refer to decimalisation as an example. It must be recognised that there is responsibility on both sides. Nevertheless, for two years the public has had to put up with the fiddling associated with decimalisation.
No doubt the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Proudfoot) will make a constructive contribution should he have the opportunity to do so. We look forward to hearing from the hon. Gentleman that decimalisation did not lead to any fiddling. However, the general impression is that it did.
Then there was the first tranche of the abolition of SET. That was gobbled up by business and not passed on to the consumer. This year there was the changeover to VAT. We were told that because of the abolition of the second part of SET and the abolition of purchase tax the consumer would benefit. I believe that the consumer is now somewhat dubious about the value of such promises. With that cumulative experience it is understandable that the public is cynical when politicians say that there will be more gains from metrication.
The Government should say categorically to industry that they will not condone any price increases at the time of conversion unless those increases are attributable to metric conversion. In most cases that should not arise. It should be up to the manufacturers and to the producers to show that any price increases which take place at the time of conversion are attributable to metrication.
The public is not worried only about price increases. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) referred to the matter which I next wish to raise. I am sorry to delay the hon. Gentleman. I should not consider him to be in any way discourteous if he dashes off to post his letter. The hon. The hon. Gentleman referred to the important factor of lack of co-ordination. I came across a similar instance to that which the hon. Gentleman described. I opened a show house for my local authority.
1456
In the house was a beautiful fitted kitchen, but the refrigerator did not fit it. That was because the kitchen units and the refrigerator happened to be one in metric measurement and the other in imperial measurement. Until producers co-ordinate their activities many more people will find similar experiences as a result of producers not working in phase.
The same type of complaint is made about beds. Beds have gone metric but bedding has not. Therefore, it is impossible to get sheets which fit properly or sheets which will stay where they are put. That is a minor irritant but such irritants are important. They help to create unnecessary confusion.
On Friday night, on a BBC programme called "Nationwide", there was an item on metrication. A check had been made on the quantities in which deodorants are supplied. It was found that they came in 28 ccs, 57 grams, 54 ccs and at 54 milligrammes. How on earth will housewife who is trying to choose between varying packs work out which is often there is confusion when the same and then in size and volume, or where there are odd multiplies such as 28 and 54. Such multiplies are not immediately close to the another. Much of the confusion which caused in unnecessary but it is deliberate. That is the infuriating features.
The cosmetic industry is probably more responsible than any other industry. It is an industry with high profit margins. Which has never encouraged a value for money approach. It should be prevented from creating deliberate confusion. In fact, that is what it is doing. That is why the Government should say that when comparable consumer goods are switched to metric measurement they should be switched in a standard unit—that is to say, weight or volume should be quoted. They should also insist that when there are differing sizes of the same product those sizes should be in easy multiples so that there can be comparison of value for money—for example 25, 50, 75 and 100. Odd figures such as 23 and 53, which do not allow direct comparison, should not be allowed. The Government could deal

1457
with such matters to protect the consumer.
There is ample action which the Government could have taken. I suspect that they were afraid of taking such action because to do so would mean taking extra powers. To do so would mean that the Government would have to declare themselves in a way which so far they have tried to avoid. In fact, the Government have worsened the situation. They have wrecked many of industry's plans for a co-ordinated and phased changed. That is why I said that the Government have achieved the worst of all possible worlds.
Already the CBI claim that the target date has slipped by one year. That slippage will add to the cost to the consumer. The CBI in a metrication document says:
"Difficulties and upsets to timetables are not always apparent to the outside observer; the sectors of industry affected so far are mainly those which produce for industrial customers. The problems therefore are largely internal to industry; the consequences are not. Costs are mounting sharply as the changeover becomes more protracted, as dual working in imperial and metric standards, dual stocking and distribution are prolonged. These increased costs are inevitably reflected in the prices of the products of British industry ultimately reaching the consumer at home and abroad; as the additional costs of metrication beyond the original estimates are unnecessary and unproductive, they are entirely inflationary."
What the CBI is saying, and this is from the memorandum which it has submitted to the Government, is that the avoidable delay which has arisen because the Government will not give a clear lead—and frankly I do not see pasta and salt as forming a clear lead—is leading to delays which in turn leads to inflation.
The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Peter Emery): If the hon. Gentleman's party were in power would they immediately introduce total metrication?
Mr. Williams: By the time that situation arises, and I envisage that the Government will be forced to go to the full in their parliamentary life, we shall be virtually at the point of complete metrication. No one is suggesting that all orders should be placed concurrently. That could cause disruption and it is not what industry asks for.
Examples of the confusion which has arisen in industry as a result of the break-
1458
down of the attempts to achieve coordination abound. The CBI has told of an aluminium-making firm which has recently been forced to re-cut large quantities of new metric stock bar to imperial size at a cost of £100,000. Because suppliers were not co-ordinating their conversions adequately, stockists are unable to supply preferred metric sizes in bolts and their customers are having to use the old Whitworth stock. In another case metric consignments have had to be flown in from Belgium and in another case an entire design had to be redrawn in imperial terms. There are many more examples and no doubt the CBI will present them to the Minister.
The confusion which has arisen is avoidable but it is still spreading. The CBI says:
"Many firms are therefore abandoning their original timetables and rephasing the changeover with suppliers and customers as best they can, often in isolation from other manufacturers in the same industry with whom their original plans were worked out."
It is not surprising that the CBI makes a plea that the first priority should be for the Government to act to restore confidence. It says:
"Nevertheless, Ministerial statements and action, and at times the lack of them, have caused widespread doubts in industry".
The Under-Secretary would find greater support from his own back benchers if he came out clearly for one thing or another. Let us not wander through this labyrinth of confusion and inefficiency. Bear in mind that this has repercusssions which go far beyond the commercial sphere.
Our schools have already started the switch-over to metric teaching. We now have the absurd situation emerging in which children are working on the Government's original time table for conversion to metric measurements while the real world in which they have to spend their money, and order goods, will not be in phase with them. Education has been pushed ahead of the general race of metrication simply because it followed the Government's original advice.
Why have the Government let this drift to confusion take place? The answer is to be found in a maiden speech by the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Roger White) when we first debated this subject

1459
in October 1970, when only one Government backbencher supported the Government. That led to the most peculiar speech from the then Minister for Housing and Construction who tried to look two ways at once and ended up promising a White Paper. That was October 1970. The White Paper emerged 16 months later in February 1972, stating what was already known in October 1970—that the Government were going metric.
Now in July 1973, 17 months later, we have seen no action as promised in the White Paper to ensure early completion of the move to metrication and we have seen no additional steps to protect the consumer. We have had three years of evasive and destructive inaction and at the end of that time all that we get from the Government is an Adjournment debate at the fag-end of a parliamentary Session.
The Government know very well that they do not want a debate in the middle of a busy week when the forces of their back benchers could be mobilised against them. While the Government have played politics on this issue three years have been wasted, vast programmes scrapped and investment plans frustrated.
For example, the British Sugar Corporation bought machinery to carry out metric packaging. That has been in mothballs for nearly a year because the Government will not allow the Corporation to use it. The industry has asked the Government to change the necessary Weights and Measures orders but they will not do so. Small wonder that Tate and Lyle is saying that it will not buy metric machinery until it sees the ink dry on the Secretary of State's signature on the appropriate order.
This is the type of frustration of investment that has resulted from this inaction. The Government are trying, for political reasons, to push off the day, not to avoid it altogether, of eventual implementation of metrication in the key food sectors. Why was it that the orders announced today concerned pasta and salt? The Government know very well that the food industry has said that it will take between a year and 18 months after receiving the go-ahead in the form of the necessary orders for the industry to implement the change to metric packaging.
1460
The Government are deliberately stalling the introduction of these orders until the implementation date falls outside the last dying days of this administration. They have no intention of bringing forward key orders during the early part of next session. They intend to delay until towards the end of the Session in the hope that there will be no implementation before they go to the country.
Mr. Emery: I asked the hon. Gentleman whether, if his party were in power, they would do this immediately. He evaded the question by trying to say that it did not apply. He cannot have it both ways. He is now trying to tell us that it will soon be here.
Mr. Williams: We shall wait and see what happens and which prognostication is correct. If the Government arc to go ahead it is becoming critically important that they take strong clear action at once. The CBI has asked them to introduce the necessary Weights and Measures orders. We see that it is not be done other than in peripheral products. The CBI, the TUC and the Consumers Association have all said that they want the transition period to be as short as possible. The Government have indicated the opposite.
Mr. Heifer: Hear, hear.
Mr. Williams: My hon. Friend may say "Hear, hear" but let him bear in mind that every extra year and month during which dual standards are in operation further delays the educational benefit which the Government have alleged will follow as the result of the switch to metrication. The Government should state clearly which goods will be allowed to retain imperial measurements.
We are all delighted that there has been a reprieve for the pint of beer. The same arguments can be adduced for reprieving the pint of milk. Milk is not a matter of major international trade, and industry does not have to change over its bottling plant. The quantity merely becomes a bottle of milk as distinct from a pint of milk. No one can say that allowing milk to continue on sale in its present measures will bring down the whole edifice of metrication.
The Government could easily give an assurance on milk and could give assurances in other sectors where

1461
metrication will go ahead. Those assurances have not come today. Industry is still waiting to know what the Government intend to do. The Government should insist that where industry goes metric it should use identifiable, manageable and intelligible units with simple mutiples so that shoppers can assess value for money. It should apply unit pricing wherever possible.
Metrication is no great mystery, although the name may not mean much to the public generally. When a housewife buys meat, vegetables or fish she buys what quantity she wants at so much per pound. That is all that unit pricing is about. It is not a cause of confusion but a help for the housewife. The Government should demand that when manufacturers are rationalising on the conversion they should keep a flexible range of products available. Great frustration and irritation has been caused, particularly in these do-it-yourself days, by restrictions in the range of sizes of tins of paint that can now be bought in shops.
The Government should scrutinise the prices on conversion to ensure that there is no increase unless it is due to conversion. Equally, savings should be passed to the consumer.
The Government must start a publicity and education campaign for consumers. In the last financial year the Metrication Board submitted to the Government an estimate in two parts for this financial year. The first part referred to a continuation of the existing publicity campaign at industrial level. The Government approved that. The second part of the estimate dealt with the start this autumn of a campaign geared to the consumer. The Government have not authorised that section. That is part of their furtive approach. They are spending money to persuade industry to go metric behind the scenes, but refusing money to the board to alert the public to the fact that metrication is taking place.
Unless the Government agree immediately to release funds, public education will be deferred at least until the end of this financial year. I suspect that the delay is being caused for the same reason as the Minister of Agriculture refused the NFU's programme to introduce metrication in agriculture by 1975.
1462
He insisted that it be deferred until 1976. I suspect that the Government are trying to sweep the whole issue of metrication under the carpet until they have reached the other side of a General Election. It is time for the Government to come clean.
Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that if the Labour Party win the next General Election they will immediately move to metrication? He keeps evading the issue.
Mr. Williams: I have already indicated that we would then have a phased movement to introducing the necessary orders.
Mr. Emery: That is what we are doing.
Mr. Williams: Pasta and salt after three years do not make an impressive list. They are not convincing to industry. It is time the Government came clean with the electors and their supporters, including their supporters in the House. The Government know that they are going ahead with metrication to the fullest extent. Why will they not admit that there is no longer any such thing as voluntary metrication? The situation has advanced too far. The question is how long the process is to take and whether it is to be a co-ordinated change or an unco-ordinated shambles, which is what metrication is deteriorating into. The deliberate attempt at stealth and deception fits ill the Prime Minister's pledge at election time to give more open government.
6.2 p.m.
Mr. J. C. Jennings: When I intervened in the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs to ask what parliamentary enactment would make metrication legal, it turned out to be a crucial question. It was followed by speeches which developed the theme and which rebutted the planned and highly technical answer of my right hon. and learned Friend. In effect he said that legislation was already on the statute book which allowed a dual system to be worked. That is all well and good. But the whole purpose of metrication legislation. however it comes, is the abolition

1463
of the imperial system and complete substitution of a metric system. Let us make no bones about that.
My first plea to the Government is to come clean. We are following in the dismal path of decimalisation. Decimalisation of money has turned out to be the biggest con trick ever perpetrated on the British public. Even those who have consistently supported it now recognise that it has been a major influence on the whole problem of inflation.
We are in similar danger when, in the most insidious manner, in two, three or more years, metrication will be brought in. How? [An HON. MEMBER: "By stealth."] I prefer to say "by insidious methods". It will be introduced in such a way that no decision is taken by the House until we are faced with a fait accompli.
Mr. Robert C. Brown (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West): It is already here.
Mr. Jennings: I disagree with people who say, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack), that metrication is unavoidable. The House is all-powerful, and the sooner it realises that, the better. If back-bench Members unite on metrication against the two Front Benches they could stop them. It is no good the Government saying that we are powerless. Why have the Government never given us a debate on metrication, followed by a vote? The answer is that they know quite well that they would be defeated and that we should get a sufficient number of Conservative back benchers to vote against them. Therefore, as happened in 1970, so today we have a nice, cosy, comfortable fireside debate for three hours with no vote at the end and no one caring two hoots about what anyone says.
I warn the Government that they have to come clean. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary can shrug his shoulders, but the people who will finally decide are the elderly who will repudiate metrication completely because they will never understand it and because they will be so unhappy and uncomfortable with it. I remind my hon. Friend that they have votes. It will be the housewives who have already learned a lesson from the introduction of decimalisation. I remind
1464
my hon. Friend that they have votes. After all, who was it who put the Conservative Party in office at the last General Election? It was the housewife.
Mr. Robert C. Brown: And the next?
Mr. Jennings: We shall have to wait and see. But the Government have to take note of all this.
Why are we having to deal with metrication in full, which is what it will mean in the end? My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock gave the game away on two occasions in the course of his speech. I am sure that he did it quite unconsciously, but he showed a symptom of the disease when he spoke about metrication in the context of the Common Market and then, two sentences later, said that we lived in the European metric world. We hear a great deal about little Englanders. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock is a little European. He speaks of the European metric world. I remind him that others of us think of the whole world.
The real reason why metrication is essential to this Government and to a Labour Government if that party ever forms a Government again is that we are now in the Common Market and it is necessary that we conform to the standards, regulations and directives of the Commission in Brussels.
Mr. Redmond: It is outrageous to blame the Common Market. We needed to sell metric products abroad long before we ever thought of going into the Common Market.
Mr. Jennings: I My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Redmond) has such a short memory. I have such a long one, certainly in this House—
Mr. Redmond: When did you ever sell anything abroad?
Mr. Jennings: I do not sell things abroad. When did you teach any children the metric system?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): Order. It is usual in the House to address the Chair.
Mr. Jennings: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend made me angry. He knows quite well that I am neither an industrialist nor a salesman.

1465
But I have been a teacher of children. I have probably taught them more about the metric system than my hon. Friend has ever known.
That brings me to my next point, which is that the metric system is nothing new. We have heard a great deal about schools and schoolchildren. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock said that our children were coming into a metric world. Years and years ago, when anyone picked up a ruler from a child's desk—
Mr. Robert C. Brown: It was also printed on the backs of books—
Mr. Jennings: —the ruler was made out in inches along one side and in centimetres and decimetres along the other. For years our children have been brought up from infancy with the metric system. It is nothing new. It is argued that we must bring in metrication laws because our schools are now converted to the system. They have always had it.
I represent a town which lives on its sales of beer. The pint is very important to the people of Burton. Is it not a curious facet of logic that the Government should indicate that in bringing in all these foreign measurements they propose to exclude the pint of beer? I wonder why. The answer is that the working man's pint must not be disturbed, because the working man is a powerful voter. His pint at the bar, in the snug or in the lounge must not be disturbed. Therefore, the Government say that they intend to retain the old imperial pint. However, the housewife is a voter too, and she must have her pint of milk. The two are inseparable, and, though I do not suggest that we should ever mix beer and milk, for heaven's sake let us keep them in pint measures.
Those of us who opposed the introduction of decimalisation and who oppose metrication are judged to be old, decrepit, finished, played out and antediluvian. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Proudfoot) grinning. He has used all those words to describe me. I shall not reveal what I have called him. That would be completely out of order.
Those who call us those names are wrong. We have a right to our opinions, and our hearts are not necessarily ruling our heads because some of us are very hard-headed. What is more, in a very
1466
short while we shall be proved absolutely right about the Common Market and other associated matters.
I am not against change, but I am against change for the sake of it. We need gradual development. The final lesson that this House must learn is that for the next few years we do not want to see any more drastic changes of this description. We have had enough with decimalisation. It would be murder to bring in metrication on top of it. We need time to consolidate all the changes that we have had in the past 10 years in order to give the country a chance to settle down and to give our children, housewives and old people a chance to assimilate the changes. In that way we shall have a far more happy and prosperous Britain than we can look to under metrication.
6.14 p.m.
Mr. John Golding: I do not believe that we should be having this debate at all if the English aristocracy had not stopped Napoleon and his revolutionary army. In one sense it has been a great pity for this country that we have not gone metric many years since.
I do not agree with the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings) that our children have been taught the metric system for many years. The hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack) is right to draw attention to the difficulties that exist in our schools. Our teachers are unhappy not because they have to teach the two systems alongside each other, as the hon. Member for Burton once did, but because they are being asked to concentrate upon teaching the metric system. When we were taught both the metric system and the imperial system, for most of us it was the inside of the ruler which we came to think of and to understand. The problem today is that we are teaching our children to think metric, and it is the metric side of the ruler that they most understand. It is because of that that our teachers point out the importance of getting a decision as quickly as possible. It is because of the change of emphasis and of thinking.
If we are to have this second traumatic experience as adults, it is important that we get it over and done with as quickly as possible. The Government should proceed to metrication quickly. They should

1467
take courage in doing that. Some of us on the Opposition side of the House believe that the Government are proceeding towards metrication but are frightened of the backlash of the electorate and of the electorate's reaction to decimalisation. We believe that the Government are proceeding towards metrication but are doing that as quietly as possible and in a way which will be ineffective and will lead to confusion.
Metrication should be entered into very rapidly. Target dates should be set now for most commodities and most goods. The transition should also be as short as possible. There should be maximum publicity to assist people in the transition.
Decimalisation has been unpopular. Many people think that a lot of twisting went along with decimalisation. Many think that small traders took advantage of decimalisation to exploit their customers. I have no doubt that this will happen with metrication as well. But that is no argument for putting off this great step. The Government will simply have to be very careful that, in spite of that disadvantage, they get as many advantages as they can.
One advantage for the housewife for the future would be to go metric in a decimal way. I see that the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Sally Oppenheim) looks surprised by that remark, but she will surely recall that the Consumers Association has suggested that we change to metric unit sizes of, for example, 125, 150 and 200 grammes. It would be wrong to translate the present imperial measures into grammes. While we are making the transition let us have a rational system of sizes to operate alongside our rational coinage. Let us make certain that when we go metric we do it as sensibly as possible.
The Consumers Association has suggested that there ought to be unit pricing in milligrammes on any carton after metrication. It would help, too, to have unit pricing in the old imperial measures as well for some time. If cartons have the new metric weights priced in decimal currency, it would help the elderly and housewives to have the price expressed in the old pounds and ounces as well. But that would be a transitional thing.
1468
The issue of the pint of beer and the pint of milk is important. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Burton is not now present. I have wanted to ask those who say that the pint must be defended at all costs whether they have ever met a good drinker who would rather drink a pint than a pint and three-quarters. Resistance to the larger glasses would not be all that great among some of the heaviest and most regular drinkers.
Despite the electoral consequences and the backlash, the Government should take their courage in their hands and say that, unless we go metric in its entirety, we shall merely be storing up problems for the future. If we do not go metric, we shall very quickly have antiquated units of measurement the reasons for which no one will know. The only reason that one would be able to give would be that it was because the politicians were too frightened to face the public and to say that it was better to go metric entirely.
We should also go metric for horse-racing. We should abolish the mile and the furlong. I am sorry, again. that the hon. Member for Burton is not in the Chamber. He represents the area which contains the finest racecourse in England. We should go metric in horse-racing to get rid of the absurdity of having racing weights which can at present be described as wicked. If we changed the distances over which horses ran, we could change the weights at which jockeys ride. The only reason why these weights are retained, as I understand it, is so that old records can be compared.
I hope that the present Government will proceed to metrication as quickly as possible, as I hope that a Labour Government would do. I hope that it is done in a blaze of publicity and that housewives and consumers generally are protected as much as possible. We politicians should take courage and introduce a measure which we know is absolutely inevitable.
6.22 p.m.
Mr. Robert Redmond: I am grateful for the opportunity of speaking immediately after the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding), if only to say that I could not care less about the length of racecourses so long as we can keep the six-ball over in county cricket and the eight-ball over in Lancashire league cricket.
Mr. J. D. Concannon: What about the 22-yard pitch?
Mr. Redmond: Exactly. We want to keep that as well.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme took part in this debate. I was glad to see some members of the Opposition in the Chamber. This is one of the most important subjects which affect the consumer and every individual. In talking about community politics, one could also ask where the representatives of the Liberal Party are. I hope that the electorate of Ripon and Ely will note that point.
When I spoke in the debate in October 1970 I felt that I had taken part in getting the Government to publish a White Paper. That White Paper took a very long time to arrive, but when I saw it I thought that it was an excellent document. What I felt that it was saying was that we were proceeding with metrication with some caution and perspective.
It was the comedienne Eartha Kitt who used to sing a song with the words "Proceed with caution but, lover, please proceed." I thought that was the Government's attitude towards metrication.
Why has it taken all this time to have another debate, and why do not the Government seek approval for the White Paper? As the result of the Government's failure to get approval for the White Paper, those who are solidly opposed to metrication say that the whole thing is being done by stealth and without parliamentary approval. This debate will make no difference to them. The Government are therefore making a rod for their own back by not having moved a motion. This is a continual excuse provided for those who will say that Parliament has debated metrication many times. They say rightly that Acts of Parliament of 1864 and 1897—I think that those were the dates mentioned by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister—made metrication legal for most purposes.
Therefore, the result is a metric muddle which I have been complaining about for a long time. At 7 o'clock tonight—or should I say 1900 hours—the White Paper will still not be approved and Parliament will have got no further. Equally, the contents of the White Paper will be unknown and we shall lose an opportunity to wipe out so much of the muddle
1470
which arises because the terms of the White Paper are not known.
What annoys me is that there are whizz kids going round saying that Britain is being dragged kicking and screaming into the metric system. But the vast majority of the public, particularly housewives, in their capacity as consumers do not want to know. I am not talking about their business lives.
We all know in our hearts that we adopted what is just about the wrong decimal currency. It has put up the cost of living, and now everyone suspects every change. I did not agree with those who advocated the 10-shilling unit. I was brought up to believe that if one looked after the pennies, the pounds would look after themselves, and I favoured having 100 old pennies in the pound. This would have meant no increase in the cost of living.
People will never be convinced that metrication will not raise the cost of living. I do not agree with those who talk about organisations having carried out surveys which show that there is no widespread resistance to change. It is also claimed that a large number of changes have taken place without problems. I wish some of the people who say this would come to Bolton and let me introduce them to some of the real people of this country who would say what they think about metrication.
We have been dealing in large measure with consumer aspects. I should like to deal with the industrial aspects of metrication. Not enough is said about this. There was a report the other day in the Daily Express about a firm called Brook Motors. The newspaper quoted the firm as stating:
"If we had not gone metric, it would have been practically impossible to sell our motors in Europe."
That is fine. It is also common sense. Brook Motors, the Metrication Board and the Government may like to know that I was selling electrical goods in Europe long before the Metrication Board was ever thought of and before the former noble Lord the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) set up the board or thought about it.
Because I have a metric electric motor in my factory or because my wife's vacuum cleaner is driven by a metric

1471
motor, that is no reason for me to buy petrol in litres or my sugar in kilogrammes, or measure my tyre pressures in centigrammes per centilitre, which do not mean a thing to me.
My hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings) said that he had taught more people about the metric system than I have and then he mentioned decimetres, which do not exist in SI units. We are supposed to use these units if we go metric.
Mr. Jennings Mr. Jennings rose—
Mr. Redmond: If my hon. Friend will wait a moment, he may be able to help me.
I received a delightful letter from the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery), in which he stated:
"A preference is expressed for the use of units in powers of three from the base unit."
Of course everyone understands that. But it is not a preference; until the other day, I had always understood that it was the law of SI units. The system meant that measures of length went from millimetres to metres to kilometres.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude) mentioned, there was in the early days of the Metrication Board a picture of a nubile young lady whose vital statistics were said to be 960–560–960. It now looks as though someone has changed all this. The Under-Secretary went on to state in his letter:
"It is neither correct in terms of SI units, nor helpful in practice to seek rigidly to impose this discipline."
In other words, it seems that centimetres were out but are now in again. This means that the young lady in question must be 96–56–96, if she will admit it.
The main implication is that, unless we adopt the metric system, we will lose export orders. I do not accept this. I cannot see how I help the export trade by buying loose toffees out of a jar in 100 or 125 grammes instead of quarter pounds. The manufacturers' trade association concerned had a discussion with the Department of Trade and Industry and the Metrication Board to decide whether the standard weight of loose toffees weighed out in a shop should
1472
be 100 grammes or 125. A toffee manufacturer in my constituency said "Stick out for 125 grammes, because if it was 100 I would sell fewer toffees".
Shirt manufacturers are now marking collars in centimetres. The other day I saw two shirts in a shop window in Bolton. Both shirts were marked "Made in England" and the sizes were 15½ in. or 39 cm. and 14½ in. or 37 cm. This suggests that 1 cm. is half an inch, which it is not. This might be near enough over the range 14½ to 15½ but what happens over the range 14 to 17, as could happen? Beside the two shirts in the shop window was a sports sweater, made in France according to the label and marked "Size 38 in.".
The most important problems will arise in food sales. Along with most hon. Members I have a copy of the report of the Consumer Safeguards Group of the Metrication Board. I wish I had time to deal with it at length but it refers to 260 organisations ranging from adhesives manufacturers to zip fastener manufacturers. Paragraph 2.6 on page 6 states:
"For example, a kilogram bag of sugar will contain roughly 31 ozs more than the present 2 lb bag."
That means that the standard bag of sugar will increase in content by about 10 per cent.
Last Saturday, in a supermarket in my constituency, I checked the price of a 2-lb. bag of sugar. It was 10p. If we are to have another 10 per cent. of sugar, presumably the new bag will cost 11p. When that happens, my wife and all other wives will say that a bag of sugar has gone up by 1p. It may be claimed that people are getting more sugar but this will be no good, particularly if the housewife does not want any more sugar than 2 lb.
The report says that there may be a few cases in which the metric bags are slightly smaller than the corresponding imperial bags. I do not know what they are, because grammes usually round up to half-kilograms, but, if this happens and the price comes down, my wife and all other wives will say "We are getting less for our money".
In the present climate of opinion I suggest to the Government that they are on a hiding to nothing if they bring in the measures that have been suggested. I

1473
referred in an intervention to a letter from the Food Manufacturers Federation. The letter makes a plea for caution and suggests that the change should not be rushed. It also suggests that the industry should wait for harmonisation in the Common Market and not bring in its own standard packs until then, and that the industry could not afford to have two changes.
As has been said today, the CBI is worried because it does not know what Government policy is. It wants to tell its members what to do. I can tell the Government what to say to the CBI and what the CBI should say to its members. I hope the Government will say that they stand by the White Paper and that industry has an important task—to consider its customers and to give them the service they want.
If there is a divergence of view between one set of customers in England and another set somewhere else, it is for industry itself to decide which group should be educated. Industry must do its own marketing and should not expect the Government to do its dirty work for it. If parliamentary authority is needed for the British Sugar Corporation to bring in kilogramme bags, let us give it the authority, but the Government should not be blamed for telling industry that it has to sell sugar in kilogramme bags instead of 2-lb. bags. This is where the whole system is going wrong; industry should be using its own initiative.
We are told that today's schoolchildren know only metric. That is poppycock. They may learn kilogrammes at school, but they learn pounds at home. Kilogrammes are something that happens at their desks; pounds are real things that their mothers are dealing with and they are handling all the time.
Some years ago I was sitting in an office in Copenhagen during a sales trip when my customer had a telephone call. After a short conversation in Danish, he put down the telephone and said "This country went metric in 1912, before my wife was born, but she has just asked me to pick up a pound of butter on the way home." For heaven's sake let us approve the White Paper and let industry get on with looking after its customers as it should.
6.35 p.m.
Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: I have been somewhat saddened to hear so many of my hon. Friends discussing not so much how and when we should bring in metrication, as if or if not to bring it in.
I think that in the interests of consumers it is more profitable for the House to discuss how and when because, like my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack), I believe it is inevitable, and I acknowledge that the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams) and the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) went into some detail in discussing the merits and demerits of how the transitional period should be handled.
One of the fundamental errors propagated during the debate was that our advance towards metrication was the result of our entry into the EEC. In July 1968 the Labour Government decided to accept the recommendation for the setting up of the Metrication Board quite independently of any decision to go into Europe. The right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), in what has become his characteristic role of the ostrich walking round with its own bucket of sand, said:
"Any costs would have to lie where they fell. It was not a Government change, and the Government would certainly not subsidise it."
I do not think that anybody, in view of the demands that have come from both sides of the House for Government money to be spent on publicising metrication and ways in which consumers can more easily make comparisons, would agree that that would be an acceptable situation today.
I certainly join my right hon. and learned Friend in paying tribute to the Consumer Safeguard Group of the Metrication Board for the excellent report that it has put out. I think that we should pay more attention to its recommendations than possibly to some other matters. I think that the views of most consumer organisations and interested bodies coincide almost exactly with the views of Macbeth:
"If it were done when 'tis done, then' there well
It were done quickly".

1475
I am not suggesting that we are about to do a foul deed, if we are about to do it at all. I am merely saying that there is considerable apprehension and I should like to discuss one or two points that have been raised in the Consumer Safeguard Group's Report.
I am disappointed that the Unit Pricing Bill proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock has not been introduced. In its conclusions the Consumer Safeguards Group made it clear that it was highly desirable that unit pricing should be used, especially during the transitional period.
The Group also made the important point, which has been ignored by those who spoke on behalf of industry, that standardised units of weights and measures should be used by all producers of any one product, particularly during the transitional period, and that during that period the time when imperial weight comparisons are shown should be very short.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme asked whether a comparison of imperial and metric weight could be shown on the same packet. I was told, and I accept, that this would not be practicable because it would involve a proliferation of numbers after the decimal point which would be even more confusing than metric weight itself. I was not surprised that the hon. Gentleman talked about decimalisation, because when making a metric calculation one uses the decimal system.
However, it never ceases to surprise the rest of the world that we are the only country that has moved to a decimalised system of money that includes a fraction. If there is any anomaly, this is it. Metrication would provide a golden opportunity to move towards standardised or prescribed quantities which are already quite familiar to many people who have shopped in Europe, and we must recognise that many people in all walks of life now go abroad for their holidays.
One important point not mentioned by any hon. Member which I should like to bring to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend is that, whatever prescribed quantities he may have in mind for the eventual movement to
1476
metric weights, pensioners need to buy their food in small quantities. This is very important, for example, concerning milk in litres. The prescribed quantities in the EEC allow for smaller units in most other cases.
Having accepted that it is inevitable that we shall go metric, may I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to consider doing it in two phases. First, we could go metric with regard to measurement, including liquid measurement. However, I suggest that for the second phase we have metric weight at a future date when the climate not only of opinion but of experience with prices is such that it would not be as totally unacceptable to the housewife as it is today because, with the best will in the world, this could not be achieved by this or any other Government or by manufacturers, who have no wish to swindle the public, without confusion and rounding up resulting.
I will give one example. The excellent table in the Consumer Safeguards book gives a comparison which it is suggested should be displayed on packets. For example, it compares the price of a 1 kilogramme pack with a 2 lb. pack. An interesting comparison is that a I kilogramme pack would be 10½p whereas a 2 lb. pack would be 10p. Taking that a stage further, a 500 grammes pack would be 44p and a 250 grammes pack, which is a familiar unit of weight in this country, would be 2ip. That would inevitably result in rounding up. I cannot imagine a manufacturer or retailer rounding down in that case.
Mr. Maude: I do not know whether my hon. Friend has noticed that in the other table which compares the price per pound with the price per 500 grammes, rounding up or down to the nearest half penny produces wild discrepancies in the lower-priced commodities. The differences are enormous in some of them. That cannot be considered as anything but confusing.
Mrs. Oppenheim: I have noticed this with some concern. If one goes on bringing down these kilogramme packs to 250 grammes packs one gets anomalies such as 2·125p. Will that end up as 2p or 2–1p? I do not think that anyone disputes that rounding up will take place. Therefore, we shall have to progress not down but up the road to metrication.

1477
Therefore, I should like us to progress first towards metric measure, even including liquid measure, as long as prescribed unit quantities were small enough for pensioners. However, I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to consider postponing metric weight not for electoral or vote-catching reasons, but in the interests of consumers.—[Interruption.] I am sure that all hon. Members would agree that they are politicians, but I hope that some of us have the interests of consumers at heart as well as the catching of votes. I do not think that it is in the interests of consumers in this country to move to metric weights in the foreseeable future because it is impossible to guarantee that this could take place without rounding up, further inflation and confusion.
I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will consider the constructive arguments that have been put forward when he decides about our progress either to metric measurement or metric weight and will pay particular attention to the widespread apprehensions throughout the country which have been expressed in this Chamber today.
6.45 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Peter Emery): This has been a short debate and we have had quite a number of speeches. I congratulate hon. Members on the shortness of speeches, which has certainly helped with the debate. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) for intervening now because I know that he wished to speak, but it is right and proper in winding up the debate that I should attempt to answer as many questions as possible.
I begin with the suggestion by a number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Burton (Mr. Jennings), for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude) and for Gravesend (Mr. Roger White), that the Government are trying to proceed to metrication by stealth, by pulling the wool over people's eyes or without coming clean.
I remind the House what the Government have said quite specifically. Paragraph 18 of the White Paper says:
"The move to metrication has been taking place over many years, but the Government believe that the time has now come when they must act to ensure the orderly completion of
1478
the process. In doing so they will not hesitate to take whatever steps are necessary to protect the consumer during the period of changeover and to reduce to a minimum any difficulties which the introduction of the new system may cause."
At the end of paragraph 32 the White Paper continues:
"The Government in any case regard it as most desirable in the interests of our economic properity that the maximum practicable progress towards the metric system should he made within the next few years."
It is not unreasonable to say that that is putting the Government position absolutely clearly, without prevarication, stealth or anything hidden.
During 1972 the Government introduced the Building Regulations 1972 which substituted metric units for imperial in almost every aspect of building. The Thermal Insulation (Industrial Buildings) Regulations 1972 did much the same. The Weights and Measures Amendment Regulations 1972 on tolerance limits for weighing machines which are recalibrated on conversion to metric units were also introduced. The School Premises (General Requirements and Standards) Regulations 1967 and the Import Duties (General) (No. 7) Order were others. These orders brought forward aspects of metrication quite openly and positively. It is a little strange that hon. Gentlemen should say that the Government have been trying to hide matters and have not been frank with the House.
Mr. Maude: Would my hon. Friend say why the Government have not asked the House to approve the White Paper?
Mr. Emery: That is a fair question. Of course the Government could have done that. But it is not every White Paper that is approved by the House. There have been a number of opportunities for metrication to be debated if hon. Members wished. While I accept that the point made by my hon. Friend is fair, it is also fair that I should make clear the number of times when the Government have made known their policy.
It is also important that we should deal specifically with the points about public sector purchasing. My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) both suggested that the construction industry was forced to change to metrication because

1479
of public sector purchasing policy. That is not the case, and it is right that I should say so.
The industry asked for Government support for its programme. The Government agreed to give the lead through designing new projects in metric terms. It is important to say that Government and public sector purchasing could have been used to pressurise many parts of industry into a premature change to the metric system before the optimum time for industry as a whole. The White Paper intentionally eschewed that course.
The Government's objective was and is that public sector purchasing should, save in a few exceptional cases, change over in line with industry's own progress. In our view, that is the most economical way of doing it. However, the principal obligations must rest with industry to ensure that public sector buyers are aware of industry's readiness to supply in metric.
I should like to point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Redmond) that I, too, am concerned about metrication. I was a director of an institute before I was a Minister. I know that back in 1960 the pressure from people concerned with purchasing in industry was to urge the Government to go faster for their own benefit. I want to make this quite clear: they believed that it would generally be to the advantage of industry.
Industrial stocks in Britain are already too high as a result of the duality of the imperial and the metric system. The Institute of Purchasing and Supply estimated that stocks were as much as 50 per cent. greater than those of other developed industrial countries of comparable size because of this problem. It is clear that improvements in inventory management will be of no avail and costs will be increased if dual stocks have to be held longer than necessary.
It has been suggested that industry will not benefit by turning to metrication. That has been, and is now being, contradicted by nearly every reputable expert and everybody who has studied this matter, including the Metrication Board, the CBI and many of the professional organisations.
1480
The hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams) suggested that we should automatically accept what the CBI says and do it immediately. That is not, has not and will not be the approach of the Government. We believe that long-term consumer protection is of major importance in metrication.
Mr. Alan Williams Mr. Alan Williams rose—
Mr. Emery: I have only five minutes. If I have misrepresented the hon. Gentleman, I immediately withdraw.
The consumer aspect of protection must be to ensure that consumers can make comparisons, which are the most important part of shopping. Comparisons when consumers use a single system that is easily understood and accepted by most organisations are of considerable assistance to consumers.
I want to refer to some of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Sally Oppenheim). In protecting the consumer, we frequently forget the old, the blind, the deaf and other categories of disadvantaged persons who have their own special difficulties in adapting to change, as they will have with change to the metric system.
The Metrication Board, in collaboration with the voluntary bodies concerned, is working out how these people can effectively be helped. The board has stated clearly that when any special needs of each class of person have been identified it intends to share with voluntary bodies the job of developing specially designed aids to meet their needs. The small quantity argument, as put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester, is immediately accepted.
The matter of spare parts, as raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart, is not a new problem, and it is not associated only with metrication. It is associated with standardisation and rationalisation, and it has been associated with the changeover of lines from one type of production and one type of new unit to another. It is wrong to try to suggest that this is something that came about because of metrication even though in the case instanced by my hon. Friend it did. This is nothing new, and it is not a problem that can be put at the door of metrication.

1481
The leading consumer and women's organisations recognise that the change to metrication must come. For example, the Consumer Standards Advisory Committee of the British Standards Institute said:
"BSI and its Women's Advisory Committee … have consistently represented to the Government the disadvantages of living with two measurement systems for an indefinite period.
Such a permissive policy is confusing to the consumer and to the supplier, discouraging to schools and an inevitable brake on industrial progress to full metric working … the change would be of real value in the home, on the High Street and in the schools."
The committee has no doubt that women will cope with the new measures admirably and will appreciate their simplicity. That was from a woman's organisation about the way in which women will cope with this particular matter.
In conclusion, I emphasise that the Government recognise the need to strike a balance in their approach to metrication. The Government and I consider and recognise the two strident different views that have been put forward in the debate. The consumer's position must be safeguarded. In large sections of the community—they are in my own constituency just as they are in the constituency of hon. Members who have spoken—there is a natural aversion to changing from what is well known and
1482
what has given service in the past to something new, but few people deny that the metric system, when understood and established, will be simpler for the consumer.
The Government believe that, with thorough study and preparation, the problems for the consumer in the period of transition to metric measurements can and will be overcome, and that information and education is imperative to this end. We do not believe that ensuring safeguards for the consumer is inconsistent with progress towards metrication. Education and protection can go hand in hand with a rate of advance which should be acceptable to industry generally.
The drive to get the change accepted is very much within the hands of industry. but as a background management should know that the Government are firm in their resolve that the benefits and savings brought about by a metric structure within industry should quickly accrue to enlarge our exports, to increase our competitiveness and to strengthen our efficiency. All those are necessary adjuncts to the growth that this nation needs above everything else to bring benefits to industry, to consumers and, indeed, to the nation as a whole.
Mr. Rossi: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion. by leave, withdrawn.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING BILL
  Lords Amendments considered.
  EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING BILL

    Clause 2
    FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMISSION AND AGENCIES
    Lords Amendment: No. 1, in page 3, line 29, at end insert:
    "(aa) include arrangements for encouraging increases in the opportunities available to women and girls for employment and training".
    7.0 p.m.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    The Government have reconsidered whether there should be explicit mention in the Bill of women and girls. They have accepted that there should be.
    The amendment refers to women and girls in terms which are not likely to encourage any interpretation that action to help other groups is excluded. Moreover, the amendment does not confer any new power or duty on the commission but merely makes it clear and emphasises that they have the power to encourage increases in the opportunities available to women and girls for employment and training.
    The House knows that legislation is being worked on in the area of sex discrimination. which has been announced in another place. I think that the amendment can make a useful contribution to further the cause of equality. In those circumstances, I should be happy to advise the House to agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Harold Walker: I shall not detain the House for more than a minute or two, but I cannot miss the opportunity of sharing the hon. Gentleman's agreement with the Lords in the amendment. I should also like to congratulate them on their good sense and ability in bringing the Government round to the paths of righteousness, because two months ago, on 23rd May, the hon.
    1484
    Gentleman and his hon. Friends went into the Division Lobby against precisely such an amendment moved by the Opposition.
    The more frequently that I heard Ministers agreeing with amendments from the other place, echoing the arguments that we advanced, showing their conversion on the way, the more it diminishes the prejudice that I had long entertained against the other place and their Lordships. If they continue in this way I may find myself in favour of the bicameral system.
    Mr. Smith: I do not wish to rob the hon. Member of his humour. I think he will agree, if he examines the interesting debate in the House of Lords, that the emphasis on women and girls was comparatively small. There were many other elements. I concluded that the Opposition divided on the other elements, but I could be wrong. However, the Government have looked again at this matter and agree that the amendment is sensible.
    Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman should be grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for your choice of amendments which has provided him fortuitously with a straw at which to clutch. None the less, the Opposition warmly welcome this amendment. The hon. Gentleman is correct that it will add nothing to the powers of the commission. Of course, we accept that, but the important thing is that it will make the will of Parliament explicit in the Act. I hope—and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman shares this hope—that the commission and industry in turn will respond to the spirit of the amendment.
    Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 6
    MODIFICATION OF ACT OF 1964
    Lords Amendment: No. 2, in page 8, line 37, leave out "and 12" and insert ", 12 and 14(1)".
    The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Robert Chichester-Clark): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Speaker: With this we shall take the following Lords Amendments.
    No. 9, in page 34, line 5, leave out from "words" to end of paragraph and insert:
    "from the beginning to 'carried on' there shall be substituted the words ' An industrial training board may, with the consent of the Commission given with the approval of the Minister, exercise such functions in connection with training for employment' and at the end of section 14(1) there shall be inserted the words; and the board may enter into agreements for the making of payments to the board in respect of the exercise in pursuance of this subsection of functions by the board.'"
    No. 14, in page 48, line 48, at end insert:
    "13.—(1) An industrial training board may, with the consent of the Commission given with the approval of the Minister, exercise such functions in connection with training for employment outside Great Britain of persons temporarily in Great Britain as are exercisable by it under subsections (1) and (4) of section 2 of this Act in connection with the training of persons employed or intending to be employed in the industry for which the board is established; and the board may enter into agreements for the making of payments to the board in respect of the exercise in pursuance of this subsection of functions by the board."
    No. 15, in page 51, line 39, at end insert:
    "7A. In section 14(1) of the Act for the words from the beginning to" carried on" there shall be substituted the words" An industrial training board may, with the consent of the Minister, exercise such functions in connection with training for employment.""
    Mr. Chichester-Clark: The main amendments are those to Parts I and III of Schedule 2. The others are consequential.
    The amendment to Part I of Schedule 2 means that a training board will be able to take the initiative in suggesting that it might exercise its powers in relation to people temporarily in Great Britain and intending to be employed outside Great Britain, but that its exercise of any such powers should be subject to the consent of the commission, given with the approval of the Secretary of State.
    The amendments preserve the position that money raised by levy on industry may not be used for this purpose, so the finance for any such help for overseas students would have to come either from the students or the foreign governments
    1486
    in question, from the overseas development administration, or possibly—if export promotion was involved—from the Department of Trade and Industry.
    Question put and agreed to

    Clause 8
    PROVISION OF SERVICES BY EDUCATION AUTHORITIES
    Lords Amendment: No. 3, in page 12, line 34, at end insert:
    "except that the said reference does include part-time attendance by persons who satisfy the local education authority in question that their attendance is with a view to employment".
    Mr. Dudley Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    It was suggested in another place that it is not enough that a local education authority should have only a power and not a duty to make arrangements to provide vocational advice to someone who attends an evening class with a view to improving his employment prospects. This amendment was accordingly accepted on Report in order to remove what could be regarded as an invidious distinction.
    The effect is that if someone satisfies a careers officer that he is attending evening classes with a view to employment—that is, in order to obtain another job, or improve himself in his present employment with a view to advancement or promotion—the local authority has a duty to offer him help.
    This is an improvement to the Bill and I therefore commend it to the House.
    Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 15
    SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT
    Lords Amendment: No. 4, in page 18, line 41, leave out "and 4" and insert "4, 8 and 12".
    Mr. Dudley Smith: I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    This is a minor technical amendment. I will happily explain it if anyone wishes me to do so, but it would be taking up the time of the House.
    Question put and agreed to.

    Schedule 2
    MODIFICATIONS OF INDUSTRIAL TRAINING ACT 1964
    Lords Amendment: No. 5, in page 25, line 39, leave out "any of it" and insert "levy".
    Mr. Chichester-Clark: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Speaker: With this we shall take the following Lords Amendments:
    No. 8, in page 32, line 4, leave out "all" and insert "the employers".
    No. 10, in page 39, line 1, leave out any of it "and" insert "levy".
    No. 13, in page 45, line 43, leave out "all" and insert "the employers".
    Mr. Chichester-Clark: At an earlier stage in the Bill, while speaking to an amendment which I might describe as the non-exemption levy amendment, I said that I wanted to make it clear that such proposals might cover a whole industry or only part of it. It may apply to the whole of a levy or only part of it.
    Reflection on the wording of Section 7(1B) and on the wording of a related section cast doubts on whether it was sufficiently clear that proposals of this kind could cover all, and not just some, of the employers in the industry. These amendments seek to clear up any doubts in that respect and put the matter beyond doubt.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: No. 6, in page 26, line 10 after "emoluments" insert:
    "and payments intended to be disbursed as emoluments which are".
    Mr. Chichester-Clark: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Speaker: With this we shall take the following Lords Amendments:
    No. 7, in page 26, line 11, leave out "employees of his" and insert:
    "or in respect of persons employed."
    No. 11, in page 39, line 22, after "emoluments" insert:
    "and payments intended to be disbursed as emoluments which are".
    1488
    No. 12, in page 39, line 23, leave out "employees of his" and insert:
    "or in respect of persons employed".
    Mr. Chichester-Clark: As the Bill stands, a training board can impose a levy of up to 1 per cent. of an employer's payments to employees in the industry. If the levy is above 1 per cent., affirmative resolution is required. "Employees" is defined to mean not only employees under a contract of service but also persons employed under a contract for services—for example, self-employed labour-only sub-contractors—and others.
    Therefore, a board can make a levy, without affirmative resolution, as long as it is not more than 1 per cent. of an employer's payments of wages to his employees and his payments to self-employed labour-only sub-contractors, and so on. That is clearly desirable. Without it, boards might not be able to make their levies bite on payments to these self-employed people without inadvertently going over the 1 per cent. limit.
    There is another case which the Bill as it stands may not cover. An employer may engage workers through the agency of a labour-only sub-contracting firm and pay the firm instead of paying the workers direct. In this case, legally speaking, I am advised that there may be no employment relationship between the employer and the workers concerned—neither a contract of service nor a contract for services. So they are not "employees of his" in the terms of the Bill as it stands.
    The amendments make the necessary changes to ensure that a board will be able to take into account, when calculating its levy rate, not only the employer's payments to his employees and his payments to self-employed labour-only subcontractors but also any payments to a labour-only sub-contracting firm in respect of workers engaged by him through the agency of the firm.
    Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

    Schedule 3
    MINOR AND COMSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS OF ENACTMENTS
    Lords Amendment: No. 16, in page 56, line 28, at end insert:
    The Unemployment Insurance Act 1935
    1. Section 80 of the Unemployment Insurance Act 1935 (which provides for payments out of the National Insurance Fund in respect of the attendance at certain courses of persons entitled to unemployment benefit) shall cease to have effect.
    Mr. Dudley Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Speaker: With this we are to take Lords Amendment No. 21,
    Page 60, line 3, at end insert:

    25 & 26 Geo. 5. c. 8.

    The Unemployment Insurance Act 1935.

    Section 80.

    Mr. Smith: This is largely a technical amendment which seeks to repeal a provision that is no longer needed. It is a sensible adjustment to be made.
    Mr. Harold Walker: The hon. Gentleman says that it is a technical amendment, but it appears to me that it is removing something which, if of little use, none the less provides a facility for unemployed workers. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the facility will still be preserved within the powers under the Bill for the Manpower Services Commission and its agencies?
    Mr. Smith: I did not realise that the hon. Member wished to challenge the amendment. The Bill already provides for the repeal of various provisions authorising payments out of the National Insurance Fund towards the cost of training courses, the main one being Section 3(6) of the Employment and Training Act 1948. This is because the cost of training policies is fully reflected in the public expenditure allocation. Subventions from the National Insurance Fund do not free more resources for training policies but only complicate counting and are in practice of a rather arbitrary nature.
    Moreover, levels of unemployment are affected by other Government measures and there is no reason to single out this one. It would be impossible to make compensatory payments to or from the fund for all such measures. Section 80 of the 1935 Act is another such provision and it is logical that it, too, should be repealed. The need for this did not become apparent until the Bill had left this House and was being considered in another place.
    1490
    In those circumstances, it is a sensible adjustment—nothing whatever is lost—and it is, as I described in opening, a technical adjustment.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: No. 17, in page 57, line 39, leave out second "for" and insert "after".
    Mr. Dudley Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    It might be convenient if we also took with this the following Lords Amendments:
    No. 18, in page 57, line 40, leave out "substituted" and insert "inserted".
    No. 19, in page 57, line 42, leave out "for" and insert "after".
    No. 20, in page 57, line 43, leave out "substituted" and insert "inserted".
    I can assure the hon. Member for Doncaster that these are purely drafting amendments to remove a technical defect in the Bill which was discovered later and again it would seem sensible to put it right in this way.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

NORTHERN IRELAND (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL
Lords Anzendtnents considered.
NORTHERN IRELAND (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL

  Clause 5
  ADMISSIBILITY OF WRITTEN STATEMENTS IN PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO SCHEDULED OFFENCES
  Lords Amendment: No. 1, in page 4, line 23, leave out "or mental".
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Michael Havers): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Speaker: I gather that the suggestion is that we should consider at the same time Lords Amendment No. 2, in 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".
  The Solicitor-General: These amendments relate to the admissibility of a signed, written statement in the absence of the person who made it because of his mental unfitness to attend. The clause originally permitted this statement to be admitted in evidence regardless of when the mental illness had begun. The amendment provides that the time must be subsequent to the making of the statement, on the basis that, if the absent witness were mentally ill at the time of the making of the statement, this would throw considerable doubt on the validity and the weight of the statement.
  A wider amendment was debated in Committee in this House which would have had the effect of excluding any such statement made by a witness who was mentally ill regardless of when the condition arose. For obvious reasons, that was unacceptable. The present amendment is acceptable since, for example, it would not cover the case where the witness since making his statement had been so intimidated that his mental health broke down. I am not over-enthusiastic about the amendment, because I can see perhaps further difficulties arising from it, but I commend it to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

INSURANCE COMPANIES AMENDMENT BILL [Lords]
Lords Amendment in lieu of certain Commons Amendments disagreed to by the Lords and of Lords Amendment to one of the Commons Amendments, considered.
INSURANCE COMPANIES AMENDMENT BILL [Lords]

  Clause 42
  INTERMEDIARIES IN INSURANCE TRANSACTIONS
  The Lords have disagreed to the following Amendments made by the Commons:
  In page 33, line 17, leave out "this section" and insert "subsection (1) above".
  In page 33, line 18, at end insert:—
  "(2A) Where a person in the course of carrying on any business or profession issues any such invitation as is mentioned in subsection (1)(a) above in relation to an insurance company which is not an authorised insurer in respect of the contract in question he shall, when issuing the invitation, inform the person to whom it is issued that the company is not such an insurer as aforesaid.
  In this subsection 'authorised insurer', in relation to a contract of any description, means a person entitled to carry on in Great Britain insurance business of a class comprising the effecting of contracts of that description."
  In page 33, line 19, leave out "this section" and insert:—
  "subsection (1) above or who contravenes subsection (2A) above'
  but propose the following Amendment in lieu thereof:
  In page 33, line 16, at end insert:—
  "(IA) Regulations may be made for requiring any person who, in the course of carrying on any business or profession, issues any such invitation as is mentioned in subsection (1)(a) above in relation to an insurance company which is not an authorised insurer in respect of the contract in question to inform the person to whom the invitation is issued that the company is not such an insurer as aforesaid.
  In this subsection "authorised insurer", in relation to a contract of any description, means a person entitled to carry on in Great Britain insurance business of a class comprising the effecting of contracts of that description"
  7.15 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Grant): I beg to move, That this House doth agree to the amendment made by the Lords in lieu of the amendment made by this House to which the Lords have disagreed.
  This is just to rectify a drafting error made on Report but shrewdly spotted by my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Nicholas Edwards). It fulfils an undertaking which I gave to him in Committee.
  Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I should like to express my gratitude to my hon. Friend for finding a way, even at this late stage, to put right an error at an earlier stage.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

SOCIAL SECURITY CONTRIBUTIONS
7.16 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Paul Dean): I beg to move,
That the Social Security (Contributions) (Married Women and Widows Special Provisions) Regulations 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 19th July, be approved.
These regulations provide the rules under which married women and widows may exercise the rights of election under Section 42 of the Social Security Act 1973. They supplement the Social Security (Contributions) Regulations 1973, made on 20th July 1973, and need to be made to enable employers to be given detailed guidance in time for them to plan for the changeover in April 1975 to the new system of calculating and collecting social security contributions.
The proposed regulations do not contain any provisions about benefits for married women, widows or divorcees. These, and the transitional provisions intended to simplify the changeover for women who have chosen not to pay contributions under the National Insurance Acts, will form part of a separate set of regulations which will be submitted for approval after the Summer Recess.
In general, the regulations follow the same principles as the existing regulations as to the categories which are allowed to opt and as to the procedures for making elections and for having a document as proof of election for the convenience of the women concerned and their employers. The main points of difference in principle from the present arrangements are, first, that elections apply to a minimum period of a year—that is contained in Regulation 2(4); secondly, liability as an employed earner must go hand in hand with liability as a self-employed earner—that is contained in Regulation 6; and thirdly, married women self-employed earners are liable, unless they opt out; this is contained in Regulation 2(1)(a).
These differences flow from the changes in the contribution provisions under the Act. The most important is the fact that elections must operate in units of complete tax years.
1494
As now, employers will operate on the basis that they deduct full contributions unless the woman concerned can produce a certificate that she is not liable for full contributions. In general, an election once made will run on from year to year unless it is revoked, or until widowhood, when separate conditions apply.
This will save a great deal of paper work for the women concerned, their employers and for the Department which would otherwise be involved in fresh elections every year, or where a woman remarried soon after divorce, as not infrequently happens. This sensible provision caters for the vast majority of cases, where a woman opts out as soon as she can and remains opted out for the rest of her working life.
As regards the start of an election, the most common case is where a single woman who is at work gets married. She will be able to opt out, but only with effect from the start of the next tax year. The second most common case is that of a woman who is already married, or a qualifying widow, when she takes up work. She, too, must elect in whole tax years, which will normally be for future tax years. However, if she elects before 11th May in any year, the election will be back-dated for the five weeks to the beginning of the tax year. This will clearly operate to ease the position of women and their employers by giving them a little time after the tax year starts.
Elections run on and, unless revoked or ended by widowhood, will cease automatically at the beginning of the tax year containing age 60. The regulations provide for automatic exemption from then on, because further contributions would provide no further benefit rights and would be paid only because a woman did not exercise the option through ignorance or mistake.
Widows need and receive special treatment under the regulations. On widowhood any election ends and a woman is excepted from all contribution liability for the six months' period of the widow's allowance. During this period she can choose whether to pay full contributions or opt out. A widow, therefore, has the fullest freedom of choice to do whatever suits her best. If she opts out, her election will run on from year to year until

1495
age 60, like the married woman's. Revocations can be made at any time but, like elections, will generally operate only from the beginning of the next tax year. These are the main principles underlying the regulations as they apply to the groups of women who are covered.
Perhaps I might briefly mention one or two other more detailed aspects of the regulations. The list of qualifying widows set out in Regulation 2(5) is, in substance, the same as the widow beneficiaries who are allowed to opt out under the present scheme. The reduced rate of contribution in Clause 1 is 0·6 per cent. That is in Section 2(6)(a) of the Act, covering the industrial injuries element and the National Health Service element towards the cost of the National Health Service. The opted-out self-employed woman is relieved of all liability for Class 2 contributions because she has no industrial injury cover, and it would not be worth while charging a National Health Service contribution on its own.
Class 1 and 2 elections must march in step—this is contained in Regulation 6—to prevent manipulation of elections. Similarly, any woman who makes an election must not be able to pay Class 3 contributions—this is provided for in Regulation 7—or she could opt out of sizeable Class 1 or Class 2 contributions and purchase a pension more cheaply with Class 3 contributions.
I realise that these regulations are somewhat technical and complicated. They are necessary at an early stage so that employers may have ample time to make the relevant changes in their arrangements. If the House agrees these regulations we shall, of course, be taking steps to provide comprehensive guidance to employers and all those concerned. Individual advice will be available, too, as it is now, from the staff of our local social security offices, to any married woman who may wish to seek guidance on what is the most appropriate course in her individual circumstances.
7.25 p.m.
Mr. Michael Meacher: The issue underlying the regulations has already been discussed under Section 42 of the Social Security Act, both in Committee and on Report. Therefore, I do not intend to go over the ground at any length.
1496
I ought to make it clear that the Opposition's view is that the married women's option should not be retained at all but should be abolished. This is a view which is shared by the National Women's Commission, which is a bipartisan and prestigious body which believes that the retention of the provision is retrogressive. We believe that to retain it is to retain the concept of dependence for women. In recent years women have shown that they wish the concept to be abolished.
We also believe that perhaps the most critical area in social security provisions concerns marital breakdown and the gaps within the service. Perhaps there is greater need to make provision for resettlement allowance rather than to retain, for example, the election of married women not to pay full social security contributions.
Thirdly, if they make such an option women lose altogether contributions which they made before their marriage. If they continue to work after their marriage, they come up against the problem of the half test, which is dependent on the retention of the married women's option and the need to prove that contributions are being made fully as married women. Indeed, I shall be bringing to the Under-Secretary's attention this week the case of a constituent of mine who, as a result of the existence of the married women's option, will lose altogether no less than 33 years of contributions. That is one of the deep problems involved in retaining the option.
Fourthly, married women who qualify on their husband's insurance cannot get the pension until their husband reaches retirement age, unless they are five or more years younger, which in most cases they are not. That produces a great deal of heartache in a number of cases. Fifthly, a wife cannot compel her husband to pay contributions. This often leads to severe problems. Lastly, if she exercises her option under the regulations, she denies herself unemployment and sickness benefit, though her wage or the benefit she may have as a result if the option did not exist may well be crucial for hire-purchase payments or for the mortgage.
For these reasons, we believe that it is retrogressive to retain the regulations. I shall not take the time of the House any longer, because these issues have been

1497
discussed at some length. I shall therefore ask the Under-Secretary some specific questions about the operation of the regulations.
The first question concerns Regulations 2 and 3. It appears that a widow's election, which seems rather anomalous, will continue to have an effect under the regulations if she remarries. Is this the case? If so, what is the justification? Why should a widow when she has just remarried be treated differently from any other married woman who is deemed liable to pay Class 1 contributions, unless she makes a specific election not to do so?
The second question, which is of some importance, concerns the definition of married women, which is the one item in the regulations not defined in Regulation 1. Let us consider a woman cohabitating so that if she were dependent on supplementary benefit she would be denied supplementary benefit under the cohabitation rule. If she went out to work but retained the same relationship, would she be entitled to exercise the married woman's option? I do not think that that is a nit-picking question. It raises an important principle because, if that is not so, the question arises whether it is fair to deprive her of benefit as though she were married and then not to grant her the prerogative under the regulations which is appropriate to a married woman. I should be grateful for the Under-Secretary's considered opinion.
Thirdly I turn to Regulation 5, and in particular paragraph (1)(b). When a widow decides in the 26 weeks after she has been widowed to pay Class I contributions and then changes her mind—as the Minister said, that is permitted under the regulations—and elects to pay Class I contributions at the reduced rate, is her decision in that case retrospective? If so, is she entitled to a refund?
My last question concerns Regulation 9(4). In view of the period of grace of five weeks under Regulation 2(4) for the election to be operative in the year in which it was made, what is the position if the employer holds on to the certificate so that the period of grace elapses without the certificate being handed to an office of the Department?
Alternatively, if a married woman or a widow wishes to revoke the election which she has previously made but the employer, for whatever reason, fails to
1498
return the certificate in time, is there provision within the regulations to regard a specific request in writing to the employer as tantamount to making an election for revocation or whatever the case might be?
I have mentioned four detailed points and I appreciate that it may not be possible for the hon. Gentleman to give an immediate answer. However, they raise important issues of principle and I hope that he may in due time be able to have another close look at these matters in accordance with the points I have made.
Mr. Dean: The hon. Gentleman has asked me a number of detailed and technical points. It will be for the convenience of the House, as I did not have notice of the points he intended to raise, if I were to write to him about them. I think I have the answers to all the matters he raised but I want to be certain that the information I give to him on these extremely detailed matters is accurate. If the hon. Member agrees to that course, I think it would be the most convenient procedure.
I must apologise for a small misprint in the regulations. It appears in page 2, Regulation 2(1)(b), where it is said:
"A widow who satisfies the requirement of paragraph (4)".
That, in fact, should read "paragraph (5)".
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved.
That the Social Security (Contributions) (Married Women and Widows Special Provisions) Regulations 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 19th July, be approved.

NORTHERN IRELAND (PIG PRODUCTION LEVY)
7.33 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Mills): I beg to move,
That the Pig Production Development (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 11th July, be approved.
The purpose of the order is to amend the Pig Production Development Act (Northern Ireland) 1964 to allow a higher levy to be raised under Section 4 of the Act.

1499
The Act established the Northern Ireland Pig Production Development Committee, which consists of representatives of the Ulster Farmers' Union, the Pigs Marketing Board, the breed societies and the Ministry of Agriculture for Northern Ireland. The committee's functions are to provide services and facilities intended to benefit pig producers, to make pig production more profitable, and to encourage the genetic improvement of pigs in Northern Ireland.
In practice the committee carries out its functions by paying incentives to the owners of nucleus breeding herds to encourage them to record results in their herds and to test pigs at the Northern Ireland Pig Testing Station. It provides two-thirds of the capital costs of the testing station and 100 per cent. of the running costs. It pays incentives to encourage the dissemination of high-quality breeding stock and it is underwriting a pig artificial insemination service for a two-year trial period.
The committee meets its expenditure out of the Pig Production Development Fund established under Section 3 of the Act. The revenue raised by the levy on all pigs sold by producers to the Northern Ireland Pigs Marketing Board goes into the fund. That is the fund's only source of income.
At present the levy is fixed at five pence per pig. That is the maximum level permitted under the Act. The amount of money raised is insufficient to allow the committee to meet its present commitments and to proceed with its plans, which include the building of an extension to the pig-testing station.
The order amends the Act to allow for a levy of up to 20 pence per pig, though the intention is to raise the levy to 10 pence per pig by subordinate legislation in the first instance. The amount of additional money involved will, of course, depend on the number of pigs produced in Northern Ireland but it is likely to be in the region of £80,000 per year.
The Ulster Farmers' Union and the Pigs Marketing Board are agreeable to the Act being amended and to the levy being increased to 10 pence per pig. I think that hon. Members can rest assured that the people who will have
1500
to pay the increased levy, the pig producers of Northern Ireland, are content that they are obtaining value for their money and not getting a pig in a poke.
7.38 p.m.
Captain L. P. S. Orr: I apologise to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for the fact that I missed the opening sentences of what he had to say. None the less, I understand what the order is about. As I understand it, the objectives of the order are acceptable to everyone in Ulster. The pig producers as a whole and the farming community generally have great confidence in the present Pigs Marketing Board in Ulster and they have great confidence in what is being done in the areas which the moneys are intended to finance.
I hope that my hon. Friend will be good enough to say something About the extent of the smuggling of pigs across the border. It is a great problem. I understand that the rate was as high as 10,000 a week. It may have diminished a little since then but I understand that it is still a substantial number of pigs.
If the moneys are being paid by pig producers for the purposes of improving the Northern Ireland stock, those who smuggle across the border are to a large extent living off their fellows.
Mr. Christopher Woodhouse: Will my hon. and gallant Friend say in which direction the pigs are smuggled across the border?
Captain Orr: From north to south. Those who are paying the levy and who are not engaged in smuggling are to some extent subsidising those who are engaged in illegal activity. Will my hon. Friend say what is being done to contain that activity? Further, is there anything more that can be done to convince those who are engaged in smuggling that it is not good in the long run for the Ulster pig-producing community and for Ulster agriculture?
7.40 p.m.
Mr. David Clark (Collie Valley): 1 want to pursue the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr). The smuggling of pigs from Northern Ireland into the South is obviously affected by this order. I understand that the numbers are decreasing, and perhaps the Minister can

1501
elaborate on this. We are not, however, talking about a few pigs. At the peak, about six weeks ago, 10,000 pigs a week were mysteriously disappearing from the headquarters of the Pigs Marketing Board. We can only assume that the shortfall from 35,000 to 23,000 was caused by the smuggling which was clearly rife.
We appreciate that there are particular difficulties in Ulster at the moment. We sympathise with the police in their efforts to check the border. I understand that the livestock inspection officers supposed to look after this problem are not at full strength. Perhaps the Minister can comment on that. This is costing the EEC a great deal of money. At the peak period it would mean that £1 million a year was involved in a swindle on taxpayers in Europe because of this illicit trade. Not only that; it means, because of the number of pigs removed from the United Kingdom bacon market, that our bacon prices have risen correspondingly.
From my inquiries and from what Ministers have said I understand that the fall in the British bacon price has in some way offset this activity. I should be grateful to hear the Minister's views on this subject.
7.43 p.m.
Mr. James Kilfedder: I want to mention some of the matters raised by the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. David Clark). We have been asking Questions in the House about the smuggling of pigs from Northern Ireland into the Irish Republic for some time. The numbers have fallen, from about 10,000 a week to about 3,000 a week. It is still a sizeable figure. I was surprised, when I put it to one of the Ministers of State in the Northern Ireland Office, that I received a very brusque reply. I cannot remember his exact words but he said something to the effect that he could easily smuggle me into the Free State. I do not want to follow that line because I thought it was insulting then and I still think so. Coming from that Minister I say no more about it.
It is wrong that pigs should be smuggled into the Irish Republic, which is not taking effective preventive measures. The Republic benefits from this trade. This is a benefit from the
1502
Common Market Commission. 1 know that my hon. Friend will try his best to see that this is put right. It is not only a question of defrauding the Common Market Commission, and we have heard a good deal about frauds there, but it is also unfair to the other pig producers in Northern Ireland. It further means that the price of bacon and pork products in Northern Ireland is increased. This is hard on the housewife, especially at a time of rising prices. With those observations I welcome the order.
7.45 p.m.
Mr. Peter Mills: I shall try to keep strictly within the rules of order in replying to some of the points that have been raised. I cannot stray as far as some hon. Members did, much as I would like to. I am glad that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) welcomes the order. I am sure he is right and that it will be of benefit to the Northern Ireland pig industry. He referred to the smuggling problem. When we have the sort of border which exists between the North and South in Ireland it is highly tempting, to say the least, for farmers to get their pigs across the border if they can obtain £2 or £3 more per pig. I am glad to say that the smuggling has diminished considerably.
My hon. and gallant Friend has raised an important point in referring to the question of fairness. A large number of pig farmers in Northern Ireland are paying the levy, thereby contributing to the work which the committee does in pig testing and producing a better type of pig for the benefit of the whole Province. Yet at the height of the smuggling it could be said that perhaps 10,000 to 12,000 pigs were being smuggled and the farmers were getting all the benefits but not paying the levy to the committee. These farmers are not playing fair.
It is important that Northern Ireland should keep all the pigs that it can so that we may have full employment in our meat and processing factories for the benefit of everyone. If the farmers enjoy the benefits of these schemes to improve the pigs, which are so important to Northern Ireland as a pigmeat exporting country, they must also pay the levy. It is difficult to contain the problem in present circumstances because the police

1503
and security forces are dealing with other sorts of problems. Dealing with terrorists is their first priority, but I am certain that when things get quieter they will turn their attention to this.
Mr. Peter Archer: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether discussions have been held with the Government of the South?
Mr. Mills: That is so. The Government of the South are just as anxious as we are to see that smuggling does not continue.
Mr. Woodhouse: It is probably within the recollection of my hon. Friend that, when we had foot-and-mouth disease in this country, the authorities in Southern Ireland found no difficulty at all in preventing cattle moving across the border from the North.
Mr. Mills: That may be so but I can assure my hon. Friend that the border is very difficult to define. Some farmers have some of their fields in the South and some in the North. It is not as easy as it seems. I must correct my hon. and gallant Friend when he said that this smuggling was only one way. I am not saying that there is smuggling to the North, but there are certainly cattle and pig movements to the North.
Captain Orr: Will my hon. Friend say precisely what is the incentive which leads to this problem?
Mr. Mills: It is fairly simple. The South went for high food prices as soon as it entered the Common Market. Therefore, the curers and pig dealers were able to pay a much higher price in the South. There were other problems concerning compensatory amounts too. I do net want the House to hold me to this figure, but at one stage there was a difference of approximately £4 per pig. Dealers were able to tempt farmers in Northern Ireland with an extra £4 a pig. Things have altered considerably and it is balancing out now. As the transitional period goes on and prices level out, I hope that the smuggling will be reduced to zero.
The hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) has left the Chamber. He was upset by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, but he must accept that
1504
my hon. Friend's recent remarks were a joke. He was not being rude.
I commend the order to the House. It will be of great benefit to the pig farmers of Northern Ireland.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Pig Production Development (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 11th July, be approved.

NORTHERN IRELAND (MR. SPEAKER NEILL'S RETIREMENT)
7.51 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Mills): I beg to move,
That the Mr. Speaker Neill's Retirement (Northern Ireland) Order 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 16th July, be approved.
The purpose of the order is to provide an annuity for the former Speaker of the Northern Ireland House of Commons, who retired on 31st March. Hon. Members will recall that until the Parliamentary and Other Pensions Act 1972 established a framework for the award of pensions to retiring Speakers of this House it was necessary to introduce legislation in each case, so that over the years there was a series of individual Acts dealing with pensions for individual Speakers. The 1972 Act provides that in future a retiring Speaker shall receive a pension amounting to half his salary at the time he retires, and no further legislation will be required to meet individual cases.
In Northern Ireland, however, there is no parallel to the 1972 Act and legislation is still required to provide a superannuation award for a retiring Speaker.
Of the three previous Speakers of the Northern Ireland House of Commons, only the third received such an award. This was Mr. Speaker Stronge, who was granted an annuity of £1,500 a year in addition to his Member's pension by Mr. Speaker Stronge's Retirement Act (Northern Ireland) 1969. Under the Act he was permitted to draw his Member's pension, instead of having his contributions to the Members' Pension Fund refunded, and this was taken into account in fixing the level of the annuity at one-third of his salary.

1505
It is proposed to retain this formula in calculating the pension for Mr. Speaker Neill but, since the Northern Ireland Speaker's salary was fixed in April 1965 and has not been increased since, it seems only equitable to increase the amount of the pension by the amount by which a pension commencing in April 1965 would have been increased under pensions increase legislation since that date. This would give Mr. Speaker Neill a pension of £2,260, in addition to his pension of £665 as a Member of the Northern Ireland House of Commons.
It is intended that regulations by the Ministry of Finance under Sections 5(2) and 14 of the Pensions (Increase) Act (Northern Ireland) 1971 will provide for future pensions increases under that Act to apply to the annuity proposed to be granted to Mr. Speaker Neill under the order.
It is right and proper to recognise Mr. Speaker Neill's service in this way.
7.54 p.m.
Mr. Peter Archer: The Opposition would like to seize the opportunity of paying tribute to a distinguished Speaker. Mr. Speaker Neill has deserved well of the community, and we wish him a long and happy retirement.
It is never easy to find a worthy successor to a distinguished Speaker, but we regret the difficulty being experienced in that quest. It is important that the Assembly should begin to function effectively as quickly as possible.
This is the 49th piece of legislation concerning Northern Ireland, if we include Bills and orders, which we have debated in the Chamber since the passing of the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act, and later tonight we shall debate the 50th.
Perhaps it is an appropriate moment to celebrate our half-century by rising for the Summer Recess. We would, however, do so with lighter hearts if we felt that the new Assembly was in a position rapidly to seize the challenge and the opportunities. Much of the legislation we have discussed would have been more appropriately handled in the Province. We wish to see Irish Members debating Irish questions.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition suggested that if a form of
1506
Executive could be agreed upon quickly we should not begrudge being recalled from our holidays to consider a possible order activating Part II of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act.
In paying our tribute to Mr. Speaker Neill we acknowledge the passing of an era while welcoming a new era, with its opportunities. It would be tragic if those opportunities were allowed to be wasted.
7.57 p.m.
Mr. James Molyneaux: I join in the tribute paid to Mr. Speaker Neil and his predecessors by the hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer). Northern Ireland has been fortunate to have a man of such outstanding ability to perform that task. The decision to abolish Stormont was, in a way a concession to the terrorists in the hope that such a gesture would isolate the moderate Catholics from the IRA. It was reasoned that to concede to the terrorists would, somehow, isolate them. It is not a belief to which I have subscribed. In retrospect it can be seen to have failed.
At a time when it looks as if the wisdom of Solomon may be needed to find a successor to Mr. Speaker Neill in the new Assembly, what will happen when the Assembly comes to consider matters of real substance if it finds it so difficult to push a reluctant successor to the Floor to accept the post? I confess that my fears have been reinforced as to the credibility and the viability of the whole structure when it comes to a real test of matters of policy. Because of these fears it would have been better timing to leave the order until after the recess. We might have been in a better position then to judge the situation of the new Assembly.
Mr. Peter Mills: I thank the hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer) for welcoming the order and for his tribute to Mr. Speaker Neill. Certainly Mr. Speaker Neill had a difficult period in office.
I add my tribute to those offered in the House for the wise and careful role that Mr. Speaker Neill has played over the years. The hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton mentioned the difficulty of finding a presiding officer. I must correct him—it is not a Speaker but a presiding officer.
Mr. Peter Archer: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary but the words I used were "worthy successor".
Mr. Mills: I apologise—the "worthy successor" is called a presiding officer. We must have patience in this matter. It is important to get the right man to carry out this difficult task. There are considerable discussions going on between the various parties. But it is important to get a presiding officer, and I am sure that that will become a reality soon.
My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) also paid tribute to Mr. Speaker Neill. My hon. Friend probably knows more about him than most of us here, and we must take my hon. Friend's words into account. However, I had better not stray into any other path on that other than to say that it is important for the House to agree to this order so that Mr. Speaker Neill can have his well-earned pension.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Mr. Speaker Neill's Retirement (Northern Ireland) Order 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 16th July, be approved.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (TREATIES)
8.0 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Anthony Royle): I beg to move,
That the European Communities (Definition of Treaties) Order 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 16th July, be approved.
Included in the schedule to the order is, first, an ECSC agreement with Norway. It was signed on 14th May 1973 and the text was laid before Parliament in June as Command 5347. It will come into effect on the first day of the second month following notification by the contracting parties that procedures necessary to this end have been completed. The conclusion of the parliamentary and Privy Council procedures in relation to the proposed Order in Council will enable formal notification to be made by this country.
Two decisions of the representatives of Governments of the member States of
1508
the European Coal and Steel Community establishing supervision of imports of certain products originating in Austria and Sweden are included in the schedule to the order. Texts of the decisions are contained in the Official Journal of the European Communities, Volume 16, Number L59, dated 5th February 1973, which is available to Members in the House.
The last three items in the schedule relate to exchanges of letters between the head of the United Kingdom delegation to the European Communities and the heads of the Austrian, Swiss and Swedish delegations concerning duty-free quotas of paper products. These exchanges took place on 22nd July 1972, with the exception that the acknowledgment from the Swiss delegation is dated 22nd August 1972. These exchanges are shown in Command Papers 5159, 5180 and 5181 which were laid before Parliament in December 1972.
The matters dealt with in this order are uncontentious. They should not give the House cause for difficulty. The draft Order in Council follows the precedent set in December last and, as on that occasion, the terms of Section 1(3). There is no doubt that all six items listed in the schedule are new treaties within the scope of that section.
8.3 p.m.
Mr. Christopher Woodhouse: All the other orders which the House has had or will have before it this evening have one feature in common: that this House has the power either to accept them or to reject them. I should like an assurance from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that the same is true of this order. I am not saying for one moment that this House should exercise its power to reject the order, assuming that it has such a power.
I ask the question not because I have any objection to the six agreements listed in the schedule. In the light of my hon. Friend's explanation, they all seem to be unexceptionable. The countries and Governments with which they have been contracted are countries and Governments with which we can have no possible quarrel. Suppose, however, that one of the six were to be objectionable. Would it he possible for us to detach it from the rest, or should we have to reject the

1509
whole lot? Even more important, could we reject the whole lot? What would happen if we purported to do so?
This is not an imaginary hypothesis. We might be confronted with an order containing five unexceptionable agreements and one with, say, Portugal or Spain which the Opposition might wish to reject, or one with the Greek military dictatorship which I might want to reject—unless in the meantime my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary had acted upon my proposal to suspend negotiations for the adherence of the United Kingdom to a treaty of association between the EEC and Greece until democratic institutions had been restored in Greece.
Therefore, seriously and not merely hypothetically, I ask my hon. Friend for a definition of the powers of this House in such cases as I envisage. Have we the power to reject such orders? If we have not, what is the point of the motion which my hon. Friend has just moved? If we have the power to reject orders and if we do so, what happens then?
8.7 p.m.
Mr. Royle: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Woodhouse) for raising an important point which probably gives concern to other hon. Members who cannot be here today.
Of course this House has the power to reject the order. What it does not have the power to do is to alter the order in respect of individual agreements.
I understand that my hon. Friend is concerned about the possibility of an order affecting Greece coming before the House. Of course this does not arise on the present order. However, my hon. Friend might like to know that a protocol adapting the agreement with Turkey to suit the circumstances of the enlarged Community was signed on 30th June and that we expect to include it in the next Order in Council under Section 1(3). The corresponding adaptation protocol in regard to Greece is still under negotiation.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the European Communities (Definition of Treaties) Order 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 16th July, be approved.

WELSH NATIONAL WATER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
8.8 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Thomas): I beg to move,
That the Welsh National Water Development Authority (Establishment and Constitution) Order 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 19th July, be approved.
Section 2 of the Water Act 1973 provides for the establishment of the Welsh National Water Development Authority to carry out the functions conferred upon it by Part II of the Act.
Section 2(4) of the Act provides that the Welsh Authority shall be established by order, and Section 3(10) that the constitution of the Welsh Authority shall be prescribed in that order, which shall be laid in draft before, and approved by resolution of, each House. That section also requires me to lay the draft of the order not later than one month after the passing of the Act.
As right hon. and hon. Members are aware, the Water Act 1973 received Royal Assent on 18th July, and the draft of the order was laid on 19th July.
The Welsh Authority has a great deal of preparatory work to do before assuming responsibility for its functions on 1st April 1974. I have therefore provided that it shall come into existence on 6th August 1973. Its constitution is prescribed in Article 4 of the draft order. This is an interim constitution. The constitution will not be finally determined until the Government have given full consideration to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Constitution.
Accordingly I have provided in Article 4(1) that the constitution specified shall have effect only until 31st May 1977. Before that date a further draft order prescribing a substantive constitution will be laid.
During the passage of the Bill I undertook, in formulating an interim constitution, to have regard to Parliament's decisions about the constitution of the English regional water authorities. In particular I undertook to provide for a majority of local authority membership if this was so decided for the regional water authorities. The Act provides that there shall be such a majority.

1511
This undertaking is fulfilled by the provisions of Article 4(1). I have borne in mind the feelings expressed during debate that it should be a workable majority, and the draft order provides this.
Article 4(1) also requires that 1 shall appoint the chairman of the authority and that there shall be 34 other members. As I have already told the House, it is my intention to appoint Lord Brecon as chairman. His wide experience will be a great asset to the authority. Of the 34 members, 20 will be appointed by local authorities and 14 by Ministers
I am sure that with the constitution provided the Welsh authority will be able to carry out, with proper regard to all the interests concerned, the efficient management of water in Wales. Therefore, I ask the House to approve that the order as drafted be made.
8.10 p.m.
Mr. George Thomas: I want, first, to register a very strong protest at the fact that we are discussing this order in reference to an Act that is not yet in print and available for the House. The Government have been in such a stampeding hurry in this matter that we had to try to remember the amendments proposed in another place which have a bearing on the order.
I want, secondly, to register a protest at the fact that a major order of this sort, in which all Wales is deeply interested, has been brought forward at such a stage in the business of the House. There ought to have been opportunity for a full day's debate on this major topic which causes considerable feeling throughout the Principality.
We do not like the order. It will not last for long. The order undermines local government in the Principality. It takes away responsibilities from elected local government and hands them over to 14 people nominated by Ministers and another 18 from Wales in local government and four from outside.
Responsibility for sewerage and water has been undertaken for a long period in the Principality by our local authorities. It is a very sad commentary on the Government's attitude to local government that at a time when we are creating larger local government units
1512
the Government seek to take away from local government powers that it has hitherto carried out very effectively.
This order is another contribution by the Government to the inflation that is persecuting our country at present. Not content with forcing up the cost of our food and our homes, now even the water that we drink is to cost more for the Welsh people. Already the people of Montgomeryshire, according to a report in the Western Mail, have been told that they can look forward to a sharp increase in the cost of their water supply. This order creates a bureaucracy that will be highly expensive for the people of Wales.
On an earlier occasion the Minister for Local Government and Development told us that the Government sought
"not to bind the authorities with unnecessary statutory obligations but merely to lay down general guide lines and general rules"— [OFFICIAL REPORT. 2nd May 1973, Vol. 855. c. 1261.]
The Secretary of State will have no other control over the price of the water that this national board can charge. On 2nd May the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment said
"The cost of water, even if it were to be charged by volume, is infinitesimally small compared with the cost of heating it before it is used or buying and running a washing machine in which it is processed.—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 2nd May 1973. Vol. 855, c. 1279.]
But the people of Wales have only to wait. The cost of our water will escalate rapidly.
Perhaps the Secretary of State will be able to give us an estimate of what this order will cost the people of Wales in, first, the bureaucratic machinery that he is setting up and, secondly, the replacement of voluntary service by the payment that has to be made. What estimate has the Secretary of State made of the likely increase when the Welsh National Water Development Authority goes ahead with the metering of water supplies in Wales? Am I right in assuming that under the order the Secretary of State is giving the all-clear to the authority to introduce a meter charge at a time to suit itself? Is he telling the families in Wales that they will have to pay much more through a metering system and that the authority will decide when that will be introduced and how much it shall charge?

1513
Water charges in Wales today fall on the water rate. People are able to talk to their elected representatives who serve on the joint water boards. But this monstrosity which the Secretary of State is creating is beyond the reach of the people. We shall have bureaucrats able to impose charges on people without the people being able to shift them if they dislike them or feel that they are not conducting their business properly.
Hitherto, water, like the air we breathe. has been treated differently from any other commodity. Under this order the Secretary of State reverses everything that has gone before.
In Committee it was decided that the chairman of the water authority should be elected by his fellow members. The Government were agitated about that. They brought the matter to the Floor of the House. Right hon. and hon. Members who had not heard a word of the argument trooped through the Lobbies to reverse the decision and to ensure that the chairman should be a creature of the Secretary of State, his nominee, paid by him—I beg his pardon—paid by the people of Wales. who have to pay through their charges for water, but answerable to the Secretary of State.
We wondered on this side why the Government were so fiercely resisting the right of their own board to appoint its own chairman. There was obviously good reason why the Government could not trust the board to choose a responsible person, and they reversed the decision. Now we know why the Government were so agitated.
The Secretary of State paid high tribute to his noble Friend Lord Brecon. The Secretary of State has resolved to give this lucrative appointment to a safe place-man. No one would be less likely to put up a fight for Welsh interests against the Secretary of State than his noble Friend the former Minister for Welsh Affairs. There will be no tough resistance from that quarter. He has top job. All the main influence will be in the hands of Lord Brecon who is known to be a loyal and dedicated supporter of the Government and the Conservative Party.
The order, if it is approved, will ensure that the Secretary of State will always be able to rely on getting his own way so far as the Water Authority in Wales
1514
is concerned. The Welsh National Water Development Authority will be no more than a ventriloquist's doll. It should be renamed. It should not be called the Welsh National Water Development Authority. It ought to be called the Welsh Office Water Authority, for the Secretary of State might as well have taken the chair himself as appoint a former Minister who everyone knows is entirely loyal to the Conservative Party. In any case this is not a Welsh National Water Development Authority. It is a hybrid authority, for Cheshire, Herefordshire and Worcestershire are all members of it. This makes a nonsense of the title.
Does the Secretary of State realise that in defining, in the order, the area which the water authority will cover he is cutting out a very important part of the water supplying areas of Wales? Mid-Wales, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, produces a major proportion of our water, but I gather that as it is not included in the order, as far as I can see, as being the responsibility of the Welsh national authority, it comes under the Severn Authority, and will be controlled from Lincolnshire. The Secretary of State knows as well as I do that there is deep feeling about this.
The Secretary of State has set about this in the wrong way. We do not like the idea of these bureaucrats nominated by the Minister, these faceless creatures whom the Welsh people will be unable to move, even if they do not like them.
As the Government are able to get their own way and to establish this authority, I would have thought that the Secretary of State would lean over backwards to ensure that the authority has a good beginning. But it cannot have a good beginning with the way he has set about it. He referred to the Kilbrandon Commission, which we used to call the Crowther Commission until the unfortunate early death of Lord Crowther. No matter what that Commission reports, the Oppositon are determined to establish an elected council for Wales. Water will be one of the responsibilites of that elected council, so we shall restore to the Welsh people the right to control one of the major resources with which the Almighty has blessed that country.
8.25 p.m.
Mr. Peter Thomas: The right hon. Gentleman has asked me one or two questions and made one or two points which I should try to answer.
First, I appreciate that it is inconvenient, when an Act of Parliament is referred to in an order, if that Act is not in print. I am happy to say, however, knowing the right hon. Gentleman's interest in this subject, that he was well versed in the Bill which came out of the Committee, and all the relevant sections of the Act which I referred to are the same as they were in the Bill as amended by the Committee, and the Bill is in the Vote Office.
The right hon. Gentleman suggested that one was stampeding this order through in a hurry. I agree that the Welsh Water Authority will not assume responsibility for its functions before 1st April 1974, but it will need to undertake a great deal of preparatory work as a matter of some urgency. For instance, it will need to get on with the important task of appointing its chief officers. I am sure that it would not be the wish that we should lag behind the regional water authorities in England. That is why it is provided in Article I of the order that the authority shall come into operation on 6th August.
Mr. George Thomas: Since it is to come into operation within a forthnight the right hon. and learned Gentleman has, clearly, appointed the people. He knows the names of those who will serve. I realise that they have received letters from him. That is common knowledge in Wales. Will he be kind enough to tell the House the people whom he has appointed to start their duties on 6th August? Or is he waiting till the House goes down for the recess before he announces the names?
Mr. Peter Thomas: It surprises me that this is common knowledge in Wales because, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman, I have written no letters asking anyone. The right hon. Gentleman will see that by Article 4(1) of the order there will be 34 members apart from the chairman. Of those, 20 will be appointed by the local authorities: 14 will be appointed by Ministers, 10 by me and four jointly by me and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Therefore, there will be 20 local authority
1516
members and 14 members appointed by Ministers.
I have asked the local authorities to send in their nominations. Some of them have, but many have not yet.
I have not written, neither has my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture jointly with me, to any nominated members.
I shall appoint 10 members who appear to me to have had experience of or shown capacity in some matter relevant to the functions of water authorities. I would hope to include people with experience in manufacturing industry, management and finance, labour relations, recreation and amenity, applied science, and consumer affairs. To get the right people for the job I have asked various bodies, including the TUC and CBI, to suggest to me the names of people they would consider to be suitable, and I have no doubt from the way they have responded—this is probably where the confusion lies, since they have responded to my request that I shall be able to appoint people who can make a very useful contribution to the management of water in Wales.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and I acting jointly will appoint four members who appear to us to have had experience of and shown capacity in agriculture, land drainage, or fisheries.
I cannot understand why the right hon. Gentleman referred to this as bureaucratic machinery when there is a working majority of local authority representatives, which was what in committee was asked for and which I promised I would have in Wales in order to follow the regional water authorities in England.
As to the election of the chairman I think I would be out of order if I were to engage in either condoning or criticising, as the right hon. Gentleman did, the provisions of the parent Act out of which this order comes. All I can say is that the right hon. Gentleman is about the only person in Wales who has ever suggested that Lord Brecon who will be appointed chairman is other than admirable for the job. When I announced my intention to appoint him the announcement received widespread acclamation throughout Wales.
The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned metering. He knows that the

1517
authority when it is set up, together with the regional water authorities for England, has the discretionary power to introduce metering. Whether it can be democratically introduced depends on the views of the majority of the local authority members on the authority. I am sure that with the constitution provided in this order the Welsh authority established by it will be able to carry out efficiently and with proper regard to all concerned the management of water in Wales. I hope that the House will approve the order.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved.
That the Welsh National Water Development Authority (Establishment and Constitution) Order 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 19th July, be approved.

BUILDING (NOISE INSULATION REGULATIONS)
8.32 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Keith Speed): I beg to move, That the Noise Insulation Regulations 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 16th July, be approved.
During this parliamentary Session we have made progress towards securing a better balance between the provision of important transportation developments which benefit the whole community and the protection of the environment and of individuals against the adverse effects which such developments can cause.
The Government's White Paper "Development and Compensation, Putting People First", published in October of last year, outlined a new approach to the planning of major public developments and the compensation to which people could be entitled.
Allied to this White Paper was the publication of the report of the Urban Motorways Committee "New Roads in Towns", the conclusions of which were generally accepted by the Government. Since then we have seen the Land Compensation Act which gives effect to the proposals in our White Paper and which was welcomed on both sides of the House and has now become law. These noise insulation regulations made under Section 20 of that Act and relating to noise from new or improved highways carry the process one stage further.
1518
However, I would not like the regulations to be taken out of context. They must be seen as part of our total approach aimed at reducing noise and other forms of pollution at source; at separating people from pollution by environmental planning; and at alleviating nuisance by improved design and remedial action. The provision of sound insulation in the future is a form of remedial action which comes into play where the total planning and design approach has not proved sufficient in containing noise from highways. The final stage in the process is, of course, injurious affection compensation which is now provided for under Part of the Land Compensation Act 1973.
Irrespective of the future, the need for sound insulation certainly exists in relation to some schemes designed before the new Urban Motorways Committee approach took effect.
We cannot go back and provide sound insulation along all roads opened in the past; the cost with a level of entitlement at 68dB(A) would be about £1,000 million and considerably more if we had a lower noise level figure. What we have done is to take the exceptional step and go back to 17th October 1969, three years before the publication of our White Paper. This is the same retrospective period applied by the injurious affection provisions of Part I of the Land Compensation Act.
Thus, whenever a new road was opened or an existing road was altered on or after that date and the resultant traffic noise affecting dwellings and other residential accommodation exceeds a specified level, highway authorities will be able to offer sound insulation under Regulation 4. In relation to roads and new carriageways opened after 16th October 1972 authorities will be obliged to offer it tinder Regulation 3.
My Department will generally operate the discretionary power in relation to trunk roads opened between October 1969 and October 1972 as though that discretionary power was mandatory. I want to emphasise this because certain Press reports have suggested that we shall be taking no action along the M6 at Birmingham, for example. That is not correct. Consultants are already preparing the noise map that will identify those properties eligible for treatment in

1519
the Birmingham area. It is, of course, up to local authorities how they use the discretionary powers around these roads for which they are responsible. I turn now to the" specified level"—Regulation 2(1)—at which entitlement arises. The level we have adopted is 68dB(A) on the L10–18 hour—scale.
I do not want to go into great technical details but the L10–18 hour—index represents the average of the levels of noise exceeded for 10 per cent. of the time during each hour between 6 a.m. and midnight on any normal working day. This index has been shown to provide a meaningful correlation with social response and this noise level has the great advantage that it can usually be predicted. Thus it is possible to identify those dwellings that will be eligible and enable authorities to install sound insulation in time to mitigate construction nuisance.
Why have we adopted the 68 dB(A) level? The Noise Advisory Council recommended that existing residential development should not be subjected to more than 70 dB(A). It stressed, however, that this represented the limit of the acceptable. The Urban Motorways Committee supported this view.
In adopting the level of 68 dB(A) we have recognised those views. Furthermore, the regulations allow an authority to sound-insulate dwellings below this qualifying level if they are part of a building of which some other part is exposed to this level of noise. This will help to avoid leaving, for instance, one house in a terrace uninsulated because, strictly speaking, it was judged to be slightly under the qualifying noise level. A commonsense, flexible approach is needed.
The Government accept the recommendation of the Urban Motorways Committee that this level should be kept under review. We have instituted a comprehensive survey of public attitudes to noise and it may well be that when we have the results we shall think it right to make changes. At present, however, when there are many competing demands on limited resources for improved environmental quality, there is insufficient justification to prescribe a definitive standard lower than 68 dB(A).
1520
Indeed, since traffic noise at the opening of a road can be 3 dB(A) below that experienced when the road is used to its design capacity, entitlement could arise when the actual level experienced is only 65 dB(A).
Schedule 1(4), which describes the technical approach to be used in predicting or measuring noise, also requires the calculations to be rounded up to the nearest whole decibel.
Schedule 2 to the regulations may appear complicated but it provides a package treatment for dwellings capable of reducing internal noise levels by about 35 dB(A) from that experienced outside. Since the apparent loudness of noise doubles every 10 dB(A), this is a significant reduction. Trials have been carried out in a flat kindly lent by Birmingham Corporation in which officials of my Department's Building Research Establishment have installed insulation to the specification outlined in this schedule and such an attenuation of 35 dB(A) was measured. To put it in a different way, the flat is about 20 to 25 metres from the M6 motorway and the effect of putting in this double glazing with ventilation, and so on, is equivalent to moving the flat to over 500 metres from it. That shows what a considerable reduction in noise this achieves.
Perhaps I should explain that, to be effective, sound insulation requires windows to be kept shut, and this will restrict airflow and influence indoor temperature. Hence, supplementary ventilation is necessary, but the ventilator units must not allow the noise to penetrate; otherwise, there is no benefit.
Manufacturers have been made aware of our proposals and at recent meetings with officials they have expressed a keen desire to produce the goods. I would add that, as the ventilator units must contain a filter, the worst effects of dust should be excluded. This could be particularly important during the construction stage of roads. While such ventilation will be sufficient for normal conditions, overheating might still result in southerly facing rooms. Research work has shown that the best way of reducing this is to insert venetian blinds between the panes of double glazing, which was done at Douglas House.

1521
The Agrement Board will certify that the ventilator units meet the specifications and will seek assurances as to continued quality control. The specifications have been discussed with such bodies as the British Gas Corporation and have been approved by them.
The regulations prescribe the procedure and the time limits within which offers have to be made and accepted. The highway authority is required under Regulation 8 to offer sound insulation to owners and occupiers. I believe this is important.
Residents, whether owner-occupiers or tenants, do not have to find out how to claim sound insulation. They are offered it. Nor need they pay anything. The reasonable cost limits which will be applied under Regulation 11 and which can be adjusted to take account of current prices will enable the highway authority to provide the necessary insulation at its own expense. Residents could, however, make private arrangements to have the work carried out and claim grant. I expect the annual cost of insulation to be about £5 million with an additional nonrecurring expenditure of £10 million for schemes opened since October 1969. Local authority expenditure will be eligible for grant within the normal framework of the grant rules.
Regulation 6 prescribes that authorities shall produce a map or list identifying the dwellings which are to be treated, and I urge them to do this and make their offer wherever they can before construction commences. This will not only enable buildings to be insulated against construction noise, but the map would also help in assessing the impact of new highway development.
Regulation 5 provides a special power for authorities to insulate dwellings which will be severely affected for a substantial period of time by noise from construction works, even though this may not be maintained once the road comes into use. One local social survey conducted on behalf of the Urban Motorways Committee showed that nearly half of those questioned considered the construction period produced effects worse than those after the road was opened. I am sure that hon. Members, from their own experience, will agree with that. This power is an alternative to temporary
1522
reaccommodation or acquisition by agreement under Part II of the Land Compensation Act.
The regulations are intended to come into operation on 1st September, but we shall not wait till then to start work. Circulars and an explanatory booklet which will be made available to qualifying residents are in hand, and I mentioned earlier the preparatory calculations being undertaken in Birmingham that will enable an early start to be made in that area.
I have mentioned some of the most important features of the regulations. To the best of our knowledge, this scheme is unique in its extent and application. No other country imposes such obligations on its highway authorities. We are therefore breaking new ground and, as with all such innovations, only time will show whether changes are necessary. I have already stressed that the level of entitlement, the technical specifications in Schedule 1 and 2 and the cost levels will be kept under review. I believe that the regulations arc a major environmental step forward and will enable us to deal quickly and effectively with the cases needing priority attention.
8.43 p.m.
Mr. J. R. Kinsey: My hon. Friend the Minister has gone quite a long way to reassure me and the people in my constituency who are affected by the M6-M5 link. I thought that his halo was slipping when I read the reports in the local Press. We have given him rather saintly qualities. We thought he was a saviour in helping people who were experiencing noise nuisance after the new motorway was built.
I welcome my hon. Friend's assurance that the compensation provision still stands. The reason for the concern of local people is the report which appeared in the newspapers. They know that from October 1972 highway authorities were obliged to compensate them, but they were concerned about the three-year period from October 1969 to 1972. Local authorities have a discretion under the statutory instrument. However, we thought that it would be a great improvement if "may" in paragraph 4 on page 5 were altered to "will". In the circumstances, we are unable to amend an

1523
order and it was thus reported in the Birmingham Evening Mail as a discretion on the part of local authorities whether to pay this. That has caused great concern in the area. How badly the people in the district felt was shown when Mrs. Robinson, of Parkwood Croft, which is very close to the motorway, immediately wrote to the Prime Minister as follows:
"With the M6 only 53 feet from our front window I am sure that no one would want to buy our property. It is true that the Government have tried to help the noise problem by erecting a barrier to try to reduce it. We have heard from Keith Speed that this is supposed to have reduced the noise by eight decibels, but I would like to know from where these noise readings were taken, certainly not from our bedrooms which are on the same level as the motorway and are affected the most. Now another bomb shell has fallen on our lives. We have read in the Birmingham Mail that soundproofing measures for which we have pioneered and fought cannot affect us and we are to be excluded from the new regulations that come into force on September 1st."
In her final paragraph Mrs. Robinson said:
"I implore you that when the new regulations are debated next week in the House of Commons please, please allow them to include us."
That is a plea that affects many of the thrifty people in the area who cannot open their windows at night along the motorway because of the noise nuisance that penetrates their homes, even with the barriers. Mrs. Robinson makes the point in her letter to the Prime Minister that her children, who have sweltered in the warm summer we have had, have not been able to open the windows to cool down the rooms because of that nuisance.
In the circumstances, there should be no doubt about people's rights to compensation. The Minister agrees, and I am pleased to have his assurances, that these are practically mandatory in the regulations. These people are entitled to compensation and they should be considered. They are entitled because they are still being affected, despite the test barriers. Although we welcome the barriers in the area, the proximity to the houses in certain instances actually provides privacy to the houses. That factor was never considered when the barriers were erected. Only the noise level was considered.
Another side effect has been to stop papers from coming into the roads and
1524
front gardens. But the noise at times is almost as bad as it was previously. I welcome my hon. Friend's letter in which he told me recently about the way in which the Government were relying on reducing noise levels in my constituency. I am grateful that he should choose Perry Barr to be the area where the test barriers were put up as a forerunner for the rest of the nation. At the same time as in certain areas the Government have provided help in the gardens, the question must be asked: if people are entitled to the barriers, are they not also entitled to double glazing?
I have mentioned Parkwood Croft, but equally affected are parts of my constituency with houses along Grindleford Road, Hathersay Road and Thornbridge Avenue and many others. The people want double glazing not because they want to jump on the bandwagon but because it is important to the enjoyment of their homes. Again, as Mrs. Robinson said, the noise is at bedroom level. That level gets most of the noise. Although the barriers disperse noise at a lower level, it is not always taken over the facades of the bedrooms of the houses.
My hon. Friend spoke of 6 am till midnight as the testing period, but most of the complaints we receive concern the night. Will the Minister consider another formula that would apply at a lower level than 68 dB(A) from midnight till 6 am? Invariably, all the people in the area quote the magic hour of 4 am as the time when everyone living along the motorway seems to be awakened as though by a giant alarm clock when the motorway traffic speeds up again.
If the occupants do not like the new noises by which they are affected in their homes, and if that noise is below 68 dB(A), can they apply for compensation to move, and get it? Do they have to be pestered with a 68 dB(A) level? We in Birmingham thought that the level should be 65. I know the Minister put it at 70 originally but, although we were pleased to have a reduction of 2 dB(A), there is still a feeling that it should be down to 65 dB(A).
On occasions in the House, as we all know, the quality of noise can change, depending on who is making the noise and what sort of noise it is. When tests are taken, are they carried out at times when prevailing winds might be driving

1525
the noise into people's properties, or on other occasions when the wind is taking the noise in another direction and someone else is being bothered? Is the motorway noise to be tested during a rainy period—rain makes a difference—when the noise of tyres seems to reach a different pitch?
It is strange that in the still of the evening the noise seems to hang in an area and the types of vehicles using the motorway make a difference, despite the 68 dB(A) limit. If it is in the night when the vehicles provide this startling tone to wake one, there is then the problem of getting back to sleep when one is not in a drowsy state. All these factors should be considered.
If people's claims are turned down by the highway authorities, is there any right of appeal? Will an appeal be proposed? How long will it be before the efficiency of the proposals can be tested on behalf of the local residents? 1st September is the commencement date, but when do the workmen start moving in? That is what the people in the area want to know. If they are entitled, when will they have the men in to do the job? The matter is most urgent to those affected.
On page 8. under the heading
"Buildings to which these regulations apply"
the regulations specify
"dwellings, and other buildings used for residential purposes".
A school in the area is badly affected. Do the regulations cover a school, or is it exempt? If it is exempt, will it be brought in under another form of regulation?
Paragraph 9(2), on page 11, says that work cannot be carried out on a room where there is installed any flueless combustion appliance other than a gas cooker, unless there will be in that room after completion of the insulation work an uninsulated window capable of being opened. Who provides the uninsulated window or, if it is not possible to put in an uninsulated window because of the noise factor affecting it, are the Government prepared to have some other form of heating put in? The motorway is the cause and, again, the onus should not be on the residents to prove it.
1526
Paragraph 11 of the regulation states that
"the actual cost incurred by the claimant or the reasonable cost which would have been incurred by the highway authority".
There are different standards in homes. If somebody has taken the trouble to install exceptionally good woodwork and fittings, is that cost to be ignored in bringing the double-glazing into tone with that cost, or will a reasonable figure be applied that leaves the resident to spend an extra amount to restore his home to the previous standard?
I am sorry to have given my hon. Friend such details and to appear as though I am carping. I am here to protect the interests of my constituents, and they are worried. We realise that there was no previous legislation, because we have been trying for this since the inception of the motorway. We have, however, welcomed the Government's proposals and the retrospective legislation which has given my hon. Friend such a saintly quality in the area. But those who were hopeful have now had cause for doubt. May I ask my hon. Friend whether he is really restoring their trust in him?
8.56 p.m.
Mr. Speed: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Bar (Mr. Kinsey) for the various questions he has asked. I know the considerable difficulties his constituents and other constituents in north and east Birmingham have had as a result of the M6 motorway and I know of the considerable amount of work my hon. Friend has done on behalf of his constituents in making constant and proper representations to myself and my right hon. Friends.
I recall a large meeting we had in my hon. Friend's constituency not long ago at which I explained the regulations. I hope I am now restored to the celestial station that my hon. Friend assigned to me earlier, because I have said on many occasions that, although there was the discretionary power extending back to October 1969—this will be maintained for local authorities—the Government, namely, the Department of the Environment as highway authority, regard this as mandatory for its schemes. I am sorry that there were people, including constituents of my hon. Friend, who were

1527
misled and obviously worried by inaccurate Press reports. If the Press had bothered to check with me, they would have obtained an answer very quickly at that time.
My hon. Friend mentioned the question of barriers. I stress that the barriers in his constituency are experimental. Measurements have been taken from a number of different areas. This raises a problem because, as my hon. Friend knows, barriers do not attenuate sound in the same way as double glazing—nothing like as much; probably something between 8 and 12 decibels. Nevertheless, a barrier has the advantage, as my hon. Friend said, that it gives some privacy to certain houses. It induces lower noise levels in gardens, and this may be important where people want to sit, or children play.
On the other hand, with barriers there are the aesthetic problems. Not everybody likes the sight of a barrier, and this can be something people object to. There are maintenance problems which are greater than the problems of maintaining double glazing in houses. Therefore, it is inevitably a compromise and I visualise situations where a soundproof barrier is the answer, particularly where people regard sitting in the garden and the external environment as important.
I can understand the other situations where a soundproof barrier is not the answer. As my hon. Friend said, there are the problems of second, third or fourth storeys, because the higher one goes the less effective a soundproof barrier becomes. I therefore believe that we must look at every situation on its merits, and we will be guided greatly by the local authorities—and, indeed, by hon. Members—who are in the best position to know what the local residents want. In many cases the question of cost will not be critical. It may be more expensive in certain cases to have double-glazing, and in others it may be more expensive to have a soundproof barrier.
There is no provision at present for an appeal. Basically, everybody affected should be contacted and given an offer by the highway authority. Where my Department is the highway authority, it may often be a local authority acting as our agents.
1528
If anyone believes that he has an entitlement and has not received an offer, he can question the authority saying, "I believe I am entitled". He would then have to be furnished with a written statement explaining why he was not entitled.
We have been in touch with the Council on Tribunals and other bodies on this question, and we shall be watching the situation to see how many cases might be disputed. However, I must tell my hon. Friend that these techniques are still at a relatively early stage and it is difficult to be hard and fast about the matter. After a reasonable period, we shall review the situation to see what, if anything, needs to be done. At present, anyone who does not receive an offer and feels that he is entitled to one should receive a written statement explaining why an offer has not been made.
We are now talking about residential property. The problems of schools, offices and other places are serious but they do not come within these regulations.
My hon. Friend mentioned problems concerning the 65 dB level which I know Birmingham wanted. I have pointed out that although we fix the level at 68, which is two below the Advisory Council's 70, and therefore the scheme is that much more costly, in practical terms this can mean 65, especially in the opening stages of a road scheme. In practical terms it might even mean 64.5 in certain circumstances, as we round up.
Bearing in mind the not inconsiderable costs which the regulations will involve, and the technical problems, I consider that the 68 dB level that we have fixed is a good compromise in all the circumstances. I hope that my hon. Friend and his constituents will feel that it will cover the situation.
My hon. Friend mentioned gas cookers, covered on page 11 of the regulations. These types of gas cooker are being phased out on conversion to North Sea gas.
He asked—it is part and parcel of the same problem how much money should be paid if someone wanted a better quality job than might be considered appropriate by the highway authority. If someone wishes to have an especially good job, for example, a particularly expensive form of window fitting, that person, under various limits that will be

1529
established, would be paid the cost that would be incurred by the local authority doing a job of reasonable quality for that house. If someone wishes to have deluxe fittings over and above that, he will have to make up the difference himself. I consider that to be not unreasonable, for there must be some yardstick. A similar yardstick has been applied to other schemes, for instance to airport problems.
My hon. Friend mentioned wind and rain and the whole subject of measurement. I know that Schedule 1 is complicated, but I ask him to read page 19.
He also referred to the vexed question, which has been mentioned to me in the Birmingham area, of the build-up of traffic from four o'clock in the morning onwards. All my expert advice, of which we have a great deal coming in, although we are still at the threshold of the technology in the subject, is that the present L10 scale and time limits I have given give the best answer in the circumstances.
I am not saying that we shall not have to change our schemes as the technology of acoustics develops, but I do not believe that my hon. Friend's constituents, or anyone else, will lose from the use of this L10 scale. It is closely detailed in the schedules.
I hope that I have covered the points raised, for they are of serious concern to my hon. Friend's constituents. We are working as fast as we can on the prediction map. We are in touch with the manufacturers. The regulations come into effect on 1st September and I hope that we may start getting hardware installed alongside the houses on the M6 in Birmingham before the end of the year. Much work, time and money are already being spent by my officials to that end.
When the regulations come into effect, I hope that by the end of the year we shall start to make an impact on the social problem posed in the West Midlands and other areas.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Noise Insulation Regulations 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 16th July, be approved.

AGRICULTURE ACT 1967 (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS
9.5 p.m.
The Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Anthony Stodart): I beg to move,
That the Agriculture Act 1967 (Amendment) Regulations 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 11th July, be approved.
I suggest that we also discuss the following schemes:
That the Farm Amalgamations Scheme 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 11th July, be approved.
That the Farm Structure (Payments to Out-goers) Scheme 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 11th July, be approved.
When I introduced the existing farm structure schemes, which these proposals will replace, I said that they should be looked on as being interim as we should be taking a long hard look at the working of the scheme generally. We have done this and as a result we are satisfied that the basic concept of the existing schemes is sound.
I am sure that the House will be pleased to know that as a result of the changes introduced in 1970 there has been a speeding up in the rates at which approvals have been made.
The new schemes, therefore, do not depart from the concepts and aims of the present schemes, but in the light of experience there are a number of improvements which we can now make to the terms and conditions.
The new powers enable payments to be made for amalgamations which are carried out by leasing extra land as well as by buying it. In order to qualify for payment, an amalgamation by lease must involve a term of not less than 12 years.
Payments, too, will now be made to an outgoer who gives up land for afforestation or for public use as well as in cases where all the land goes for a farm amalgamation. There have in the past been cases where it was clear that the best use for all or part of the outgoer's land was not for farming but for forestry, and we shall now be able to make a payment to the outgoer in respect of that land. But, as a safeguard against undesirable planting, payment will not be made on land released for forestry unless

1531
it is more suitable for that purpose than for farming and can be released for planting without detriment to the agricultural use of neighbouring land. The reference to land released for public use, will facilitate land being used for recreation or nature reserves where appropriate.
The third amendment enables a test to be based on an outgoer's income from agriculture in general rather than just from the land that he is giving up. I think this is a useful extension which will widen the sphere of eligibility.
At present amalgamations receive a special rate of grant under the Farm Capital Grant Scheme if there is a need for new buildings, roads or other remodelling work. Instead of these special grants, however, we propose that where an outgoer's grant has also been approved all the amalgamations will receive an acreage payment of £12·50 on the additional acreage obtained from the project up to a maximum grant of £1,250. This will make for a simpler scheme and quicker payments. The new system will allow farmers to make their own decisions on capital investment and it will also make help available to more farmers.
Amalgamators will still have to maintain the amalgamated unit and not change its agricultural use without the Minister's consent for five years, but, whereas this requirement now has to be registered as a land charge, under the powers conferred in the 1972 Act administrative provision will be made for the requirement to be personally binding on the amalgamator.
We have also materially increased the incentives offered, particularly for the older age groups. We have amended the requirement on entitlement to occupation. At present, to qualify, an outgoer must have been entitled to occupy his farm on or before 5th August 1965. The new scheme provides a later date-1st January 1973. Tests on the outgoer's income have also been modified. At present, one takes account of the husband and wife's combined income. In future only an applicant's earned income will come into it, and we propose to pay grant to those whose other income does not exceed that from farming by more than £500. This will be a great help for those in areas of the United Kingdom who, while spending most of their time farming, have
1532
to take other work to secure a better family income. A further condition of grant is that to qualify for the main grant outgoers should have spent not less than half of their working hours in farming during the five years before they put in their application.
Having regard to the scales proposed for the main grant, it is fair enough that they should be restricted to bona fide farmers. We feel that we must provide for the man who has, for some good reason, temporarily had to let his land and later finds that he cannot return to farming. In such cases grant will be available if he otherwise qualifies, provided that he has met this condition in respect of one year.
The last change is not unimportant. As the objective is to release more land for amalgamation, we feel we must give some incentive to part-time farmers to give up their land. Therefore we are proposing a smaller grant for those who cannot qualify under the income and agricultural labour tests.
This will take the form of an acreage payment at the rate of £10 on each eligible acre, subject to a maximum grant of £1,000. Farms of the kind that this grant is intended to cover will, if released, make a useful contribution to the aims of the scheme and it will be of particular assistance in such areas as Northern Ireland and parts of Scotland and Wales.
Allowing for the larger number of applications expected to result from the new and improved schemes, the new incentive and modifications proposed will lead to an estimated additional cost of about £11 million for the first five years of the scheme.
The better incentives offered by the two schemes and the new terms and conditions should do much both to attract a larger number of small farmers to give up their land for amalgamation and to encourage others to enlarge their existing units. This will help the farmers concerned and also improve the productivity of agriculture.
It may interest the House to know that the scheme has been used successfully over a wide area of the United Kingdom. Of all the approvals for amalgamation, 49 per cent. have been

1533
granted in England, 25 per cent. in Scotland, 13 per cent. in Wales and 13 per cent. in Northern Ireland. So far as grants to outgoers are concerned there have been 40 per cent. in England, 33 per cent. in Scotland—where, particularly in the North-East this has been an immensely successful scheme-15 per cent. in Northern Ireland and 12 per cent. in Wales.
Therefore, I hope, that the House will approve these schemes and the related regulations so that we can give effect to the new arrangements in September.
9.13 p.m.
Mr. David Clark: In discussing these regulations we are discussing not a new concept but the continuation or improvement, as the Minister says, of existing schemes. Generally in most industries throughout the world there has been an enlargement of units. The agriculture industry has been no exception. We all want the British farmer and the British farm worker to earn their true worth. If this helps in that process, we agree with it.
There are, however, one or two points about which we should elicit a little more information. There have been changing circumstances in the past few years which may cause people to quibble about certain aspects of the scheme. The first point is that this is not something confined to Britain. The problem exists throughout the world, especially in Europe. We have seen in Europe a great programme of amalgamations. Many of us feel that the amalgamations and the concentration of farming communities have not proceeded fast enough, but they have their own schemes to encourage farmers to form larger units. I wonder whether any of the common agricultural fund is used to finance this series of amalgamations in Britain as in France and other European countries.
Another worrying fact is that there have been changes in the past few years and one of them has been in the land ownership of farmland in Britain. This has caused a great deal of concern, not least amongst the farming community. One has only to read the farmers' various journals to find the letter columns therein concerned about this problem where land prices have shot up to an astronomical level. They have created farms which
1534
are at paper value very high yet when the farmer dies his son faces almost impossible and crippling estate duties. This escalation or explosion in land values does not help the farming industry.
We must try to ascertain whether these schemes, and previous schemes, help to accentuate this move. While we, on the one hand, want an efficient farming community and accept that in many cases farms must be bigger, we are concerned to ensure that those farms are not always owned by City institutions or by foreign banks. This problem is not confined to Britain. The Danes only a matter of weeks ago introduced very stringent controls on the ownership of farm land.
Will the Minister comment whether, when he was drawing up these new arrangements in this scheme, he considered the possibility of allowing encouragement only where the new farm was to be owned or managed by a farmer and not to be used to facilitate some further capital investment? It seems to us not good for the future if we find these big financial institutions buying up farmland, not primarily to farm, for at the rate of return possible from farming, in spite of welcome increases in farmers' incomes over the last few years, they cannot get the return which they would get in the cities.
It has been commented that on the present trend of farm amalgamations, and the change of ownership, by the end of the century nine-tenths of the farmers in this country will be working for city institutions. This may be an exaggerated claim but it has been made. I am sure the Minister has seen it in the farming Press.
To turn to a different aspect of the order, the Minister mentioned that these schemes affect land which is going into afforestation. This is something which we on this side of the House welcome, because there has been a great deal of concern about the lack of land going into afforestation. This problem has been made worse since June 1970. The forestry industry in this country has felt a little sterile. Having seen the Government's consultative paper, it has waited for 13 months for a statement on the Government's forestry policy. We are still waiting. As a result there has been a drying up of land being provided

1535
for afforestation. Could the Minister give us an estimate whether he feels that these schemes, which allow land to be released for afforestation, will help? The problem is very serious. The Forestry Commission throughout Britain is drawing upon its reserves. The result has been that in this year—Plant a Tree Year, ironically—the new planting by the Forestry Commission has fallen from 57,000 trees in 1971 to 51,000 in 1973. Many of us feel that that is not good for the forestry industry, or for the economy of the country as a whole. Of course, the Forestry Commission's task has been made more difficult by the increase in land prices and not least for all the reasons which I have explained.
The Minister said that land would not be eligible for a grant if it was to be used for afforestation unless the Minister judged that it was more suitable for afforestation than it was for agriculture. That is a fairly sensible rule. It has been a rule which has been applied de facto if not dejure to the Forestry Commission's acquisitions over the past few years, but it has not been applied to private forestry. That has been one of the reasons for the outcry against afforestation. There has been much public concern about the afforestation of good private agricultural land about which the Minister had no say. Does the new scheme apply to the private sector as well as to the State sector?
The next point which the Minister raised was land which is released for public use. That is something which we very much welcome. I query one point —namely, if land in a national park is to be released to the national park authority for recreational purposes, does the farmer as well as the national park authority purchasing the land get a grant out of the public purse for that purpose?
The Opposition welcome public access and the general development of amenities and recreational facilities. But while we all want more efficient farming communities, We are concerned that in certain parts of the country the landscape of which we are all fond—I am thinking of the upland areas in the national parks—is dependent on the living farming community. No one should be unaware of that point. The Opposition are worried that it may well be that with increased
1536
aids there will be a change in the farming community and in the landscape that will not always be desirable.
I query one or two technical points. As I understand it, the idea is to get amalgamation to aim at 600 standard man days. That is a sensible, useful and viable farming organisation. I am trying to ascertain whether a grant is payable if a new unit is formed which comprises less than 600 standard man days. If that is the case, difficulties might arise in certain parts of the country. I have tried to get some random statistics for North Westmorland and parts of the Lake District. The statistics show that no less than 68 per cent. of the farms in North Westmorland are classified as having less than 600 standard man days.
If the figures are broken down, no less than 35 per cent. of the farms have less than 450 man days. That is when there are taken into account all farms over 250 standard man days and there are ignored the smaller farms which would be included under the scheme and which complicate the matter further. That means that in many parts of the upland areas there are a considerable percentage of farms of less than 300 standard man days. Therefore, one might get a situation where two farms of less than 300 standard man days are to be merged. In that instance, would the farms be eligible for the grant?
Generally we welcome these proposals, but we are worried about the changing situation of farm ownership and the possible effect on the environment. We dope that the Minister will keep under continuous review the effect of the scheme, because if there is any danger urgent action would be needed to remedy it.
9.25 p.m.
Mr. Marcus Worsley: I start by declaring an interest as an owner of agricultural and forestry land.
I think that the instruments will help the amalgamation scheme forward, and that is desirable. But the Government are pursuing two diametrically opposed policies. The instruments are designed to make amalgamations easier. However, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is pursuing a taxation policy on capital which will have the opposite effect.

1537
The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. David Clark) was right to make the point that the effect of the explosion in land values is to drive the traditional owner, whether he be farmer or land owner, away from the ownership of land and, too often, to put the ownership in the hands of bodies which have little sympathy with the land or interest in the social life that goes on in the area.
I am not suggesting that new money should not come into agriculture. That is not my point. However, a tragic process seems to be going on as a result of the explosion in land values and the combination of estate duty and capital gains tax—above all, the latter—which is reversing a situation whereby the ownership and occupation of land, which should be united, are increasingly being forced apart.
If current taxation policies continue, all the good that the scheme can bring about will be undone—indeed, more than undone—by capital taxation, which will mean that the current economic farm will have astronomic capital taxation liabilities to meet. Inevitably the result will be a splitting of holdings, which is the exact opposite of the policy embodied in the scheme. The Government must get their right and left hands working together and evolve a capital taxation policy that works with, not against, the scheme.
My second point, again in response to the hon. Member for Colne Valley, is on forestry. It is over a year now since we had one of the most ill-thought out of Government White Paper's for many a year on this subject. It is sad that 12 months later we still have no statement from the Government about their policy on this subject. Forestry is not a large industry, but it matters very much in terms of amenity and employment in upland areas. There has at last been the working through of what has been obvious to anyone who has studied forestry on a world scale—an impending shortage of timber of fantastic dimension. The result has been a tremendous rise in world prices of timber reflected in an equally tremendous rise in prices in this country. It must be obvious, even to the members of the Treasury, who always fail to understand the nature of forestry, what it is about and what its purposes and problems are,
1538
that a native timber industry matters in a time of increasing shortage.
I realise that my hon. Friend cannot say anything about this matter tonight, and I am not asking him to do so. But I ask that the Government put a forestry policy higher in their order of priorities and realise that even since the publication of the White Paper the whole economy of forestry has changed radically. The increasing world shortage of timber has shown that we must use the forestry resources of this country as best we can.
We can grow trees as well as anywhere on earth. It is up to the Government to encourage tree-growing.
I do not oppose the new scheme but to have an effective policy of amalgamation without a policy of capital taxation, which is related to it, is to condemn our agriculture to a gradual lessening of the size of holdings when we should be encouraging an increase.
9.32 p.m.
Mr. Anthony Stodart: The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. David Clark) said that the average size of farm was increasing and that the whole structure of farming was changing. Some 20 years ago the average size of farm in Britain was about 60 acres. It is now 162 acres. It is interesting to note that the average size of farms which have been subject to amalgamation is now 228 acres, a little above the average. That is a good sign.
The hon. Member referred to institutions buying land. There is no sign of any great tendency, and it would be wrong to exaggerate the extent of land purchased by institutions and companies. Indeed, only a small proportion of our land—and that is outside the scope of the scheme—is being bought by such bodies.
The disadvantage of any restriction is that it would make things more difficult for the would-be outgoer who wants to retire. It would lower the price that he could get. This would discourage amalgamations in one way. One has to retain a balance. I agree that the more we can maintain and increase owner-occupation, the better.
Another question concerned land sold into public use and whether there would be additional payments. The answer is that no compensation for releasing land

1539
for public use would be made where it would merely duplicate the provisions under Acts of land compensation. It is not a case of getting it both ways.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the 600 standard man-day farms. If the formation of a 600 standard man-day farm is not possible in one step, we can approve what we term an intermediate amalgamation if there are prospects of a commercial unit being formed ultimately. In other words, it does not have to be done in one jump. If there is a good prospect, one can get the land grant.
Land values are a very considerable problem. I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley) said about them. I would remind my hon. Friend that taxation is not a matter within my immediate purview, but I do not think that anyone has done more to reform the tax system than my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. My hon. Friend will be aware that my right hon. Friend is at the moment engaged in a review of problems of the kind my hon. Friend mentioned.
A certain amount was said about afforestation and land use. It is a subject which is very dear to my heart and I must not make a long speech about it now. But I accept what was said by both my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and the hon. Member for Colne Valley. The review of forestry has been going on for a very long time. It is in fact the first major look at the industry to have taken place for 30 years.
The problems have not been made easier by the fact that land for forestry has become extremely scarce. That is largely due to the increase in the returns which people are getting from farming on hill land. There was a time not so long ago when very large acreages of land were planted wholesale with trees. I do not believe that to be good land use. I want to see trees planted where they will grow best and where they will integrate and play a useful part with agriculture. I have always opposed those who talk about farming or forestry. I have always been a strong advocate of forestry helping farming in making the best use of land in a very densely populated island whose land is decreasing remorselessly at
1540
the rate of 60,000 acres every year. I hope that before long we shall be able to make an announcement about the future forestry programme.
The hon. Member for Colne Valley asked about FEOGA. These schemes will in certain cases attract FEOGA money. They have been designed to take account of the Community's provisions for encouraging amalgamations. Therefore, in certain cases they will attract FEOGA grants. But we shall of course be laying the appropriate order before the House in due course—we hope in the autumn—when we shall be able to discuss these matters.
Mr. David Clark: May I press the hon. Gentleman on the subject of his approval for land use for forestry? Does what he said apply to private as well as to State forestry in order for it to receive the benefit of this money?
Mr. Stodart: In terms of the regulations it can be private land going into private amalgamations. Where private interests are involved, as they will be in this case, ministerial approval will be required.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Agriculture Act 1967 (Amendment) Regulations 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 11th July, be approved.
Resolved,
That the Farm Amalgamations Scheme 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 11th July, be approved.—[Mr. Anthony Stodart.]
Resolved,
That the Farm Structure (Payments to Out-goers) Scheme 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 11th July, be approved.—[Mr. Anthony Stodart.]

LAND COMPENSATION (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]
Read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Monro.]
Bill immediately considered in Committee.
[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]
The Chairman: Does any hon. Member wish to raise a point on any of the clauses?
Mr. Norman Buchan: I should like to raise a point, Sir Robert.
The Chairman: On which clause?
Mr. Buchan: Perhaps I may raise it on a point of order, Sir Robert. It might be useful if I could make one or two observations and refer to them in a kind of Third Reading way.
The Chairman: Unless the hon. Member has a specific point he wishes to raise on a clause—
Mr. Buchan: I wish only to raise the Third Reading situation, Sir Robert. That is all.
The Chairman: Therefore, I shall put the Question, That the Clauses stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 1 to 83 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.
Bill reported, without amendment.
Order for Third Reading read.
Mr. Buchan Mr. Buchan rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I have to put the Question forthwith, without debate, there being no contrary motion on the Order Paper. I cannot take anything but a point of order.
Mr. Buchan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is a little difficult now to come to the Bill, but certain things have arisen. First, the Bill has been largely discussed in Committee in another form. That is why it took this form tonight. My point of order is whether it would be possible in future, when this kind of thing happens, not to deal with the content of what I want to say about the Bill—as I can write to the Minister—but to find some mechanism without going through the normal procedures with the Mace. That might be helpful.
Secondly, I should like to know when the regulations relating to Clause 18 will be brought in. Perhaps the Minister will write to me about that.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that I cannot hear any more on this subject.
Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

STATUTE LAW REVISION (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL [Lords]
Order for Second Reading read.
9.43 p.m.
The Solicitor-General (Sir Michael Havers): I beg to move, That the Bill be read now a Second time.
The Bill was considered by the Joint Committee in June. The Statute Law Committee in Northern Ireland is anxious to complete the revised statutes, taking the position up to date to 1970. This is necessary to clear away the dead wood so that those revised statutes cat be completed.
Clause 2 is a little unusual. This arises due to the Civil Evidence (Northern Ireland) Act 1971. When originally drafted it sought to amend the law in Northern Ireland in the same way as the 1968 Act had done in England and Wales, and to repeal two limited exceptions t.) the rule about hearsay evidence and replace them with comprehensive provisions. In the event a new thought was taken about it. As a result of the change of policy just before the Bill was about to be presented to the Parliament of Northern Ireland, it was decided to wait until experience in England and Wales showed whether it was desirable that that should take place in Northern Ireland. The experience will follow our 1968 Act.
When this was done the draftsman overlooked the need to narrow down the repeal provisions in the Bill, and he repealed too much. Thus the existing Civil Evidence Act, so far as hearsay evidence was concerned, was repealed. This is merely correcting an oversight which then occurred. No retrospection arises out of this change. In every other respect it is a perfectly normal Statute Law Revision Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.[Sir P. Bryan.]
Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.
Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS
Order read for resumed adjourned debate on Question—[23rd July].
Ordered,
That it is expedient that the scheme for limiting the number of Questions that may be tabled for oral answer, the operation of which was recommended for an experimental period by the Select Committee on Parliamentary Questions in the last Session of Parliament in paragraph 19 of their Report, to which this House agreed on 18th December last, be continued beyond the end of the present Session. —[Sir P. Bryan.]

SEPARATED MILK
9.48 p.m.
Mr. Michael English: I beg to move,
That the Separated Milk Regulations 1973 (S.I., 1973, No. 369), dated 28th February 1973, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9th March, be withdrawn.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): Perhaps it will be convenient to discuss at the same time the related motion,
That the Separated Milk (Scotland) Regulations 1973 (S.I., 1973, No. 914), dated 8th May 1973, a copy of which was laid before this House on 24th May, be withdrawn.
Mr. English: Hon. Members will recollect that on 9th July I endeavoured to debate in the House the Separated Milk Regulations.
Several questions need to be asked in connection with the regulations. First, I wish to ask why the regulations are necessary. They are supposed to he regulations implementing EEC regulation 1411/71. That regulation states:
"This regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States."
I am well aware that, in part, there is derogation in respect of the United Kingdom because, under the Treaty of Accession, for reasons I will come to shortly, there was a derogation from that regulation. This may be the reason, but I should like it better explained than it has been so far. No explanatory memorandum attached to the English or Scottish regulations makes the situation clear.
The English regulations were made on 29th February, laid before Parliament on 9th March and came into operation on 1st April. They are in the name of the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Social Services. The Scottish regulations were made on 8th May, laid on 24th May and came into operation on 14th June.
When the English regulations came out, the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments included them in its list of statutory instruments which it did not draw to the special attention of both
1546
Houses. This is rather odd, because, in its Tenth Report, it drew to the special attention of both Houses the Scottish regulations, which are almost identical.
Therefore, my first criticism might be directed at the sources of information of the Joint Committee. It seems that that Committee was not fully informed, in the case of the English regulations, of what it was informed about in the case of the Scottish regulations. I do not know who advised the Committee possibly your Counsel, Mr. Speaker—but whoever it was did not give the Committee the information in the case of the English regulations which he gave in the case of the Scottish regulations.
In its report, the Joint Committee produced some valid criticisms of the Scottish regulations. Its basic criticisms are twofold. It drew the special attention of both Houses to the regulations on the grounds
"… that they make an unexpected use of the powers conferred by the statute under which they are laid, that their form and purport call for elucidation and on other grounds which do not impinge on their merits or the policy behind them".
The Committee's first criticism was that many of the definitions in both sets of regulations are made by reference to definitions in the EEC regulations. So it is impossible to determine the law by looking solely at the English and Scottish regulations. But it added that both sets of regulations relate to EEC regulation 1411/71,
"… as replaced or amended by any subset quent directly applicable Community instrument ".
So this would be changed, as a result of some amendment in Brussels and nobody would be aware, from reading the English or Scottish regulations, that the law had changed.
I would draw a particular case to the Parliamentary Secretary's attention. In the NEDO document," Milk and Milk Products ", in its "United Kingdom Farming in the Common Market" series, it is pointed out that there is a special amendment to the EEC regulation. It gives the reference L233 / 12 in the legislative series of the Official Journal of 16th October 1971. The problem is that that reference is obviously wrong. Having looked it up—it exists in French but not in English—I find that it relates to rice.
What is even more interesting is this: if it were passed on 16th October 1971, there was an amendment already well in existence before the English and Scottish regulations were laid, and that has not been mentioned.
To assist the Minister to trace it—I am sorry I cannot give the exact reference, for the reasons I have explained—it is the one which allowed Channel Islands milk at a higher butterfat content than standard milk in the Common Market. That is obviously very important not only to the Channel Islands but, because their milk is sold here, to us as well.
If the NEDO in an excellent series of publications can make a mistake, and if it is almost impossible for anybody in the Library of the Honse to trace it, how on earth are other people supposed to trace the changes in these laws and to know them and to obey them? We are making a law almost impossible for people to obey.
The situation is even rather worse than that. The regulations themselves do not seem to be wholly clear. Since 1 represent an English constituency I will take the English regulations, but I think my argument applies equally to the Scottish ones. The regulations say that it shall be an offence to
"deliver, or cause or permit to be delivered, on or in pursuance of any sale for human consumption any separated milk which is not semi-skimmed milk or skimmed milk delivered, in either case, as such."
The definition is that
"'milk' has the same meaning as in regulation No. 1411/71 of the Council of the European Communities".
This is a point which the Statutory Instruments Committee criticised. Then, "'raw milk', 'whole milk', 'semi-skimmed milk' and 'skimmed milk' have the same respective meanings as in the said regulation No. 1411/71".
Apparently the Statutory Instruments Committee did not look at the original regulation of the European Communities because the Committee could have made a third point. There certainly is
1548
in the EEC regulation a definition of milk, of raw milk, semi-skimmed milk, and skimmed milk, but there is no definition of whole milk.
I therefore submit that the regulation is void in law. I do not see how under it a prosecution can be brought and succeed in a court of law, since all these definitions relate to one another; the various sorts of milk are all based on the definition of milk, and obviously, separated milk is skimmed or semi-skimmed. They all relate to one another, but if the key and essential definition is not there because it is not in the EEC regulation, 1 do not see how anybody can be expected to enforce the law. We are saying to every milkman in the country, to every dairy, to every farmer, "You must not do something, but what that is we are not telling you; but if you do it, you will be subject to criminal penalties."
The penalties are £5 a day for a continuing offence. For the original offence the penalty is a fine not exceeding £100 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or both, and that is for something which is not clear.
Before we were in the Common Market there was an unofficial translation of the EEC regulations and many of us used it in the debates on the Common Market. Naturally, being a semi-official translation, it did not have the force of law. We were not in the Common Market and it did not much matter if it contained errors.
It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That the Motions relating to Food and Drugs (S.I., 1973, Nos. 369 and 914) may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until half-past Eleven o'clock or for a period of one and a half hours after the first has been entered upon, whichever is the later.—[Mr. McLaren.]
Question again proposed.

SEPARATED MILK
Mr. English: I do not suggest that the drafting was done in the hon. Lady's Department. It could have been undertaken by Treasury draftsmen. Somebody somewhere in the Government, or Civil Service, is not referring to the official text. These documents, in so far as they are directly applicable in member States, are the law of the land under the Economic Communities Act. The text is contained in the special edition of the regulations in force in December 1972, just prior to the United Kingdom's entry into the Common Market.
There are several volumes of these regulations and that with which we are concerned is contained in volume II It is dear that another translation may have been used, thus rendering the whole document a monstrous legal mess, and that we have a definition that does not exist in the official translation, the legal text, of the European Communities.
The hon. Lady may say that even the official text of the European Communities may not be the one upon which Community law might be based, because the documents were originally passed in French, German and Italian, the languages of the original Community. If the case were ever brought before a European or even an English court—because it has to operate under European law in matters relating to Community law—the court might say that it does not have to look at an English text. It is impossible not only for a layman but for a lawyer to determine from these regulations what is the law contained in them.
There is a supposed definition of "whole milk", but Regulation 1411/71 contains no definition of whole milk. I think I may understand what the regulations are intended to achieve because of preparing for this debate, but in law they achieve nothing.
Therefore, I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw them on technical grounds. I am making a serious request. I hope that she will withdraw them, if not tonight then during the recess, and replace them by regulations that in principle do the same things, but do them effectively in law, too.
1550
It would be wrong of me to rest merely upon that technical point. I have proved conclusively, I believe, that the regulations should be withdrawn but it is of some importance to the whole country for us to understand and consider what they are trying to achieve, though they do not achieve it. As I said, we do not have to do this. These regulations are the first stage of the standardisation of milk in the United Kingdom on Continental lines.
One question I should like to ask the Minister—this is her direct responsibility —is when is it proposed that we should standardise milk fully under Regulation 1411/71? The derogation that I mentioned earlier is that the Treaty of Accession allows us not to enforce Regulation 1411/71 until December 1975. However, I understand that since that is purely permissive, if the Government wish the standardisation could be introduced and completed much earlier.
These regulations are the first stage on the wLy towards such standardisation, so it is obvious that the Department is getting on with the job. What target date has the Minister in mind—presumably we are not to wait until the last minute when it would become illegal not to enforce the European Community law—for standardisation in the United Kingdom? These regulations imply that the target date will be fairly soon, although in order to standardise milk, capital investment in dairies has to take place and so on.
Why do we need standardised milk'? The history of this matter in the Common Market is of some interest. Milk is of importance to us all. Everybody in the Community drinks milk in some form. We in this country drink a large amount of liquid milk—admittedly pooled at dairies, heated, pasteurised and so forth, but basically in the form that it comes from the cow.
It is important not only to the consumer, but to our farmers, because it is 20 per cent. to 25 per cent. of farm output in the United Kingdom. We happen to have more efficient dairy farming in the United Kingdom. We have herds which average 30 as compared with the Continental average of nine. We have a yield of over 4,000 kilograms per cow, which is higher than the average in the Common

1551
Market, and higher than anywhere outside the Netherlands and Denmark. We are efficient dairy farmers.
These regulations are objected to by the National Farmers' Union and the Milk Marketing Board. I consulted both organisations this morning, so I am quoting from conversations which took place with their officers. They are objected to by the Dairy Trade Federation representing retailers of milk. I am sure that if the people of the United Kingdom knew what these regulations were supposed to be doing, they would be generally objected to.
What the regulations say is that milk —in the sense we normally understand, for example, when it is not skimmed or semi-skimmed—should have a butterfat content of 31 per cent. According to a Press statement of the Ministry of Agriculture, on 28th June the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) asked the Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food a Question on the butterfat content of milk. We were strike-bound at the time, but even the Library is unable to trace any such Question on that day. Whether the Library has lost the answer to the Question, or whether the Ministry of Agriculture did not send it over, I do not know. It is untraceable except for the Press notice. It may not have been on the date in question, but that is a difficulty caused by the strike.
However, according to the Minister of State, our overall average is about 3·8 per cent. The Milk Marketing Board informed me this morning that the average butterfat content is 3·72 per cent. It is above the Common Market's 3·5 per cent. The Common Market regulation imposes by law a minimum and it is of some importance when the Ministry talks of "whole milk". Presumably it means what the European Communities call "full cream milk", which should be in the regulations. It is
"milk that has been subjected to at least one heat treatment or an authorised process of equivalent effect by a milk processor and whose fat content is at least 3·50 per cent. or has been brought to 3·50 per cent."
"Brought to" in this case means brought up or brought down. That is absolutely clear, because if one looks at the definition of skimmed milk, it is
1552
similar except that its fat content has been
"brought to not more than 0–30 per cent."
The butterfat content of English milk, which comes substantially naturally from cows, varies partly seasonally and partly by region. It varies between 3·4 and 4·1 per cent. It must be at least 3 per cent. by law under the pre-war regulations. For about two months in the year it is a little below the 3–5 that is required under the Common Market regulations.
Hence the standardisation of milk. One would have to bring it up by topping it up with cream or milk with a higher butterfat content, to bring the average butterfat content up to 3·5 per cent. It is also likely to lead to standardisation from the opposite point of view. Whatever the price of milk may be in the Common Market in future, it is undoubtedly true—even if it were entirely the same as it has been in the past—that the Common Market price structure considerably increases the price of milk products such as butter and cheese over the prices to which we have been accustomed.
Britain has catered for liquid milk. To a substantial extent the Common Market has not catered for liquid milk. Indeed, most liquid milk in the Common Market is sold well below the 3–5 per cent. butterfat content; it is the skimmed or semi-skimmed variety. That is partly a matter of taste. It is also, presumably, cheaper. With a high food price economy such as the Common Market has, not everybody can afford to buy everything, and they tend to go for cheaper products.
It would pay someone, when we are in the Common Market economy fully, to reduce a higher than 3·5 per cent. butterfat content by skimming off the cream and selling it at a higher price to make dairy products. That will mean standardised milk of a lower quality.
There is another reason for my saying, "of a lower quality". Under the present English law and the regulations of the Milk Marketing Board and its subsidiaries throughout the United Kingdom, the compositional quality schemes are regulated in much more detail than under this Common Market regulation. This regulation refers only to butterfat content.
Our requirements also specify the total solid content and the content that is

1553
solid, not fat. By law there must be a minimum of 3 per cent. butterfat content. In fact, it is 3·72 per cent—11·5 per cent. total solids, so that 8·5 per cent. are solids, not fats, which are equally nutritious in most cases.
The Common Market does not deal with this. At present we pay farmers for milk on the basis, primarily, of the total solid content. The higher it is, the more money the farmer gets. The Milk Marketing Board and its subsidiaries regard the milk as more valuable for its total solid, not just its butterfat content, because the solid content is the nutritious part of the milk. The rest is water.
The nutritious part of milk is primarily its solid content and that is why farmers are paid for that. In future, they will not need to bother about that: they may re-breed their herds; they may do what they like. But they will not have to bother about the quality content of milk as we have hitherto defined quality; they have to define only the butterfat content.
It is therefore interesting to wonder why the Common Market has this regulation, and I decided to trace it. I discovered that in the Common Market this regulation in 1971 was an attempt to raise the minimum butterfat content of full-cream milk—as they call it, and what the Ministry inaccurately calls whole milk—from about 3 per cent. to 3·5 per cent. Since the war, all countries of Europe have steadily attempted to raise the standards. I discovered that the idea of standardised milk did not exist in Europe before the war, any more than it exists in this country now. As with the horticultural policy, I tracked back its origins to the Netherlands under the Gauleiter Seyss-Inquart, the Nazi Gauleiter of the Netherlands during the war.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the relevance will be clear with a short quotation. It is in the judgment given against him—he was a war criminal—at Nuremberg. After saying that he
"participated in the Nazi intrigue which preceded the occupation of Austria"—
he was a friend of Schuschnigg and betrayed him—
"he was made Chancellor of Austria under the German threat of invasion. He instituted a programme of confiscating Jewish property. Under his regime Jews were forced to emigrate, were sent to concentration camps and subjected to pogroms."
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member said I would see the relevance. I do not see the relevance of this part of his comments.
Mr. English: I was merely trying to describe the man, Mr. Speaker.
It continues with various items and then states:
"As Reichs-Commissioner for the Netherlands he was ruthless in applying terrorism to suppress all opposition to the German occupation. He carried out the administration of the Netherlands without regard to the Geneva Convention, which he declared to be obsolete."
One of the things he did was to reduce the butterfat content of milk. He sold to the people of the Netherlands milk without the cream. The object of the exercise was that the slave population of Europe—everybody who was not a German was a slave—was fed the milk, the cream was skimmed off and turned into butter for the Germans, particularly the German army.
That is how this scheme originated. I quote the last words of Seyss-Inquart, the last person to be hanged at Nüremburg. He said:
"I hope that this"
—his execution—
"is the last act of … the second world war."
He should have remembered Shakespeare's words which were more relevant:
"The evil that men do lives after them".
I fail to understand why the Minister should present us with mistaken regulations in effect, to allow a Nazi gauleiter to rule us from his grave. This is monstrous. It introduces standardisation. Dahrendorf, the German Common Market Commissioner, said that the Common Market was messing about trying to standardise bottle tops. I had not realised until now that they were also messing about trying to standardise milk merely because of what was done during the war by a Nazi.
I therefore ask the Minister to withdraw the regulations. Let us have our milk. We cannot standardise cows. Let us not try standardising their products. Let us have the milk as it is, with safeguards for health.
10.20 p.m.
Mr. Albert Booth: My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) has adversely criticised the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and its counsel. May I say in defence of that committee, of which I am chairman, that but for the adverse report which it made of the Scottish regulations we might not be debating the matter tonight.
Mr. English: I accept what my hon. Friend says. What I meant was that, had I not had a conversation with him, as presumably is the case with 629 other Members, and if I had relied on the third report I would not have known about them, and I would naturally have been more interested in the earlier English regulations than in the Scottish ones.
Mr. Booth: I accept what my hon. Friend says, but in defence of the learned gentleman who is your counsel, Mr. Speaker, and who is also counsel to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, and the Statutory Instruments Committee of the Commons, I would say that his job is made immensely more difficult, if not impossible, by the additional task imposed upon those who in this House, have to deal with the scrutiny of such instruments, because of the complications added to our task by instruments which are introduced to put into effect EEC regulations and directives. I believe that this is directly applicable to the two instruments that we are debating tonight.
When one carries out technical scrutiny of a normal statutory instrument, one has as a first concern to ensure that in making the instrument the Minister is properly exercising powers given to him by Parliament. This is not the case with any EEC instruments, because the Minister who is answerable to this Parliament quotes as the authority or power some Community regulation or some aspect of the EEC Act, which immediately gives him the right to do anything, by delegated legislation, providing that he does it to put into effect the Treaty of Rome in this country or some directive made in Brussels. To call on any officer serving a Committee of the House to check whether such power is being exercised in the manner which is technically correct, and to advise the Committee, is to call upon him to
1556
undertake an immense task. I think the whole House should be indebted to the officer for the extent to which we are able, by his assistance to our Committee, to carry out a far wider measure of scrutiny than would be possible without his assistance.
I turn now to one of the two major criticisms which the Joint Committee made of the Scottish Instrument, and one which I believe is of absolute crucial and fundamental importance to Parliament. I draw attention to Regulation 2(3)(b) in either the Scottish or the English instrument which says that the effect of the instrument shall be that any Community decision which replaces or amends Regulation 1411/71 of the Community shall be held to be the law of this country by virtue of this instrument.
This is an amazing proposition. It is asking this Parliament to accept that the instrument before us can have any one of a number of legal effects. Its effect now purports to be to put into the law of this country a Community regulation.
But if the Council of Ministers or the Commissioners in Brussels decide to amend that, it is their amended version which has effect. Or if they do anything else which can be construed as a reference to that regulation, that shall also have effect on this instrument. Therefore, we do not know what the meaning of this will be next year, the year after, or the year after that. All we can be certain of is that if the Commission decides to do anything by way of amendment to this by a directly applicable Community instrument, the words of this instrument will give effect to that.
As far as I know, this has never happened before in the whole history of British law. Whenever the law has been changed, at least there has had to be some amendment to an Act or a new set of regulations laid before Parliament. Tonight history is being made. Tonight we are being asked to accept that a document before us can have any one of a whole series of effects. I submit that this is something that this House should never accept.
Will the Minister tell us how anyone who has to operate legally in future in the delivery of semi-skimmed milk or skimmed milk in this country can know whether he is doing so legally? It must be admitted that this instrument does

1557
not give any guide. People cannot even be guided by reference to the Community regulation which this puts into effect, because that may be amended.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West said that the terms used in the instrument and those used in the regulation are not the same, which makes the matter even more difficult. I say that without any special knowledge of the delivery of skimmed milk. I claim to have some knowledge of statutory instruments and the way in which they change our law. Never before, in my experience, have we had the proposition put to us that we should have our law changed outside this country without any indication being given in our primary or delegated legislation that a change of that law has taken place.
It is proper to ask how this will be administered in this country. Is it seriously contended that all those engaged in the delivery of milk will be expected assiduously to study every regulation and directive issued in Brussels and to decide for themselves which provisions amend the legal effect of the statutory instrument and act accordingly? Is that what they are expected to do? If so. we should be told. How is the instrument to be policed?
Can the Minister tell us how anybody can be prosecuted for a breach of the instrument after its legal effect has been changed by some new directly applicable regulation in Brussels? Is he to be held to be in breach of domestic law? If so, how can he be prosecuted in the courts? Can he be prosecuted for not complying with a regulation from Brussels—on the basis of this statutory instrument, for failing to comply with a meaning which it did not possess at the time he was held to be in breach of it? This is the ludicrous situation that could arise if the meaning of the regulation is changed by some future regulation made by the EEC in connection with delivery of milk.
Has the Minister already decided that there shall be some way of informing those involved? In any case, where would such a prosecution take place? It would not be in this country and surely it would not be proposed that a person should be hauled off to the EEC court for a breach of regulations?
I suggest in all seriousness that we should totally oppose the proposition that
1558
any body in this country should be held to be in breach of domestic law when there is nothing on the statute book or in any regulations made under any of the Acts of this Parliament to indicate which law he has breached. This is a terrible proposition. It is most noticeable that no announcement was made to the House that this new legal principle was to be introduced by the Government. There is no indication in the explanatory note attached to either of the instruments that this was to be the case, and we have been given no reason to believe that this is workable.
If this idea is extended, then the idea that we have a law of the land, in our statutes and regulations, which is properly interpreted in the courts and held to be binding upon our citizens, is no longer valid, because it will be possible to make decisions on the basis of regulations from outside this country which change the legal effect of our law, without the citizen knowing about it. This is an intolerable position and I would never support it.
10.32 p.m.
Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: The hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) is going a little far in his criticism of paragraph 3(b). I cannot help in the legal argument and I do not pretend to be able to do so. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be able to do so when she replies.
Mr. English: The hon. Member mentions paragraph 3(b). I do not understand. There is a Regulation 3 but no (a) or (b).
Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I am talking about Regulation 2(3)(b). The hon. Member was worried about the position whereby the Commission or the Council of Ministers can impose instruments and regulations on the dairymen of this country under this regulation, without those people knowing anything about it. My hon. Friend will undoubtedly answer this point, but there is another matter to which I would draw the hon. Member's attention.
None of these regulations or instruments will come through the Council of Ministers or the Commission without being duly publicised in draft form. It is here that the European Assembly has a

1559
useful role to play. These draft documents come before the Assembly in plenary session and are discussed. If the Council wished to make any change, our officials in Brussels would be notified.
Basically the safeguard the hon. Member requires is that hon. Members from this House would be over there and would know of what was going on. They would see the draft regulations and. should anything arise, would be aware of the situation and thus able to inform the House.
This House, through the Joint Committee, would be able to look at such documents, check them and come to the House to tell it what was happening. These draft regulations cannot have the force of law unless they go through this process.
Mr. Norman Buchan: What the hon. Gentleman says cannot happen has already happened. This matter came before a first-class Committee of this House but it was not until the tenth sitting that it picked this point up. The dairy farmers of England and Wales could have been breaking the law.
Mr. Scott-Hopkins: The hon. Gentleman is not quite right to say that this has happened without our being aware of it. We knew that this regulation was in force. There is some confusion between the hon. Member and myself, but I am sure that the Minister will be able to deal with it. What comes forward from the Commission has to be examined by parliamentarians from this House and elsewhere. Even under the present regulations, which relate to regulation No. 1411/71, it can be known and publicised.
We are dealing with a fairly small point. The hon. Member for Nottingham, West made a tremendous speech about the standardisation of milk and so on. He exaggerated, because we are dealing not with skimmed or semi-skimmed milk but with milk which is separated. The type that is rightly being prohibited for sale to human beings is not sold in this country but is used for pig feed. Skimmed and semi-skimmed milk is sold legitimately and will continue to be sold.
The hon. Gentleman concentrated on the butterfat content, saying that the average butterfat content of milk
1560
handled by the Milk Marketing Board over the past year was 3·72 per cent. and that the regulation says that the Community can go down to 3·5 per cent. He envisages that the whole milk will be sold liquid to the consumer at that lower level because of the regulation. That is not true. The hon. Gentleman went in for great histrionics about how we should have to suffer milk of lower quality. That is nonsense. That will not happen because of the regulation.
The Milk Marketing Board has been doing everything it can not only to increase the butterfat content to over 3–75 per cent. but—which is much more important—to increase the total solids content. Our own regulations provide a total solids content of 11·5 per cent., but we are up to 12–3 per cent. because of the price incentives, which will continue to be given. Nothing in the regulations will persuade the board to lower its standards.
Mr. English: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but when I had my discussion this morning with the officers of the Milk Marketing Board they specifically mentioned the matter of lower quality. They also said that, as the figures imply, the lowering of quality will be small. There is no doubt that those engaged in marketing milk in this country believe that there will be a modest lowering of quality.
Mr. Scott-Hopkins: The hon. Gentleman has that opinion.
Mr. English: It is not mine.
Mr. Scott-Hopkins: With my knowledge of the industry, which may be greater than the hon. Gentleman's, I do not believe that it is justified. What we have achieved will not be thrown away, and there is no reason why it should be. There is nothing in the regulation which says that it will be.
The Community has succeeded in raising its butterfat content over the past five years and although it has not mentioned total solids, that percentage has been rising over the years and will continue to rise. The regulation does not deal with butterfat or total solids but with whether separated milk shall be sold for human consumption. The answer is that it must not be and never will be.

1561
The point made by the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) is important, but there are safeguards in the way we do business in the House. We have a delegation at the European Parliament and our own Ministers and delegation in Brussels spend a great deal of time looking into such matters. We should have ample warning of any question of the Commission's considering changing any of the regulations by instrument under regulation No. 1411/71. We shall have ample warning. We shall have ample time to debate it and to take action to deal with it.
I welcome these regulations. They are a move in the right direction. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to answer the points hon. Gentlemen have raised and to confirm what I have said.
10.40 p.m.
Mr. Ronald King Murray: I am sure that we are all grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) and Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) and to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments for raising this important matter and bringing it to our attention.
I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary about two short matters. The first is more a layman's point. The second is a more technical, legal one.
First, I should like the Minister to tell us whether there is any difference between "full cream milk" as it is referred to in the Common Market regulation No. 1411/7 and "whole milk" as it is referred to in these United Kingdom regulations. If dairymen and milk producers talk indiscriminately about "full clear milk" and: "whole milk", much of the substance of the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West, disappears. But I do not know whether that is the case, and I should be grateful for some guidance.
My second and more technical point concerns the legality of the formulation of regulation 2(3)(b). I have some sympathy with the Report of the Joint Committee on Satutory Instruments and with what my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness said. However, when I first read sub-paragraph (b) I thought that it was meant to do something rather different from what the Joint Committee
1562
appeared to have thought. I thought that it meant something done quite innocently in legislation. For example, under the Factories Acts we have woodworking regulations in operation which came into force under an Act which has long since been repealed. The regulations are still operative because each succeeding Factories Act re-enacts and reinforces the original legal basis from which the regulations sprang. In other words, although the parent Act is dead, the legitimacy of the children is continued.
I was seriously shaken when I referred to the Tenth Report of the Joint Committee, because I found that that was not what the official reply indicated. It said that the provision
"… corresponds to a provision frequently used in subordinate legislation which refers to other enactments to avoid the necessity of consequential alterations in such legislation each time there is an amendment of such enactment …"
That is wholly ambiguous. It can apply to the innocent use that I have mentioned, or it can apply to the sinister use which my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness puts upon it. For that reason, my hon. Friend's argument is well founded.
The only escape from the force of that argument would be if there were added to the end of subparagraph (b) a proviso to this effect:
"(b) as replaced or amended by any subsequent directly applicable Community instrument"
—and then the addition of these words:
"…provided that the content of these regulations is not affected thereby."
That would make it the innocent use to which we are accustomed.
The Minister has to reply specifically to that detailed criticism before we can be satisfied that the regulations are properly worded and should be allowed to continue as the law of the land.
10.44 p.m.
Mr. Norman Buchan: I hope to be brief, and I may ask leave of Mr. Deputy Speaker to speak again following the Parliamentary Secretary's reply.
Despite the emptiness of the House and the lateness of the hour and of the Session, the House has hit upon an extremely

1563
difficult situation for the Government. I regret that, not for the first time this Session, it has been left to the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to reply to this debate. Although she has been extremely competent and good in her job, in view of the implications of these regulations, the Minister should have been sent for the moment that the case was deployed so effectively by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English).
The withdrawal of these regulations is the only way out of the impasse that we have reached. I do not want to redeploy the arguments. Apart from the historic colour and interest which my hon. Friend added, the case that he deployed was extremely impressive, as was the case deployed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray), the Shadow Lord Advocate, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth), who is, after all, the Chairman of the Committee which is investigating these statutory affairs.
I want to stress two points. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West referred to defects in the regulations. This is very serious. The defect which my hon. Friend particularly pointed out was the failure to be able to define that which the regulations purport to define. We cannot allow these regulations to go through the House of Commons.
The appropriate Community regulation, No. 1411/71, is at variance with these regulations, and does not define what it purports to define. In addition, it contains penal sanctions so that a failure to carry out that which has not been defined is subject to a penalty not exceeding £100 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months.
Apart from the aspect raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness about legislation made in one area years before we became a partner being used to prosecute in this country, there is a very serious implication in prosecution when the liberty of the individual is also involved in the alternative of imprisonment. For that reason also the regulations must be withdrawn.
1564
I do not agree with the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) who said that these regulations were, after all, not so important and that they merely deal with skimmed milk and separated milk—
Mr. English: That is the first step on the way.
Mr. Buchan: —used in animal feed-stuffs and the question of fat content, and so on. That is precisely not the point. The precise point that we are raising is the whole constitutional position—it goes as far as that raised by these regulations.
The regulations go very much further than questions of milk. They happen to be concerned with milk, but their content could have been more serious. It is Wrong to say that this matter would have been picked up in any case, as the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West said. It is not so long ago that the European Parliament, which the hon. Gentleman praised, attempted to question the Commissioner for Agriculture, M. Lardinois. He was not there. Therefore, it cannot necessarily be subject to this kind of scrutiny.
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, West says that these matters are subject to the scrutiny of an appropriate Committee of this House, but the chairman of that appropriate Committee has been present tonight to say that that is not good enough. We also have the evidence in the Third Report of the Joint Committee that the identical thing went through—I do not know how long before. It was the accident that this regulation referred to a matter which had to have separate English, Welsh and Scottish legislation that enabled us to cope with it. Were it not for that accident, this would have been law—wrong law, bad law, in some ways impossible law.
Without going into the definitions in the regulations—perhaps I may speak again when we have heard the Parliamentary Secretary—I would urge the hon. Lady with all the force that 1 can command, after the impressive case that we have heard and, even more, the impressive authority of those who delivered it, that the regulations should be withdrawn.
10.51 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Peggy Fenner): The basis of the complaint of hon. Members opposite, especially the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English), is that the English text of the EEC regulation referred to in our statutory instruments, as published in the Official Journal of the Community, does not contain any definition of "whole milk", although our instrument says that it does.
The words "lait entier" in the French appear in English as "full cream milk" This is a mistranslation, as the hon. Gentleman said it might be, which was detected in my Ministry when the draft English text of the EEC regulation was circulated for comment in September 1972. The Council was asked to correct the error and did so in a corrigendum to the EEC regulation dated 1st March 1973. A copy of this corrigendum was in our possession before the Separated Milk Regulations 1973 were laid before Parliament. There is thus no question of anyone acting under a misunderstanding of, or contrary to, the true intention of the EEC regulation.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, West also queried the legal position. My advice is that, irrespective of the corrigendum—the hon. Gentleman conceded this also—in so far as there could have been any doubt as to the meaning of "whole milk" in our regulations, this could have been resolved by reference to one or more of the texts of the EEC regulation in the other official languages, all of which are of equal status in interpreting it. There is no doubt as to the true meaning. The French text is lait entier, the Italian lane Micro and the German, perhaps even more forcefully, vollmilch.
Mr. English: I entirely accept what the hon. Lady said, but she surely realises that her explanation shows how difficult it is for an English solicitor advising a client to determine what the law is. He has to notice the original regulation, the fact that it was corrected, the fact that, if there is some doubt, it might be advisable to look up the French, German, Italian and Dutch texts, for example, employing the services of someone who understands those languages. How on earth a milkman does this I do not know,
1566
but even an English solicitor would find this difficult.
Mrs. Fenner: I was coming to the question of communications. The hon. Member said that an ordinary Englishman should not be asked to refer to texts in another language when he has difficulty in interpreting the law. I entirely agree. But in the particular case with which we are now dealing I find it hard to imagine why an ordinary Englishman should be in such trouble. "Whole milk", as my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) said, is a term that has been in general use within the dairy industry for many years. Similarly, anyone dealing with milk knows very well what is meant by "separated milk" and would seem to have no need to refer to any regulation, English or European, for a definition.
I also agree with the hon. Gentleman in the matter of "communication". The corrigendum of the Council, which put the mistranslation right, was dated 1st March 1973, but its publication in the English language version of the Official Journal of the Community had still not taken place when the hon. Gentleman raised this matter under Standing Order No. 9 on 9th July. This is attributable to the fact that the editors of the Journal do not publish every time they receive amending material, but prefer to wait until they have a reasonable amount. I can understand their point of view, but delays of the kind experienced with this particular regulation are too long and we must try to have them reduced.
I trust that I have now dealt firmly with the definition and that there can be no doubt about the legal position.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, West asked why the regulation was needed. It is necessary, for skimmed and semi-skimmed milk, to provide the enforcement of Article 6(1) which provides that only milk that reaches the standards laid down for drinking milk may be delivered for direct consumption in the Community. For the time being the regulation does not have to be enforced in respect of whole or raw milk.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the unknown amendment which bothered him. The amendment to Regulation

1567
1411/71 relates to the provision of an additional category of whole milk with a fixed fat content of not less than 3.80 per cent. That is to be found in Annex 1, Part II, Paragraph 1(2) of the Act of Accession and is referred to in Regulation 2(3)(a) of the statutory instrument. It was placed there at our request to protect the position of Channel Island milk, to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
The hon. Gentleman gave us a long dissertation with some extraordinary comments about Nazi gauleiters, which have no place in this instrument or in this House, on the subject of standardisation. The regulation makes standardisation of whole milk mandatory by the end of 1975.
My right hon. Friend refered to butterfat content. The hon. Gentleman knows that there is a derogation to 31st December 1975. Indeed, he mentioned that the Community regulation is for a minimum fat content of 3·5 per cent., and he fairly referred to the fact that our milk is often very much above that. But the intention of standardising has nothing to do with a Nazi gauleiter or any ephemeral reason like that. It is to ensure a consistent and high quality of milk to the consumer all the year round.
Dairies must bring their milk up to the EEC minimum standard of 3·5 per cent. butterfat content, but they are not compelled to reduce milk which is naturally above that standard. At some times of the year in some areas of this country the butterfat content of milk is below the minimum standard of 3·5 per cent. For the consumer, therefore, this is an improvement.
I should like now to go on to what 1 see as the other main basis of the hon. Gentleman's arguments. I confess myself surprised that the Joint Committee should have chosen to comment on the point firmly made by the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth), especially as the earlier England and Wales regulations are in almost every respect identical and caused no anxiety at all.
The writing of a statutory instrument in such a form which allows it to be adapted automatically for minor non controversial changes, to which the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh,
1568
Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray) referred, has long been an accepted practice in this country. It is a sensible and practical arrangement. Otherwise, fresh legislation would be necessary every time minor noncontroversial changes were made.
This regulation, by cross-reference, incorporates another part of the law now operating in the United Kingdom, and that is the relevant Community law. If that other part of the law were changed, it would be a waste of parliamentary time always to change specifically the Milk Regulations. The formula used in the Milk Regulations simply ensures that the change operates for the Milk Regulations purposes as well.
The hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness referred to penalties. The EEC regulation does not itself specifically contain provisions for enforcement. The purpose of that is to allow national Governments complete freedom to continue their own enforcement practices which the Community accepts will differ from State to State. There is no criminal jurisdiction within the Community Court. I hope that I have answered that point.
I trust that the hon. Gentleman will see, on the legal point which relates to the definition, that there was a corrigendum issued about the mistranslation, and it has now corrected it, although it has not yet been published in the OFFICIAL JOURNAL. We are talking about a practice, to which the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith, referred, of minor non-controversial changes, and I trust therefore that hon. Members will not wish to press—
Mr. Booth: The hon. Lady is suggesting that she is answering these points by saying that paragraph 2(3)(b) relates only to minor and non-controversial changes. That is a misreading of the paragraph. That paragraph alludes to
"any subsequently directly applicable Community instrument."
It is not related to minor or non-controversial changes.
Mrs. Fenner: Any amendment of a directly applicable Community provision is automatically part of the law of this country. That effect is not brought about by these regulations. This is part of Community law which operates in this country.
Mr. English: I think that through inadvertence the hon. Lady did not answer one point which I raised. The hon. Lady and I are aware that the standardisation of whole milk under Regulation 1411/71 need not take place in law until 1st January 1976, but I asked her for obviously this is a matter which involves capital investment in dairying institutions and so forth—what was her target date for it. The period up to that date is the maximum length of derogation under Community law. Presumably the Ministry has in mind some sort of target date before that very last possible date for actually conforming to the regulation and bringing it into force in this country. I wanted to know what it was.
Mrs. Fenner: There is no target date, and although the hon. Gentleman says that the derogation ends in December 1975, the Minister may bring it in earlier to allow a running-in period for the trade to accustom itself to the new procedures before the final deadline. Standardisation and our present arrangements could, therefore, run in parallel for a time. But the time for this introductory period is a matter of negotiation between the interests concerned and the Government—I trust that the hon. Gentleman will note particularly "between the interests concerned and the Government", in the light of his reference to investment and so on.
11.4 p.m.
Mr. Buchan: With the leave of the House, may I say that we remain convinced that the regulations should be withdrawn. The Minister has put up a noble case for her Department, as she always does, and I congratulate her on that. But that does not strengthen her case. Her argument was based on the fact that the translation was subject to a corrigendum which was not published and, even worse, was not published on the ground that publication should wait until there was sufficient of them to justify publication. That is an intolerable position, especially as we are here dealing with offences and penalties involving imprisonment. I am not exaggerating.
What would we say if the HANSARD editors decided that nothing exciting had happened this week and that they would therefore not publish for a month or two? There was a strike but we were able to read what happened one way or
1570
another. It required a strike to stop the printing of HANSARD in this country. On the Continent it is stopped by law, by officialdom. That is not good enough. We cannot tolerate a situation in which definitions can swing back and forth like that. It is not sufficient that somewhere in the rafters is a corrigendum which deals with the problem.
The right way to deal with it is the way which has been suggested by the Committee, and I refer the Minister to appendix 1 on Report No. 10:
"The Committee at their meeting on 12th June invited the Scottish Office to submit a memorandum to help the Committee."
We understand that the corrigendum was prepared in March, but there is no mention of this being brought before the Committee. All that the Committee and, indeed, the milk producers of this country have to operate on—and it comes into operation on 1st April 1973, and thank heaven for derogation—are the existing regulations which only serve to confuse the situation.
We also come back to the even more serious point which surprised the Minister. In report No. 10 the Committee picked out Regulation 2(3)(b) which states that any regulation is—
"as replaced or amended by any subsequent directly applicable Community instrument."
The defence which she put up was also put up to the Committee. She said that this always happens. It avoids us having to go through the process of legislation. But when that argument was made to the Committee it was rejected. That Committee, representing this House, carries, and certainly should carry, more weight than the executive. That Committee, representing all parties, is extremely important. The Government by their attitude are now challenging the principle of parliamentary scrutiny. They are rejecting the rejection by the Committee of the arguments that have been put forward. The Government have rejected the Committee's view with no further explanation.
A further point put forward by the Committee is that any change that takes place is not subject to the direct consideration of this House in the normal way. Presumably a change in the regulations may not be published until there are enough to make it worth publishing them. That is intolerable. The changing

1571
European regulations will not be available in the same way that amendments to United Kingdom legislation are made known.
The seriousness of this is also that statutory instruments giving effect to EEC regulations have been made before the regulations have been published. Here, we are safeguarded by delegation, but it can happen without the safeguard of delegation that they can be made and become law before being published, and long before we get corrigenda published.
Mrs. Fenner: Is the hon. Gentleman referring only to the Scottish regulations, because, of course, the Joint Committee made none of these comments with regard to the English regulation, which is precisely the same?
Mr. English: I would add that the tenth report, on the Scottish regulations—I realise that there were printing difficulties at the time—came out on 26th June, by which time the regulations had been in force for 12 days.
Mr. Buchan: We have the Chairman of the Committee here, and I would give way if he wished to interrupt me and make this point, but the third report was printed by order of the House of Commons on 20th March and the second was printed by order of the House on 26th June, and it was significant that they were already legislation before they were printed. How can the hon. Lady rest on this, when we had the report on legislation which was identical, word for word, and which referred only by accident to separate Scottish legislation? The Committee now picks it up and corrects the earlier omission.
The argument is precisely that point, and the fact that the Committee did not pick it up the first time but did so the second time reinforces the argument. The hon. Lady must see this. The Committee missed it the first time. If the Committee had picked it up the first time and missed it the second, we would have assumed that mature consideration had prevailed, but when it picks it up the second time and then discusses it, that reinforces the argument. The hon. Lady cannot rest on her argument.
There are two points on the order itself. The first is one which the hon. Lady
1572
made, that there was no offence in the EEC but that it was left to each separate country. But there is much offence in this lady, as Hamlet said to Ophelia. If the regulation is tolerated in Europe and we find it foisted upon us, there is much offence in it. That is no excuse but a demerit.
The other point is on standardisation. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) is perfectly correct. "Brought to" can mean "brought down to". It is no use arguing that there is no proposal to bring down the butterfat content. The argument is different.
The argument by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West is that, because of the pricing policy of the EEC particularly on butter and milk products, once regulations—and we know that regulations tend to create a norm—exist, the tendency will be to use them to reduce the figure to 3·5 so as to produce milk products at the high price at which butter will be. That is the argument, and it seems a perfectly correct one.
Mr. Booth: Will my hon. Friend consider that the hon. Lady is chiding the Joint Committee for not having drawn attention to the first report but that she has not told the House that the Government did not set up the Joint Committee until we had such a backlog of statutory instruments that it was impossible to consider all, and in the circumstances it is hardly reprehensible for the Committee to take the view that it was not possible to consider every statutory instrument this Session?
Mr. English: My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) has got my point on relative pricing correctly. In addition, there is the reason that in two months of the year some milk must have its butter content reduced to bring it up to the 3–5 per cent. level. But in order to do that, it means that one has to add some cream to it and one can do so only by taking cream from some other milk, presumably at other times of the year.
Mr. Buchan: That is an interesting point. This is a Daniel come to judgment in the whole argument on the need for standardisation throughout the year. If milk sometimes drops below the 3·5

1573
level, it has to be added to from milk in the other nine months of the year. That is the significance of the argument. We reject these regulations. We ask the Government to do the right thing by an all-party Committee of the House. They should act regardless of whether there is to be a corrigendum which we may see one day when there are enough others to publish them all.
The regulations will affect our producers, and we ask the Government to withdraw them because they introduce an extremely bad precedent in the relationship between the EEC and ourselves. Tonight it is milk. Next it could be an even more serious matter—tea, a subject that can move mountains in this country. There could be incredible trouble for the Government. I advise them as deeply and strongly as I can to avoid that trouble by withdrawing the regulations. If there is a derogation until 1975, we can exist without it throughout the summer. Let the Government take the regulations back, study them and listen to the advice given by the Committee. If they do, they will save themselves and the country a great deal of trouble.
Question put and negatived.

SEPARATED MILK (SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS 1973
Motion made,
That the Separated Milk (Scotland) Regulations 1973 (S.I., 1973, No. 914), dated 8th May 1973, a copy of which was laid before this House on 24th May, be withdrawn.—[Mr. Buchan.]
Question put and negatived.

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

ROADS (FARM ANIMALS)
11.18 p.m.
Mr. James Tinn: The Under-Secretary of State and I can congratulate ourselves that, thanks to the way the House has so expeditiously disposed of the mass of business which stood on the Order Paper, we are able
1574
to reach the Adjournment debate very much earlier than we expected. Devoted as you are, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and ready at any time of day or night to serve the House, I am sure that you too find this not unwelcome.
The problem to which I draw attention is also of concern to our dairy farmers, but unlike the problem we have just been discussing it has been with them for a long time. It concerns not only dairy farmers but farmers generally, and every motorist who has occasion to drive in the countryside is aware of it. It is the danger to and that caused by animals, particularly farm animals, when they cross the roads.
My attention was concentrated on the matter by the problem of one of my constituents, Mr. R. C. Dickson, of Upsall Grange Farm. His farm is bisected by a road, as so many farms are. Two-thirds of his acreage and his dairy herd are on a different side of the road from his farm buildings. This has always been a difficulty for him, but the recent improvement of the road to dual carriageway has greatly increased the problem because the greater speed of the traffic makes it even more urgent for at least three men to be engaged in seeing the animals safely across the road four times a day.
Mr. Dickson's farm of 270 acres and 120 cows is not large enough for him to be able to provide that kind of manning. Accordingly, he asked the North Riding County Council to provide an underpass. Although the council was sympathetic, the request had to be turned down on grounds of expense, and this was understandable. All that was eventually provided was one of the customary statutory signs "Beware Cattle Crossing".
One knows that such signs are always in place. They tend to become rather weather beaten and are sometimes covered by foliage. Because they are always in place they tend to be disregarded by motorists, particularly urban motorists, who are not as aware as a countryman might be of the times at which cows are likely to be crossing the road on their way to and from the milking shed.
I approached the Department and suggested that the solution might lie in providing some kind of flashing sign similar to that which is customarily provided to

1575
warn motorists when they are approaching a school crossing. At that time the idea was not accepted, but I believe that it has since been considered seriously by the Department and I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us something about it.
This problem has been with us for a long time. In 1964 a working party was set up by the Ministry of Transport to consider the problem. The working party reported in 1967 and made certain recommendations. I am sorry to say that only one of those recommendations has been implemented, and that consisted of little more than the making of an advisory code of self-help. The Ministry issued a code about the wearing of bright-coloured jackets by farm workers.
The reason given for rejecting the working party's other recommendations was that the Minister did not have power to make the kind of grants suggested in its report, but he offered to take two steps which it was thought would contribute to solving the problem. The first was the inclusion of a paragraph on farm access in a booklet to be issued, and the second was the amendment of the traffic signs regulations so that certain types of temporary warning signs might be used. That proposal has not yet been implemented, but we have reason to believe that some progress has been made within the Department on this matter. Perhaps the Minister will tell us about it tonight.
All that has been achieved so far is the approval by the Transport Department of the use of a portable triangle similar to that used by motorists to denote a hazard arising from, for instance, a broken-down vehicle. It took the Department an unconscionable time to approve that commonsense step, which is compulsory in other countries, but which in Britain is only permissive. So far the Department is prepared to allow similar signs to be used to give warning at cattle crossing but will not allow them to be modified to indicate a hazard from a farm tractor or whatever else may be the hazard of which the farmer wishes to warn motorists. Farmers are anxious that the use of such signs should be authorised. This would be a small step forward but it would be well worth while.
1576
My preference is still for the flashing indicator type of sign. For one thing, it does not involve an obstruction to the road, even to the small degree that a triangle does. It is more obviously eye-catching. It is difficult to miss it even in poor light. In winter, milking times occur in poor light. There may be difficulties about power supply, but I should have thought that the signs could be battery-powered.
Flashing indicators would be more expensive than the ordinary triangles which farmers favour. It is only fair that the Department should consider that the provision of such signs, as with all other signs provided for the safety of the motorists and all other road users, should be a charge on public funds. If such flashing signs are authorised, I greatly hope that the cost will not fall on the farmer concerned.
I have so far had mostly in mind the risk to dairy animals crossing roads. My attention has been drawn to the more general problem of access to farms and the risk to animals. I urge on the Minister the importance of his Department considering the provision of grants, administered perhaps through local consultative committees consisting of the local authorities, farmers, safety committess and so on, to ensure that from the time when new roads or road improvements are first planned the question of farm access is considered, the cost being borne by public funds, with a view to animals being confined as far as possible to minor roads and avoiding slow-moving vehicles such as tractors having to travel any distance along the public road with all the hazards that this can cause to faster moving traffic.
I hope I have said enough to indicate the reality of the problem. I must express disappointment that the Department has not found it possible to come forward with a suitable solution sooner. I only hope that the Minister will be able to give us some firm proposals.
11.30 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Keith Speed): I should like first to congratulate the hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Tinn) on raising this subject of farm animals, which follows naturally on our earlier debates. I felt at one stage that at the pace we

1577
were moving the subject would not be reached before the evening was out, but I am glad that we have made sufficient progress not to have to have another late sitting.
As the House knows, since taking office we have been particularly concerned to ensure that everything possible was done to make our roads safer. Up to now there has been a danger, I suppose, in view of all the attention and understandable publicity given to our proposals to assist house dwellers affected by new roads and the other categories mentioned in our earlier debate tonight, that when we discussed regulations designed to protect people from the effects of new roads and so on the needs of a different but important class of people farmers—would seem to be neglected.
Perhaps I ought to declare a constituency interest. The President of the National Farmers' Union, now Sir Henry Plumb, is both a constituent and a personal friend of mine, and I hope that when wearing my ministerial hat I shall never neglect the interests of farmers.
The effect of new roads and the improvement of existing roads on farms and farmland has always been carefully considered under successive administrations, and this consideration has been by no means lessened while public attention has tended to concentrate more on the effects of road building in urban areas. Wherever it has been appropriate, both my Department and the previous Ministry of Transport have always consulted the National Farmers' Union and individual farmers affected by the trunk road programme, and local highway authorities have been encouraged to consult landowners affected by road schemes at an early stage.
The hon. Member mentioned access to new roads. He should recognise that cattle crossings by bridge or subway are provided for new roads whenever the cost can be covered out of the compensation payable to the landowner and can also be provided if national agricultural interests justify it. Certainly in many reports by independent inspectors following public inquiries ideas are put forward by the inspectors and we always carefully and sympathetically consider these to see whether it is possible to find one way or another to provide the sort of access that the hon. Member suggests.
1578
An alternative solution is the provision of milking parlours as accommodation works on each side of the road. These measures may be provided if an existing road is improved and the improvement is substantial.
Mr. Robert C. Brown (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West): I appreciate that cattle crossings are normally incorporated in major new road schemes, but the smaller byroad or unclassified road is often much more important. It is essential that the type of sign my hon. Friend has mentioned should be used where cattle cross for milking, just as a sign is used to indicate a school crossing patrol. Such signs should be at either end of the stretch of road which the cattle cross. Quite apart from the potential danger to the cattle, there is the possibility of at least serious damage to a car.
Mr. Speed: I shall come to the subject of signs. What the hon. Member has said is interesting and pertinent. At the moment I am saying that prevention is better than cure. But, particularly with new roads, crossing over or under the road, with the duplication or resiting of milking parlours, which may be covered by compensation or covered directly by Government grant if the national agricultural interest so requires, will be the solution because, whatever signs there may be, there is always an agricultural risk that is greater than when cattle and cars are separated.
The general problems associated with cattle crossing main roads were thoroughly examined in the mid-1960s when it was noticed—this is important—that far fewer farm animals needed to cross roads than had previously been the case. First, farmers were increasingly aware of the need for caution as traffic built up, and they implemented measures to solve the problems. These measures included—I have seen examples land exchanges and alterations in tenancy agreements, the resiting of buildings, and policy changes such as switching from dairy farming to beef production. All those measures helped. My own experience and the advice that I get from advisers in my Department is that, although the problems are still severe in some parts of the country, generally they are less than they used to be.

1579
Given that we are aware of the need to provide crossing facilities where appropriate, there are two other arrangements to consider. The first is the question of road signs, which both hon. Members have raised. I certainly agree that there is scope for improving the use of warning signs on roads, and also that this matter has not, perhaps, been proceeded with as expeditiously as it might have been, but there have, of course, been a number of other things on which we have had to concentrate.
My right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries has, however, recently had discussions with the National Farmers Union about this. The union has in principle welcomed various proposals that my right hon. Friend has put to it. Details are being worked out in the Department and they will shortly be sent both to the NFU and to other interested organisations, including the local authority associations, which are important in all this.
I hope that the hon. Member will forgive me if I do not go into details of those proposals tonight, because it would be wrong to do so before the associations and other interests have been consulted. What we have in mind will, I think, go quite a long way to resolving the remaining problems, and my right hon. Friend is well aware of the need to press on with this. The consultations will be pressed forward as quickly as possible so that we can reach a conclusion and finality. In due course they will be reported to the House and will, I hope, be implemented.
A major point which we have very much in mind—this is a problem which I ask the House to consider—is that, as with pedestrian crossings, we cannot simply erect a warning sign wherever one is requested. This is one of the problems regarding the flashing signs to which the hon. Member referred. With all these signs—pelicans, ordinary pedestrian crossings or whatever they might be—one must have a form of criteria, otherwise the currency can be devalued by having a proliferation of signs which at the end of the day will be ignored. The hon. Member will know from experience that we face the same problem with speed limits. That is why the Department has
1580
for many years exercised site control over the installation of cattle signs, to prevent a proliferation of this useful type of warning sign.
One problem relating to the cattle sign when applied to occasional journeys by farm animals as opposed to the open heath is that the message is often applicable only at limited times of the day, and permanent display can devalue the sign in the eyes of motorists. That is another problem that we must deal with.
Until we have decided how best to resolve the problem and until the criteria on which we are currently working have been determined, approval for the use of cattle warning signs can still be sought from my Department's regional roads and transportation controller.
As regards the specific and relevant question which has been put about Mr. Dickson, the hon. Member outlined accurately the various circumstances of the improvement to the road. It is an improvement rather than completely brand new road construction. When the hon. Member for Cleveland wrote to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development last year, my right hon. Friend told him in his reply that responsibility for the road rested with the North Riding County Council, the highway authority.
With the dualling of the road between Cross Keys and Upsall traffic circus, visibility will be improved once the scheme is finally completed. Warning signs drawing attention to the cattle crossing have been in position for some time. We are certainly aware, however, that traffic speed on the road may increase as a result of the improvement and the increased visibility. Certainly it may be necessary for the signs to be repositioned. We are always willing to give our expertise and guidance to the appropriate highway authority, in this case the North Riding County Council.
My advice is that Mr. Dickson bought the farm in the full knowledge that the road scheme was envisaged at the time, and the county council had already acquired the land necessary for the provision of dual carriageways. I understand also that the county council has several times considered, the most recent occasion being last month, the request by Mr. Dickson for the provision of a cattle

1581
"creep" but decided that it was not justified.
I understand that since acquiring the farm Mr. Dickson has changed his method of farming and now has a dairy herd and intends to build it up to 100 cows. The animals cross the road four times a day—obviously a traffic hazard.
As a statement of fact, the Department is always prepared to consider a grant of 75 per cent. of the cost of a cattle "creep" on principal roads—and this is one—where the local authority asks for it and where it makes a case for it. I say "consider". We do not always make the grant. In this case no application was made and therefore we had no locus in the matter.
Perhaps the final element in this difficult question is that concerning those in charge of animals. By now farmers are all too well aware of the need to observe some helpful rules. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food issued its Code for Farmers in May 1968. I got the impression from what the hon. Gentleman said that he did not like this. It is by no means the total answer, but it is helpful. Some of the guidelines were mentioned by him.
It is obviously important that those in charge of animals on the road, particularly at milking times, in half-light, should be clearly visible in the same way as motorway maintenance men and men working on railway track. They should wear distinctive clothing of a highly visible colour.
I hope I will not be misunderstood if I also say that we should bear in mind that children are not always the best cattle drovers, particularly on today's roads, when droving is a skilled exercise. Only those of a responsible age and with the necessary experience should be allowed on to the highway in charge of farm animals. If it is possible, and with milking times I appreciate that usually it is not, the droving should be timed to avoid peak traffic flows.
We all know that the precautions we have taken would be in vain without the understanding and co-operation of those who drive vehicles on the road. This debate is useful in reminding all road users, motor cyclists, car and lorry drivers, that there is a special problem here. It is a diminishing one but it still exists par-
1582
ticularly in rural areas. We should keep a special look-out for cattle crossings.
I have taken into account what the hon. Gentleman has said, particularly about signing. I hope that he and the House will have noted that we are making progress here, and that we will be able to draw our discussions with the authorities to a speedy conclusion. I cannot at this stage give an undertaking that we will have flashing lights, but various ideas are being explored in depth and have been welcomed by the National Farmers' Union. I hope that, having received those assurances and having been able to raise the problems of the principal roads in his constituency, the hon. Gentleman will feel that this debate has been worth while.
Mr. Robert C. Brown: I agree that when speed limit signs proliferate they tend to be ignored, but the hon. Gentleman cannot equate such signs which are effective 24 hours a day with flashing signs such as those used to indicate children crossing a road. Such signs are in use only for limited periods during the day, and the same would be true of flashing signs to indicate cattle crossing.
Mr. Speed: I understand that, but there is this difference. "Children crossing" signs, speed limit signs and most of the other signs about which we have been talking are generally in urban situations. I assume that nine times out of 10 such signs are in speed-restricted areas. We start at an advantage if the driver is obeying the speed limit. The hon. Gentleman will know from experience that by and large people respect realistic speed limits. That is different from the farm situation, which almost by definition is rarely in a speed-restricted area and has a whole range of roads, including country lanes with very poor visibility. Presumably the farmer would be relied on to actuate the sign. There are problems of maintenance and so on.
I am not completely dismissing the argument The hon. Member for Cleveland, who originally raised the matter with my right hon. Friend, is clearly concerned about it and feels that it is one way of solving the problem. But there is a difference where there is a completely unrestricted area and a whole range of roads, from the smallest

1583
country lane up to dual-carriageway trunk or principal roads.
That is why both the expert advice I have received and my own inclination is to have reservations about the flashing
1584
sign, although I accept that we must make improvements in the present situation.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at a quarter to Twelve o'clock.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Vietnam
  Vietnam
  Force Reductions
  Force Reductions
  French Foreign Minister (Talks)
  French Foreign Minister (Talks)
  Law of the Sea Conference
  Law of the Sea Conference
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
  Ellice Islands
  Ellice Islands
  Diplomatic Service (Agricultural Attaches)
  Diplomatic Service (Agricultural Attaches)
  East Germany
  East Germany
  EEC Commission
  EEC Commission
  Council of Ministers
  Council of Ministers
  Greece
  Greece
  Ascension Islands and St. Helena
  Ascension Islands and St. Helena
  Indonesia
  Indonesia
  Prime Minister of Portugal (Meeting)
  Prime Minister of Portugal (Meeting)
  World Population Year
  World Population Year
  Denmark (Chemical Waste Dumping)
  Denmark (Chemical Waste Dumping)
  Zambia
  Zambia
  Iraq Petroleum Company Limited
  Iraq Petroleum Company Limited
ENVIRONMENT
  Tyres
  Tyres
  Rent Rebates and Allowances
  Rent Rebates and Allowances
  Toxic Chemicals
  Toxic Chemicals
  Driving Tests
  Driving Tests
  Homelessness (London)
  Homelessness (London)
  Noise Abatement
  Noise Abatement
  Domestic Water Supply
  Domestic Water Supply
  Disabled Persons (Toilet Facilities)
  Disabled Persons (Toilet Facilities)
  Electrical Installations (Inspection)
  Electrical Installations (Inspection)
  Local Government Reorganisation
  Local Government Reorganisation
  Covent Garden Market
  Covent Garden Market
  Smokeless Fuel Production Plants
  Smokeless Fuel Production Plants
  Drinking Water (Safety)
  Drinking Water (Safety)
  Rye
  Rye
  Child Cyclists (Casualties)
  Child Cyclists (Casualties)
  Railways (Compensation)
  Railways (Compensation)
  Clitheroe-Whalley Bypass
  Clitheroe-Whalley Bypass
  Heavy Lorries (Routing)
  Heavy Lorries (Routing)
  Waste Disposal (Lulworth)
  Waste Disposal (Lulworth)
  New Towns (Housing Development)
  New Towns (Housing Development)
  Maplin
  Maplin
  Inland Waterways (Commercial Transport)
  Inland Waterways (Commercial Transport)
  Driving Licence Fees (Payment by Giro)
  Driving Licence Fees (Payment by Giro)
  Council Houses (Central Heating)
  Council Houses (Central Heating)
  Shepperton Studios
  Shepperton Studios
  Public Transport (Denmark)
  Public Transport (Denmark)
  Invalid Tricycles (Construction and Use Regulations)
  Invalid Tricycles (Construction and Use Regulations)
  Disabled Passengers (Car Badge Scheme)
  Disabled Passengers (Car Badge Scheme)
  Trunk Roads (Planning Procedures)
  Trunk Roads (Planning Procedures)
  Housing and Environmental Improvement
  Housing and Environmental Improvement
  Improvement Grants
  Improvement Grants
  Building Materials
  Building Materials
  Lead Poisoning
  Lead Poisoning
  Waste Material Disposal
  Waste Material Disposal
  Licensed Premises (Tenants)
  Licensed Premises (Tenants)
  Transport Facilities (Don Valley)
  Transport Facilities (Don Valley)
  London Underground Railways (One-Man Operation)
  London Underground Railways (One-Man Operation)
  Leasehold Property (Service Charges)
  Leasehold Property (Service Charges)
  Docks Road (Hull)
  Docks Road (Hull)
  Royal Citadel, Plymouth
  Royal Citadel, Plymouth
  Local Authorities (Government Grants)
  Local Authorities (Government Grants)
  South Yorkshire Navigation Canal
  South Yorkshire Navigation Canal
  River Don
  River Don
  Colnbrook Lake (Pollution)
  Colnbrook Lake (Pollution)
  Land Reclamation
  Land Reclamation
  Water Authorities (Membership)
  Water Authorities (Membership)
  M23
  M23
  Planning Matters (Correspondence)
  Planning Matters (Correspondence)
  Channel Tunnel
  Channel Tunnel
  Councillors (Allowances)
  Councillors (Allowances)
  Rents
  Rents
  Box Girder Bridges
  Box Girder Bridges
  Compulsory Purchase Orders
  Compulsory Purchase Orders
  Local Government Superannuation
  Local Government Superannuation
  B1013, Rayleigh—Hankwell
  B1013, Rayleigh—Hankwell
  London North Orbital Road
  London North Orbital Road
  Housing (Manchester)
  Housing (Manchester)
  Danum Housing Association Limited (Doncaster)
  Danum Housing Association Limited (Doncaster)
  Car Seat Belts
  Car Seat Belts
  Electoral Arrangements (London)
  Electoral Arrangements (London)
  Demolitions (Local Authority Powers)
  Demolitions (Local Authority Powers)
  Local Government Finance
  Local Government Finance
  London Housing Action Group
  London Housing Action Group
  Rent and Mortgage Reliefs
  Rent and Mortgage Reliefs
  Automatic Car Washers
  Automatic Car Washers
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  North Sea Oil
  North Sea Oil
  EEC Regional Aid
  EEC Regional Aid
  Oil Drilling Rigs
  Oil Drilling Rigs
  Retrospective Legislation
  Retrospective Legislation
  English Industrial Estates Corporation (Northern Region)
  English Industrial Estates Corporation (Northern Region)
USSR
  USSR
  USSR
Metrication (Food Sales and Prices)
  Metrication (Food Sales and Prices)
  Metrication (Food Sales and Prices)
Aycliffe Industrial Estate
  Aycliffe Industrial Estate
  Aycliffe Industrial Estate
Canada
  Canada
  Canada
Polystyrene
  Polystyrene
  Polystyrene
Synthetic Products (Research)
  Synthetic Products (Research)
  Synthetic Products (Research)
Advance Factories (Northern Region)
  Advance Factories (Northern Region)
  Advance Factories (Northern Region)
Hovercraft
  Hovercraft
  Hovercraft
Clearing House Contracts
  Clearing House Contracts
  Clearing House Contracts
Electricity Boards (Socket Sales)
  Electricity Boards (Socket Sales)
  Electricity Boards (Socket Sales)
Jet Engine Noise (Research)
  Jet Engine Noise (Research)
  Jet Engine Noise (Research)
Civil Submarines and Submersibles
  Civil Submarines and Submersibles
  Civil Submarines and Submersibles
Company Law
  Company Law
  Company Law
Seamen (Wage Rates)
  Seamen (Wage Rates)
  Seamen (Wage Rates)
Merchant Ships (Crew Accommodation)
  Merchant Ships (Crew Accommodation)
  Merchant Ships (Crew Accommodation)
Money (Purchasing Power Changes)
  Money (Purchasing Power Changes)
  Money (Purchasing Power Changes)
Offshore Oil and Gas Equipment
  Offshore Oil and Gas Equipment
  Offshore Oil and Gas Equipment
Export Prices
  Export Prices
  Export Prices
Pickled Birds
  Pickled Birds
  Pickled Birds
Civil Liability and Compensation for Personal Injury
  Civil Liability and Compensation for Personal Injury
  Civil Liability and Compensation for Personal Injury
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Sugar
  Sugar
  Eggs
  Eggs
  Intervention Board Payments
  Intervention Board Payments
  Beef Production
  Beef Production
  Fertilisers (Cost)
  Fertilisers (Cost)
  Veterinary Surgeons (Brucellosis Eradication)
  Veterinary Surgeons (Brucellosis Eradication)
  Butter (Import Levy)
  Butter (Import Levy)
  Horses
  Horses
  New Zealand Butter
  New Zealand Butter
  Basic Foods and Feeding Stuffs (Import Prices)
  Basic Foods and Feeding Stuffs (Import Prices)
  Dressed Poultry
  Dressed Poultry
  Maize Groats
  Maize Groats
  British Sugar Corporation
  British Sugar Corporation
  Reptiles and Non-Domesticated Animals
  Reptiles and Non-Domesticated Animals
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Denmark (Chemical Waste Dumping)
  Denmark (Chemical Waste Dumping)
  Animals (Export)
  Animals (Export)
  Prices
  Prices
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Commonwealth Citizens (Nurses' Training)
  Commonwealth Citizens (Nurses' Training)
  Commonwealth Immigrants
  Commonwealth Immigrants
  Private Hire Cars (Signs)
  Private Hire Cars (Signs)
  Taxis (London)
  Taxis (London)
  Parking Offences (Diplomatic Immunity)
  Parking Offences (Diplomatic Immunity)
  Immigration Statistics
  Immigration Statistics
  Shoplifting (Hartlepool)
  Shoplifting (Hartlepool)
  Litter Acts (Prosecutions)
  Litter Acts (Prosecutions)
  Mr. Tariq Ali
  Mr. Tariq Ali
  Mr. and Mrs. Anjun
  Mr. and Mrs. Anjun
  Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme
  Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme
  Polyurethane Foam
  Polyurethane Foam
  Firearms Control
  Firearms Control
  Boundary Commissions (Membership)
  Boundary Commissions (Membership)
  Pornography
  Pornography
  Fire Precautions Act (Hotels and Boardinghouses)
  Fire Precautions Act (Hotels and Boardinghouses)
  Shotguns
  Shotguns
  Portuguese Prime Minister (Visit)
  Portuguese Prime Minister (Visit)
DEFENCE
  Harrier Aircraft
  Harrier Aircraft
  Medical Services (Report)
  Medical Services (Report)
  Retired Officers (Industrial Employment)
  Retired Officers (Industrial Employment)
  Drill Halls
  Drill Halls
ROYAL COMMISSIONS
  ROYAL COMMISSIONS
  ROYAL COMMISSIONS
TOP SALARIES REVIEW BODY
  TOP SALARIES REVIEW BODY
  TOP SALARIES REVIEW BODY
NORTHERN IRELAND
  NORTHERN IRELAND
  NORTHERN IRELAND
COUNCIL OF EUROPE (DELEGATION)
  COUNCIL OF EUROPE (DELEGATION)
  COUNCIL OF EUROPE (DELEGATION)
NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT
  NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT
  NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT
GAZUMPING
  GAZUMPING
  GAZUMPING
POULSON CASE
  POULSON CASE
  POULSON CASE
CYANIDE WASTE (MIDLANDS)
  CYANIDE WASTE (MIDLANDS)
  CYANIDE WASTE (MIDLANDS)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Scottish Sheriffs (Dependants' Pensions)
  Scottish Sheriffs (Dependants' Pensions)
  Stationery Office Bookshop
  Stationery Office Bookshop
  Civil Servants
  Civil Servants
EMPLOYMENT
  Training Centres
  Training Centres
  Training
  Training
  Willesden Employment Exchange
  Willesden Employment Exchange
  Industrial Disputes
  Industrial Disputes
  Leek
  Leek
  Mexborough and Wombwell
  Mexborough and Wombwell
  South-East Wales
  South-East Wales
  Work Permits
  Work Permits
  Safety and Health at Work
  Safety and Health at Work
  Isocyanates
  Isocyanates
  Polyurethane Foam
  Polyurethane Foam
  Unemployment Benefit (Abuse)
  Unemployment Benefit (Abuse)
  Lead Industry (Health Precautions)
  Lead Industry (Health Precautions)
  Pay Board
  Pay Board
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Divers
  Divers
NATIONAL FINANCE
  EEC Budgets
  EEC Budgets
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Wealth Tax
  Wealth Tax
  EEC Regional Development Fund
  EEC Regional Development Fund
  Special Deposits (Interest)
  Special Deposits (Interest)
  £ Sterling
  £ Sterling
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Fire Service (Casualties)
  Fire Service (Casualties)
  Chinese Restaurants
  Chinese Restaurants
  Rents (Payment by Giro)
  Rents (Payment by Giro)
  Council House Tenancies
  Council House Tenancies
  Sub-standard Housing
  Sub-standard Housing
  Government Hospitality (Assembly Members)
  Government Hospitality (Assembly Members)
  Assembly Stationery
  Assembly Stationery
  Assembly Meeting (Cost of Preparation)
  Assembly Meeting (Cost of Preparation)
POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
  Telephone Tariffs (Europe)
  Telephone Tariffs (Europe)
  Telephones (Private Attachments)
  Telephones (Private Attachments)
  Independent Television (Levy)
  Independent Television (Levy)
WALES
  Toxic Materials (Disposal)
  Toxic Materials (Disposal)
  Mrs. Alice Higgs
  Mrs. Alice Higgs
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Adult Education
  Adult Education
  Printing and Book Production Courses
  Printing and Book Production Courses
  Librarianship
  Librarianship
  School Meals
  School Meals
  School Reports (Withholding of Information)
  School Reports (Withholding of Information)
  Yorkshire Artists (Exhibition)
  Yorkshire Artists (Exhibition)
  Pupil Costs
  Pupil Costs
  Teachers (London)
  Teachers (London)
  Students (Overseas Grants)
  Students (Overseas Grants)
  Covent Garden Development Plan
  Covent Garden Development Plan
  Handicapped Children
  Handicapped Children
  Psychologists
  Psychologists
  Professor E. J. Field
  Professor E. J. Field
  Secondary School Places (Birmingham.)
  Secondary School Places (Birmingham.)
  Museums and Galleries (Admission Charges)
  Museums and Galleries (Admission Charges)
  Teachers' Pensions
  Teachers' Pensions
  Autistic Children (Yorkshire)
  Autistic Children (Yorkshire)
  Veterinary Students
  Veterinary Students
  Copyright
  Copyright
  School Building Allocations
  School Building Allocations
  Edith Neville School, Camden
  Edith Neville School, Camden
  School Places (West Riding)
  School Places (West Riding)
  School Allocations (Norwich)
  School Allocations (Norwich)
  School Holidays and Examinations
  School Holidays and Examinations
  Laburnum Junior Mixed School (Visit)
  Laburnum Junior Mixed School (Visit)
  Youth Service
  Youth Service
  English Language Schools
  English Language Schools
  Medical School Places
  Medical School Places
SCOTLAND
  Ninewells Hospital, Dundee
  Ninewells Hospital, Dundee
  Seal Skins
  Seal Skins
  Seal Culling
  Seal Culling
  Inshore Fishing Industry (Subsidy)
  Inshore Fishing Industry (Subsidy)
  Industrial Projects (Highlands and Islands)
  Industrial Projects (Highlands and Islands)
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Scotland) Act
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Scotland) Act
  Grant-Aided Schools
  Grant-Aided Schools
  Mountain Bothies
  Mountain Bothies
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Tropical Diseases (Inoculation)
  Tropical Diseases (Inoculation)
  Lead Pollution (Motorway Areas)
  Lead Pollution (Motorway Areas)
  Holiday Areas (Medical Services)
  Holiday Areas (Medical Services)
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Means-Tested Benefit Claims
  Means-Tested Benefit Claims
  Supplementary Benefits
  Supplementary Benefits
  Voluntary Unemployed Deduction
  Voluntary Unemployed Deduction
  Wage Stop
  Wage Stop
  Queen Alexander Hospital, Portsmouth
  Queen Alexander Hospital, Portsmouth
  Prescription Charges
  Prescription Charges
  Drugs (Cost)
  Drugs (Cost)
  Prescriptions (Cost)
  Prescriptions (Cost)
  Medicines (Product Licences)
  Medicines (Product Licences)
  Consultants (Merit Awards)
  Consultants (Merit Awards)
  Nurses (Training)
  Nurses (Training)
  Butter Tokens
  Butter Tokens
  Disabled Persons' Allowances
  Disabled Persons' Allowances
  Handicapped Persons (Registration)
  Handicapped Persons (Registration)
  Unemployment Benefit Recipient (Conduct)
  Unemployment Benefit Recipient (Conduct)
  Special Hospitals (Ancillary Staff Pay)
  Special Hospitals (Ancillary Staff Pay)
  Occupational Pension Schemes (Publicity)
  Occupational Pension Schemes (Publicity)
  Benefits (Abuse)
  Benefits (Abuse)
  Handicapped and Elderly Persons' Facilities (Doncaster)
  Handicapped and Elderly Persons' Facilities (Doncaster)
  Infectious Diseases
  Infectious Diseases
  Trent Regional Health Authority
  Trent Regional Health Authority
  Fluoridation
  Fluoridation
  Tobacco Substitutes
  Tobacco Substitutes
  Invalid Vehicles
  Invalid Vehicles
  Health Centre and Community Hospital (Corby)
  Health Centre and Community Hospital (Corby)
  Doctors (Yorkshire and Humberside)
  Doctors (Yorkshire and Humberside)
  Manor Park Hospital (Inquiry)
  Manor Park Hospital (Inquiry)
  Hospital Casualty Officers
  Hospital Casualty Officers
  Hospital Services (Manchester)
  Hospital Services (Manchester)
  Abortions and Maternal Mortality
  Abortions and Maternal Mortality
  Babies (Feeding)
  Babies (Feeding)
  David Salomon's House, Tunbridge Wells
  David Salomon's House, Tunbridge Wells
  Manchester Regional Health Authority
  Manchester Regional Health Authority
  Dudley Road Hospital (Kidney Transplant Incident)
  Dudley Road Hospital (Kidney Transplant Incident)
  Occupational Pension Schemes
  Occupational Pension Schemes
  Graduated Pension Scheme
  Graduated Pension Scheme
  Child Tax Allowances and Family Allowances
  Child Tax Allowances and Family Allowances
  Area Health Boards (Membership)
  Area Health Boards (Membership)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Arts Council
  Arts Council
  Teaching Vacancies
  Teaching Vacancies
  Handicapped Children
  Handicapped Children
  Trade Unions
  Trade Unions
  Wolstanton-Watlands School, Newcastle-under-Lyme
  Wolstanton-Watlands School, Newcastle-under-Lyme
  Further Education Students (Personal Data)
  Further Education Students (Personal Data)
  School Buildings (Safety)
  School Buildings (Safety)
  Early Leaving
  Early Leaving
  Private Educational Establishments
  Private Educational Establishments
  Vice-Chancellors and Principals
  Vice-Chancellors and Principals
  Juvenile Deliquency
  Juvenile Deliquency
  Open University
  Open University
  Primary Schools (Lanarkshire)
  Primary Schools (Lanarkshire)
  Diploma of Higher Education
  Diploma of Higher Education
  Dietary Education
  Dietary Education
  Single-Sex Schools
  Single-Sex Schools
  Libraries (District Councils)
  Libraries (District Councils)
  Disabled Students
  Disabled Students
  Nursery Nurses and Wardens (Manchester)
  Nursery Nurses and Wardens (Manchester)
  Teaching Employment (Personal Case)
  Teaching Employment (Personal Case)
  Lip-Reading Classes (London)
  Lip-Reading Classes (London)
  Teacher Supply
  Teacher Supply
  Museums and Galleries (Admission Charges)
  Museums and Galleries (Admission Charges)
  Librarianship
  Librarianship
  School Meals
  School Meals
  Correspondence Colleges
  Correspondence Colleges
  Brighton Art Gallery (Purchase)
  Brighton Art Gallery (Purchase)
  Museums and Galleries (Admission Charges)
  Museums and Galleries (Admission Charges)
  Computer Training Establishments
  Computer Training Establishments
  Teacher Training Students
  Teacher Training Students
  Primary Schools (Cost Per Place)
  Primary Schools (Cost Per Place)
  Yorkshire and Humberside
  Yorkshire and Humberside
  Schools (Road Safety Precautions)
  Schools (Road Safety Precautions)
DEFENCE
  Blowpipe Missile
  Blowpipe Missile
  Harrier Aircraft
  Harrier Aircraft
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Icelandic Fisheries
  Icelandic Fisheries
  Skyvan Aircraft
  Skyvan Aircraft
  Naval Personnel
  Naval Personnel
  Overseas Service (Compassionate Leave)
  Overseas Service (Compassionate Leave)
  Ex-Service Personnel (Housing)
  Ex-Service Personnel (Housing)
  Overseas Service Personnel (Political Information)
  Overseas Service Personnel (Political Information)
  Catering and Welfare Services
  Catering and Welfare Services
  Tipner Firing Range, Portsmouth
  Tipner Firing Range, Portsmouth
  Defence Lands (Nugent Report)
  Defence Lands (Nugent Report)
  TAVR (B Vehicles)
  TAVR (B Vehicles)
  Lulworth Army Ranges (Land Requisition)
  Lulworth Army Ranges (Land Requisition)
EMPLOYMENT
  Training
  Training
  Vacancies
  Vacancies
  School Leavers
  School Leavers
  Computer Training Schools
  Computer Training Schools
  Merseyside
  Merseyside
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Textile Industry
  Textile Industry
  Manpower Services Commission
  Manpower Services Commission
  Yorkshire and Humberside
  Yorkshire and Humberside
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Hospital Casualty Officers (Pay)
  Hospital Casualty Officers (Pay)
  Unemployment Review Officers
  Unemployment Review Officers
  Medical Consultants (Pay)
  Medical Consultants (Pay)
  Mentally Handicapped Persons (Hull)
  Mentally Handicapped Persons (Hull)
  Health Centres
  Health Centres
  Special Investigators
  Special Investigators
  Elderly Persons (Day Centres)
  Elderly Persons (Day Centres)
  Kidney Donor Cards
  Kidney Donor Cards
  Psychiatric Hospitals (Consultant/Patient Ratios)
  Psychiatric Hospitals (Consultant/Patient Ratios)
  Unemployment Benefit (Payment by Giro)
  Unemployment Benefit (Payment by Giro)
  Haemophiliacs
  Haemophiliacs
  Portsmouth Hospitals (Working Conditions)
  Portsmouth Hospitals (Working Conditions)
  Handicapped Persons
  Handicapped Persons
  Pensioners
  Pensioners
  Critically III Patients (Relatives' Facilities)
  Critically III Patients (Relatives' Facilities)
  Children in Hospitals
  Children in Hospitals
  Health Authorities
  Health Authorities
  Disablement Benefit
  Disablement Benefit
  Industrial Diseases
  Industrial Diseases
ENVIRONMENT
  Tyres
  Tyres
  Lorries
  Lorries
  Planning Appeal (Ilford)
  Planning Appeal (Ilford)
  Harvington Bypass
  Harvington Bypass
  Road Accidents (Tyre Defects)
  Road Accidents (Tyre Defects)
  Waste Disposal (Lulworth)
  Waste Disposal (Lulworth)
  Channel Tunnel (East Sussex Roads)
  Channel Tunnel (East Sussex Roads)
  Cancer and Bronchitis (Death Rates)
  Cancer and Bronchitis (Death Rates)
  Stevenage
  Stevenage
  Railways (Noise)
  Railways (Noise)
  Lorry Drivers (Meals and Accommodation)
  Lorry Drivers (Meals and Accommodation)
  Land Hoarding (Investigation)
  Land Hoarding (Investigation)
  Scheduled Trees (Felling)
  Scheduled Trees (Felling)
  M54
  M54
  Motorway Service Areas
  Motorway Service Areas
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Housing (Yorkshire and Humberside)
  Housing (Yorkshire and Humberside)
  House Building
  House Building
  River Pollution (Yorkshire)
  River Pollution (Yorkshire)
  Building Land
  Building Land
  House Prices
  House Prices
  Unfit Houses
  Unfit Houses
  Licensed Premises (Security of Tenure)
  Licensed Premises (Security of Tenure)
  Defence Lands (Nugent Report)
  Defence Lands (Nugent Report)
  Royal Palaces (Expenditure)
  Royal Palaces (Expenditure)
  Regional Water Authorities
  Regional Water Authorities
  Demolition (Planning Application)
  Demolition (Planning Application)
  Fair Rents
  Fair Rents
  Road Tankers (Safety Precautions)
  Road Tankers (Safety Precautions)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Wales
  Wales
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Tribunals of Inquiry Legislation
  Tribunals of Inquiry Legislation
  Crime Statistics
  Crime Statistics
  Football Grounds (Safety)
  Football Grounds (Safety)
  Hexachlorophane (Dusting Powders)
  Hexachlorophane (Dusting Powders)
  Murders
  Murders
  Commonwealth Immigrants
  Commonwealth Immigrants
  Illegal Immigrants
  Illegal Immigrants
  Oil and Gas Exploration (Licences)
  Oil and Gas Exploration (Licences)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Marine Engineering
  Marine Engineering
  Ports (Tonnage Throughput)
  Ports (Tonnage Throughput)
  North Sea Oil
  North Sea Oil
  Price Commission
  Price Commission
  Regional Development
  Regional Development
  Exports (South America and Africa)
  Exports (South America and Africa)
  Shepperton Studios
  Shepperton Studios
  Canned Foods (Drained Weight)
  Canned Foods (Drained Weight)
  Engineers (Registration)
  Engineers (Registration)
  Newsprint
  Newsprint
  Airports (Scotland)
  Airports (Scotland)
  Wool Yarn Imports
  Wool Yarn Imports
  Industrial Loans (Wales)
  Industrial Loans (Wales)
  New Jobs
  New Jobs
  Advance Factories (Yorkshire and Humberside)
  Advance Factories (Yorkshire and Humberside)
  Industry Act
  Industry Act
  Ports (South-East Wales)
  Ports (South-East Wales)
  Research and Development
  Research and Development
  Gas Sales
  Gas Sales
  Night Flights (Heathrow)
  Night Flights (Heathrow)
  British Nuclear Fuels Limited
  British Nuclear Fuels Limited
  Oil Stocks (EEC Directives)
  Oil Stocks (EEC Directives)
  China
  China
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Commonwealth Sugar
  Commonwealth Sugar
  Retrospective Legislation
  Retrospective Legislation
  Horticulture Improvement Scheme
  Horticulture Improvement Scheme
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Common Agricultural Policy
  New Zealand Exports
  New Zealand Exports
  Meat Imports
  Meat Imports
  Fishing Fleet (Humberside)
  Fishing Fleet (Humberside)
  Batter
  Batter
  Straw (Disposal)
  Straw (Disposal)
  Sugar Subsidy
  Sugar Subsidy
  Icelandic Fisheries
  Icelandic Fisheries
  Farms and Farm Incomes (Yorkshire)
  Farms and Farm Incomes (Yorkshire)
  Onions, Carrots and Tomatoes
  Onions, Carrots and Tomatoes
  Vinegar
  Vinegar
  Sugar Beet
  Sugar Beet
  Fishing Industry (Mine Hazards)
  Fishing Industry (Mine Hazards)
  Water Authorities (Membership)
  Water Authorities (Membership)
  Marketing
  Marketing
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  European Ports Conference
  European Ports Conference
  European Assembly
  European Assembly
  EEC Employees (Pay)
  EEC Employees (Pay)
  Parking Offences (Diplomatic Immunity)
  Parking Offences (Diplomatic Immunity)
  Mr. D. J. Flippance
  Mr. D. J. Flippance
  Commercial Counsellors
  Commercial Counsellors
  French Nuclear Tests
  French Nuclear Tests
  Commonwealth Youth Programme
  Commonwealth Youth Programme
  CBI AND TUC (TALKS)
  CBI AND TUC (TALKS)
  GOVERNMENT STATISTICAL SERVICE
  GOVERNMENT STATISTICAL SERVICE
  MARRIED MEN'S WAGES
  MARRIED MEN'S WAGES
  PRICES (MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  PRICES (MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  CIVIL SERVICE DEPARTMENT (MINISTERS' DUTIES)
  CIVIL SERVICE DEPARTMENT (MINISTERS' DUTIES)
  LONDON REDEVELOPMENT
  LONDON REDEVELOPMENT
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY (UNITED KINGDOM ACCESSION)
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY (UNITED KINGDOM ACCESSION)
  TRADES UNION CONGRESS
  TRADES UNION CONGRESS
  AUSTRALIAN PRIME MINISTER (VISIT)
  AUSTRALIAN PRIME MINISTER (VISIT)
  SWITZERLAND
  SWITZERLAND
  BISHOPS (APPOINTMENT)
  BISHOPS (APPOINTMENT)
  CHEVENING HOUSE
  CHEVENING HOUSE
  PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES (TAPED TALKS)
  PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES (TAPED TALKS)
  ROYAL COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION
  ROYAL COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Members' Mail
  Members' Mail
  Select Committees and Procedures
  Select Committees and Procedures
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Agricultural Levies
  Agricultural Levies
  Duty-Free Goods (Royal Navy)
  Duty-Free Goods (Royal Navy)
  EEC Sterling Account
  EEC Sterling Account
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Nationalisation (Cost)
  Nationalisation (Cost)
  EEC Budget
  EEC Budget
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  By-Election (North Antrim)
  By-Election (North Antrim)
  Rathlin Island
  Rathlin Island
  Executive Members (Salaries)
  Executive Members (Salaries)
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  Aghalee
  Aghalee
  Lord Grey of Naunton
  Lord Grey of Naunton
SCOTLAND
  Retrospective Legislation
  Retrospective Legislation
  Rented Accommodation (Security of Tenure)
  Rented Accommodation (Security of Tenure)
  Welfare and School Milk
  Welfare and School Milk
  Adoption
  Adoption
  Midwives and Nurses
  Midwives and Nurses
  South of Scotland Electricity Board
  South of Scotland Electricity Board
  Rents
  Rents
  Scottish Council on Crime
  Scottish Council on Crime
  Furnished Tenancies
  Furnished Tenancies
  Hunterston B Power Station
  Hunterston B Power Station
  Licensing Law
  Licensing Law
  Museums and Galleries (Purchase Grants)
  Museums and Galleries (Purchase Grants)
  Caithness Central Hospital
  Caithness Central Hospital
WALES
  Hospitals (Private Patients)
  Hospitals (Private Patients)
  Maritime Industrial Development
  Maritime Industrial Development
  Sewerage
  Sewerage
  Government Offices (Dispersal)
  Government Offices (Dispersal)
  Secondary Schools
  Secondary Schools
  Area Health Authorities (Offices)
  Area Health Authorities (Offices)

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

LORD ALLAN OF KILMAHEW
Robert Alexander Allan, Esquire, D.S.O., O.B.E., having been created Baron Allan of Kilmahew, of Cardross in the county of Dunbarton, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Sinclair of Cleeve and the Lord Aldington.
The Viscount Astor—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

CONCORDE, CHANNEL TUNNEL AND MAPLIN PROJECT COSTS
2.47 p.m.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the total sum expended to date on research, development and production by Her Majesty's Government on the Concorde aircraft, and the estimated cost of the Channel Tunnel and Maplin airport.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, by June 30, 1973, the United Kingdom Government expenditure on Concorde research, development and production since the Anglo-French Treaty was signed in 1962 has been £504 million, at the economic conditions prevailing when the costs were incurred. The latest estimated cost of the Channel Tunnel is £468 million, divided between the United Kingdom and France. The railway link from London to Folkestone is estimated to cost an additional £120 million. The latest estimated cost of a fully-developed two-runway airport at Maplin is £480 million.
1650
In addition, the costs for Phase I of the Maplin project on reclamation and surface access are estimated to be £140 million and £160 million respectively.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, I am obliged for the information the noble Lord has conveyed, but he is probably aware that these estimates are usually falsified. May I ask him three short questions? First of all, would he not agree that the expenditure that is likely to be entailed, particularly in view of the potential deficit in the balance of payments over the next few years, would make such expenditure prohibitive and impose very serious financial burdens on the country? Secondly, have the Government considered the possibility, indeed the probability, of a huge diversion of labour and materials from the export trade because of the need for deploying materials and labour on Maplin and on the Channel Tunnel? Thirdly, would the noble Lord also say whether the Government have decided fully to consult the persons involved over the Maplin project?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, on the first point, it is unlikely that the estimates for the Tunnel and Maplin will be falsified except to the extent that there is a change in the value of money, because, unlike the Concorde project, which was going into new realms of technology, the techniques for these two projects are very well understood. On the second point, the Government would not have contemplated continuing with these projects had they thought it would be outside the power of the nation to meet them. I think it is worth while bearing in mind, for example, that the expenditure on Maplin, if that project goes forward, will average about £48 million per annum to 1990.
As to the diversion of labour and materials, these are not labour-intensive industries and it is not thought that the amount of labour and material diversion will be a serious drag on the resources of the nation. On the fourth point, as to whether the Government have consulted, the answer is, Yes: the Government have been consulting and, as the noble Lord will be aware, it is intended to consult further before any funds are committed to the reclamation project at Maplin.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, on the final point in reply to my supplementary question, does the noble Lord agree that Mr. Ripon only gave a promise that people involved in South Essex and elsewhere would be consulted about the roads and the direction of the signposts, but not on the principle involved; and ought they not to be consulted on the principle before the project is proceeded with?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, we shall of course be discussing this point to-morrow, but the British Airports Authority has given an undertaking that it will discuss with the authorities concerned any matters that affect them in any way.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, does the noble Lord consider that the Maplin project and the Channel Tunnel, inasmuch as they are competitive, ought to reduce each other's value for the nation? Secondly, has any cost/benefit study been made, and will it be published, to show whether the further development of Southampton and Liverpool—both of which are very much better situated so far as overseas trade is concerned—would be better than the development of a port which is almost as badly situated as Rotterdam?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, on the first point. Her Majesty's Government do not accept that the Maplin project and the Channel Tunnel will be competitive; they believe that they will be complementary. On the second point, this is a matter which will be examined by the National Ports Council before there is any question of the seaport being established at Maplin.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, will the noble Lord not admit that the Maplin seaport and the Channel Tunnel are competitive? After all, the building of the Maplin seaport at that point can only be for traffic with Europe, because in every other way there is no question that a number of ports in England are much better situated.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, this really is a matter for the National Ports Council to consider; and of course there will not be a seaport at Maplin unless it is shown to be in the national interest and to be viable in itself.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us whether, if the Channel Tunnel goes forward, its financing will be a charge on the taxpayer only to the extent that the Government give a guarantee of funds raised on the world market? Can he also tell us whether the manpower employed on the Channel Tunnel will be no more than the manpower now employed in building Dungeness Power Station?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, on the second point, I cannot make that particular comparison; but on the' first point, I certainly confirm what my noble friend has said. The fact is that these three projects are not really comparable in the way in which they affect the public purse.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether the figures he has given for Maplin are still in 1972 terms; and, if so, may we have them in present-day terms? Further, can he confirm that the figures he gave include the cost of the access routes? If they do, how is it that those can be estimated when it has not yet been decided which routes should be taken?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the answer to the first question is "Yes"; they are still in 1972 terms.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the second question was whether we might have them in present-day terms.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot work that out in my head, and I have not got it down on paper. I am afraid I have forgotten what the other point was because the noble Lord has now driven it out of my head.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the noble Lord has not told us why these figures are not expressed in current terms; and my other point was whether he will confirm that the cost includes the cost of the access routes. If he can confirm that, can he say how the Government arrive at the cost if they have not decided which routes to take?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the fact is that we have been working on the 1972 estimates all along and it has not been felt necessary to up-date them. On the point about the access routes, I

1653
do not think there is any wide difference between the costs of the access routes. Incidentally, this figure not only covers the cost of the access routes; it also covers access in general, including the construction of a terminal at King's Cross and also the rolling stock for access to Maplin.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, is not the consultation being offered by the Department of the Environment to the people of Essex entirely bogus in that it is the equivalent to offering a condemned man the choice between hanging, execution and poisoning?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, whenever a project of this kind is put forward always the people within the area are affected. The question is, how far can we balance the extent to which they are affected with the national interest. I do not accept that the consultation is in any way bogus, because the consultation is designed to ensure that whatever plans are made are adapted as closely as possible to the needs of the area.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, has my noble friend noticed that the French are bearing half the cost of Concorde, that they are going to bear half the cost of the Channel Tunnel, that they are building at Roissy an international airport of comparable size and that they are not squealing that they cannot afford these things: they are going right ahead with them?
LORD DRUMALBYN: Yes, my Lords, I have noticed that, and I think it would be well for us all to take note of it.
LORD MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, on the question of Maplin, can the noble Lord give us any estimate of the increase in the wealth of the nation as a result of the land reclamation feature of the Maplin project?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I think it was estimated at £10,000 per acre, and there will be 14,000 acres; so probably the noble Lord is better at making calculations than I am.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, will the noble Lord tell his noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing, that although the French are building at Roissy they are closing down Le Bourget, and that we shall be Com-
1654
pelled to keep open both Heathrow and Gatwick? Will he also tell his noble friend that Roissy is quite near to Paris while Maplin is way out?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the noble Lord has told my noble friend, so I need not comment.

BETTING OFFICES AND LAW OBSERVANCE
2.59 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied that the law relating to betting shops is being adhered to, particularly in regard to loitering and running commentaries.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS): My Lords, to our knowledge the practices adopted in licensed betting offices are not directly contrary to the law. Loitering is not expressly forbidden, but the intention was that it should be discouraged by prohibiting, for example, the provision of television and broadcasting facilities and of entertainment or refreshments. However, commentaries on horse races are provided lawfully in betting offices by means of direct lines, and this does undoubtedly conduce to loitering.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that reply, I should like to ask him whether he is aware that my information is that many customers loiter on the premises the whole afternoon, and this must surely be a cause of considerable absenteeism. Would not my noble friend agree that the chief reason for this is the running commentary which is put out by both T.V. and sound radio? My opinion is that it is not always as my noble friend has said. My reading of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 is that you cannot have commentaries in betting shops if it is by television or sound radio as used by the general public.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, my noble friend has read it

1655
absolutely correctly. He is referring to paragraph 5(b)(ii) of Schedule 4 to the Betting, Gaining and Lotteries Act 1963. He is absolutely correct. It is not a broadcast, but a direct line, whether it relates to the sound commentary or the television. As to loitering, I do not think anyone would be particularly happy about this. One has to bear in mind that the object of the legislation was to strike a balance between providing people with legitimate facilities for betting, and preventing such facilities from being so disagreeable that people went back to the illegal forms of betting which prevailed before. We may not have got the balance right, but that was the intention of the legislation.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, could the Minister say why it is wrong for men to be in a betting shop and listening to the commentary, while anyone can go to Ascot to watch the racing? Why should he say that there is absenteeism by people in betting shops, and yet not mention those people who are at Ascot?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I appreciate that there may be occasions in your Lordships' House where this element is a little obvious, but I hope that does not count as absenteeism. As I have said before, the intention of the legislation was to try to strike a correct balance.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, the noble Lord would be a hero to many thousands of wives in this country if he would prod his Department into producing legislation to tighten up generally on betting shops.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I should be very glad to have positive proposals, but the difficulty is to find something which does not strike at one or other half of the balance I have mentioned. If my noble friend could make positive suggestions, I should not be averse to looking at them.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that wives also bet?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I believe that is the case.

LAUNDRY SERVICES AND N.H.S. REORGANISATION
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether people in those areas where the local authority supplies a free laundry service for incontinence, et cetera, will continue to receive such a service after the reorganisation in 1974.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services is considering what regulations, if any, to propose for the making and recovery of charges in respect of services to be provided under Section 2 of the National Health Service Reorganisation Act 1973. Laundry services currently being provided by social service departments of local authorities will continue to be subject to charges or not at the discretion of the local authority.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply, which goes a long way to calm the anxiety that I have felt.

LONDON INTERNATIONAL EXHIBITION CENTRE
3.3 p.m.
LORD SWAYTHLING: 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 why the Secretary of State for the Environment refused planning permission for the London International Exhibition Centre at Northolt, in view of the overwhelming evidence at the public inquiry and the urgent national need for modern exhibition facilities in the London area, and his written confirmation that this need was accepted by him and by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I believe that is the case.

1657
than read part of the decision letter in which the Secretary of State for the Environment gave his reasons for accepting the Inspector's recommendation to refuse permission for the proposed centre. After detailed comment on the Inspector's conclusions regarding the Northolt site the letter says this:
"The Secretary of State accepts the opinion of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that there is indeed a need for better exhibition facilities in London. He does not however consider that it has been established that the need must be satisfied by the erection of an exhibition centre in this particular location and he has reached the conclusion that the need for better exhibition facilities is not such as to justify overriding the very great Green Belt, highway and general environmental objections which obtain in connection with the application site".
Copies of the decision letter and the Inspector's report have been placed in the Library.
LORD SWAYTHLING: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. Does he not agree that this need, as recognised by the two Ministers, is so urgent as to overrule all the objections to the Northolt site, especially in view of the fact that no other site of the necessary size, location and road and rail access appears to be available? Following the extensive study made by the Greater London Council of 47 alternative sites, the Council selected this site as being the best by far for the purpose.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, my right honourable friend is not aware that there are no other possible sites. As other sites are found, he will consider them. There are other sites which might become available. The present Greater London Council does not agree with the last Greater London Council on this matter, as the noble Lord knows. Further, the London Borough of Hilling-don and all the three Parliamentary candidates of the three Parties at the Uxbridge by-election supported the Secretary of State's view in this.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, without much knowledge on this subject, may I ask the noble Lord why we must always take London as a centre? Why not Birmingham and Manchester, with Inter-City trains?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, it so happens that a very great
1658
exhibition site is being built at Birmingham at the moment for which the Government are providing funds towards its construction.
LORD SWAYTHLING: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that the majority of the proposed users of this exhibition site has said that it must be in London? London is the only important capital that has no exhibition site.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I repeat that we completely accept that it would be a good thing to, have an exhibition site in London.

THE CHANNEL TUNNEL
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, with the leave of the House my noble friend Lady Young will be making a Statement on the Channel Tunnel at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m.
GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

TYNESIDE METROPOLITAN RAILWAY BILL
3.9 p.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3ª, —(The Earl of Listowel.)
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I do not wish to protest against the Third Reading, but I want to make a few remarks In fact, I had hoped to put down an Amendment, but I was informed about this matter too late to do so. I want to ask the noble Earl the Lord Chairman whether it would be possible to put some pressure on the Executive to provide lifts, not less than one, at each access to the railway so that disabled persons will be able to have easy access. Of course, this is a matter which applies to all public transport, but there is no doubt that it a new railway is to be built it might be a good plan to say that not less than one

1659
lift at each station shall be provided for those who, for instance, are in wheelchairs and cannot use escalators or go down the stairs Therefore, I am asking the Lord Chairman whether it would be possible to put some pressure on the executive to see that that is done
LORD MOYNE: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend's remarks. I would, however, suggest that there should also be considered the possibility of installing lifts at selected stations. It may be too expensive to put them in all stations. I think the second alternative should be looked at of putting them at key points for the benefit of the elderly and infirm.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I will certainly draw the attention of the Promoters to the remarks of both noble Lords, and I am sure they will give them careful consideration.
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

NATURE CONSERVANCY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]

  PRESCRIPTION AND LIMITATION (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments; the said Amendments printed (pursuant to Standing Order No. 48).
  LORD DENHAM: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I say that your Lordships will be asked to consider the Commons Amendments to these two Bills immediately after the proceedings on the Badgers Bill.

MAPLIN DEVELOPMENT BILL
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (BARONESS YOUNG): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Bill has been committed (on
1660
Recommitment), that they go through the Bill in the following order, vizt.:—

Clause 1,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 2–5,

Schedules 2 and 3,

Clause 6,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 7–27.—(Baroness Young.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

NATIONAL TRUST FOR SCOTLAND ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 12), Bill read 3a and passed.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD WINDLESHAM): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time—(Lord Windlesham.)
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 12), Bill read 3a, and passed.

FINANCE BILL
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Windlesham.)
On Question. Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 12), Bill read 3a, and passed.

ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
3.14 p.m.
LORD BESWICK LORD BESWICK rose to move, That this House notes with increasing concern the fall in the purchasing power of the pound sterling at home and in the exchange value abroad, calls for more positive and effective policies both to halt

1661
the depreciation of our currency and to mitigate its consequences upon those least able to bear them. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the terms of our Motion are deliberately moderate. None can deny the fall in the value of our currency or the fact that inflation hits the poorest most. The Conservative Party Manifesto of 1970 was only too convincingly true when it said:
"Inflation is not only damaging to the economy, it is a major cause of social injustice, always hitting hardest at the weakest."
But the rate of 5 per cent. of inflation of that year we would regard now as virtual stability if we could achieve it this year or next. Since that time the value of the pound abroad has slumped by 15 per cent., 16 per cent., and, I read this morning, 17½ per cent.
But while the fall in the purchasing power of the pound is bad in itself and the injustice it creates is worse, what is really alarming to-day is the sense, unless there is more positive effective action, that other values will depreciate too—moral values, using the term in its widest sense. We know already of the action taken by those who are better off to protect their own individual position, regardless of social consequences. If that attitude spreads, then the Government can say goodbye to the chances of a constructive Phase 3. So far this year the Government have been saved by the extraordinary patience of the working man, but, said one trade union leader, "If there is going to be a free-for-all, then we are part of the all". No one can blame those who hedge against inflation, but hedges only benefit when there are suckers. By the autumn, if living costs still rise, organised workers may well decide that they have been suckers for too long. And if selfishness as now practised by some becomes widespread, then a highly integrated modern society will break down.
My Lords, in this House we try to be reasonably fair and at any rate listen to the opposite arguments, and I would agree at once that some of the aggravating factors in to-day's situation are not of the present Government's making. For example, I now think that Peers opposite were right and we were wrong—I personally was wrong—when we accepted the advice of the pound as against the 10s. decimal unit. The Price Commission claim to have saved £40 million
1662
this year by rejecting price increases, but it is fair to say that the housewife will have been cheated by more than that each year since decimalisation by the 'use of our present new bizarre coinage. We all know of cases where the retailer would not dare ask for a shilling more, but we pay 5p almost with apologies. But that is now becoming more of a fringe factor.
The present Government cannot be blamed either for some of our other commitments. For example, the £300 million per year poured into Ulster is mostly inflationary. Every million pounds to restore property which has been destroyed is distributing money but creating no more wealth. Every thousand pounds for personal compensation —and I see that one award recently was £80,000—adds so much more to the volume of money unbacked by goods. The unique burden of Ulster, however, we have accepted as a common all-Party responsibility. But it is there, corroding our currency as well as other human values; it is there all the same.
Then, if we are considering inflationary factors for which the Government cannot be blamed, there is the rise in world commodity prices. We know there has been this phenomenon, and, of course, it was not caused by the Government. But the question we should be discussing to-day is, what have they done about it? How have they related policies to meet it? The fact is that they regard this phenomenon not as a challenge but as an alibi. They complain of world prices as once they complained of wage increases. Why is it that other countries also import commodities but have currencies which are rising while ours is falling?
The Prime Minister the other day gave three particular examples of commodity increases. One very important one was copper. He said that copper had gone up 64 per cent.—some would in fact say rather more than that. But in Swiss francs the increase was only of 19 per cent., and in Japanese yen 15 per cent. It just is not true to say that world prices are a cause of our troubles, any more than it was true to say that it was wages. Of course they are part of the cause, but they are not the whole cause. It is equally, if not more, true to say that the Government's failure to recognise and take positive action to deal with other

1663
parts of the problem makes us more vulnerable than our competitors to increased commodity prices, and that, in turn, helps to create the wage demands which they deplore. It is their complete inability, as I see it, to understand the interaction, the integration indeed of the whole economic and social complex, that has led to the abysmal failure of their policy.
Probably the two most important other factors in the complex, neither of which the Prime Minister dealt with last week, are the extraordinary and calamitous balance-of-payments deficit and the volume of paper money which the Government are printing and distributing. On the overseas payments deficit, when challenged—and, almost unbelievably, it would seem that the Prime Minister would not have raised this subject unless he had been challenged—he said, on July 18, at column 533 of the Commons OFFICIAL REPORT, concerning the balance of payments:
…if the Labour Party is supporting a policy of expanding the economy, it must be prepared to accept the consequences of the import of raw materials and, in many cases, plant …"
Here again we see this strange, blinkered approach; the inability to distinguish between partial and whole truth. If the noble Lord, Lord Stokes, were here I would ask him whether it is foreign cars that we are importing or whether it is indeed, as the Prime Minister says, "plant". Of course it is to a large extent completed motor cars. The Economic Community was to have been a great market, but it has turned out to be an even greater supplier. Imports from them—and not of raw materials—have gone up far more than exports.
This is my view, but the House may accept more readily the judgment of Professor Neild in the London and Cambridge Economic Bulletin. Professor Neill says:
"It is a mistake to think that the deficit in the balance of payments has been caused mainly by the deterioration in the terms of trade".
And again:
"Whatever happens to import prices and the terms of trade, the balance of payments will not recover on an enduring basis so long as the public sector's deficit is not reduced to the point where it ceases to be a source of excess demand."
1664
Who will disagree with what is stated there?
This question of excess domestic demand brings us to one of the most sacred of Seisdon's sacred cows—the boast that the Conservatives, and they alone, are the Party of reduced taxation. They can no longer boast that they do not devalue the pound; they can no longer say that they will not tolerate "lame ducks"; they cannot say that they are against statutory wage and price control, but they still do boast that they are the Party who have reduced taxation. By £3,000 million, they say. But in honesty, should they not also emphasise the £4,000 million Budget deficit? The bookkeeping of Lonrho, Slater Walker, and Sir Denys Lowson, has been criticised recently, but it is open and pure compared with that of the Government. Cutting taxation as part of a plan to transfer wealth to their supporters is, in our view, unfair, but it is politically understandable. But to pay the bills with paper money on the scale practised by this Government is in another category of behaviour altogether. I beg the Minister not to repeat here that claim about the increase in the standard of living, or the figures of net disposable income. Of course figures can be quoted to show an average of more money in each pocket, but it has been made possible by two factors: first, by deficit financing, and secondly, by turning a balance-of-payments surplus of probably the largest on record (a £1,000 million surplus in 1971), to a deficit running at the rate of £900 million in the second quarter of 1973. Never, ever, in peace time has there been such a turn-round in our economic affairs. Of course in these circumstances one can distribute more purchasing power for a time: the question is, for how long a time? It became fashionable to say that we should be saved by the famous "J" curve. It is remarkable how supposedly clever commentators become hypnotised for a time by fashionable jargon. Once upon a time it was the "pegged pound", then the "crawling peg", and then it was said that with the "floating", or the "dirty float", the "J" curve would work and all would come right. But we have already passed Mach I on the downward stroke of the "J" and it rather looks as though some one has removed the curve at the bottom.
The London and Cambridge Economic Bulletin said that somehow the public sector deficit should be cut by £500 million a year, and since this Motion was tabled the Bank of England has increased the demand for special deposits which, I gather, in one way or another, is expected to help by some £260 million. The idea, we are told, is not to squeeze the economy but to force up interest rates and thus encourage more hot money to come to London. Higher interest rates, I suggest, are no solution for a productive economy. Hot money has not helped us yet. There must be a more straightforward way of reducing excess demand. Much can be done. The question is whether this Government have the will, or are we to wait for a still further worsening of the situation before they take further action?
Let me indicate some of the things which undoubtedly could be done if the will were there. First, on excess demand: if this needs to be abated—by £500 million, says the London and Cambridge Bulletin—could not the Government reverse the £300 million tax handout to the wealthier taxpayers? That £300 million is really inflationary money. It is not spent on essentials: it is extra money for hedging, speculation, or luxuries. Would it not be better to raise taxes than to encourage hot money to come to this country to buy time? If a higher interest rate is essential, why do the Government insist, by tax allowances, in effectively halving the interest rate on larger personal loans? These amounted in the last five weeks to June 20, I gather, to an additional £219 million. This was not money borrowed to import essential raw materials and plant. Loans for share dealings and second houses, I gather, are now frowned upon, but they are an indication of the purpose behind these subsidised increases in purchasing power.
I am glad to see that we have heard little about that discredited piece of poor law, the family income supplement—the infuriating poverty trap—as one way of ameliorating this burden of inflation on the poorer. If the Government wish to help the low-paid worker, why not a statutory minimum wage? Can we have an answer to that from the noble Lords who are to reply? I welcome talks on threshold agreements, but that does not meet the case of the very low paid. And
1666
why not increase the family allowance, and extend it to the first child? If this will be the effect of the proposed tax credit schemes, why not introduce this earlier than the five years from now?
Then there is the controversy about food subsidies. The Government have made great play of the cost of an across-the-board scheme, but if the will is there and they want to do something why not make a start, at any rate, by reintroducing free school milk and welfare milk? And if they need money, why not scrap the Intervention Board which is budgeting to spend next year £55 million gross, not to bring prices down but to put them up? If there is a world food shortage why are we going to spend £22 million on de-naturing food to make it unfit for human consumption? Even if the Government say they cannot afford subsidies, cannot they at least say that they will not clamp on a levy of £163 a ton on imported butter? Is it not really crazy to say that we cannot subsidise food here yet we subsidise it for the Russians?
My Lords, I must mention land. The cost of land, whether for residential, industrial or agricultural purposes, all finds its way eventually into the cost of living. I will not give more horrific examples of land prices. I think we are all agreed that something should be done. Last time we discussed this subject we were told that something should be done, and what came out was the land hoarding charge. I now ask the noble Lord who is to reply, can he say whether the Government believe that that land hoarding charge really works?
I return to the problem of world market forces, the current alibi of the present Government. We are part of the world, and still not an uninfluential part of that world. Could we not give a lead towards a more sane control of world market forces? In our country a Conservative Government, for national purposes, no longer believe in the doctrine of the free market. In prices, pay and company behaviour they accept now that controls. are needed. In the United States of America—the most Conservative administration in the world's stronghold of capitalism—they have been compelled to use State controls to prevent an economic breakdown. Yet in the market place of the world where the big

1667
things are decided now, in currency and commodities we allow the free play of the most reactionary, unproductive, capitalistic practices.
My Lords, I ask this seriously, and I beg the noble Lords who are to reply to give some answer to this. Can they really assure us that we are putting enough intellectual effort into finding alternatives to the present method of dealing in international currency and commodities? Immediately after the war we seemed to be far more ready to think imaginatively in this area. We then developed the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement; we had in the time of John Strachey, the cereals agreement with Canada; in that and other commodities we tried to establish a fair price as between producer and consumer, without excessive fluctuations and without wasteful speculation. My Lords, when we read that one company in the last two or three weeks lost £20 million in speculation with one commodity, is it not time that we did more to control these world market forces before they completely control us; or before the underdeveloped countries, from which so much of our raw materials come, begin really to use the power which freedom from colonial rule has given them?
In the eager, idealistic days of the late 1940s, when I first went into the House of Commons, I used to preach the idea of an international oil co-operative for the Middle-East. Eventually the International Petroleum Co-operative put the idea to the United Nations, but the big oil companies and the major Western countries were against it. In those days the normal split with the oil producing countries was 70–30; we took the 70. Gradually it changed: 60–40, 50–50, 40–60, 30–70, and in some cases countries in whose land the oil was took the oil over altogether. What a wonderful thing it could have been if they had said that I was not just starry-eyed but was just being a little more realistic than they and we could have come to some radical, imaginative, fair to producer and consumer deal, in those days! We ought to think about this. Those countries, as I say, that are now free will begin to learn the Western way of doing things and we shall find that we are more completely in their control than we have
1668
realised. In the United States, with 6 per cent. of the world's population, they consume one-third of the whole of the world's energy supply. Neither the United States nor we have a lot of time in which to settle some of these matters, for the events are moving with increasing speed.
The Bishop of Stepney, in an article in The Times the other day, quoted the following words:
"We have not merely extended the scope-and scale of changes, we have radically altered its pace. We have in our time released a totally new social force, a stream of change so accelerated that it influences … the very way we feel the world around us."
My Lords, I am asking that we recognise this, and that both at home and abroad we should do more positively to control these changes, but always acknowledging that an inflexible objective of control is fairness between man and man. My Lords, this House could accept my Motion, not in the sense of criticism but as a spur and a challenge to those who, for the time being at any rate, govern this freely democratic country of ours. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House notes with increasing concern the fall in the purchasing power of the pound sterling at home and in the exchange value abroad, and calls for more positive and effective policies both to halt the depreciation of our currency and to mitigate its consequences upon those least able to bear them.—(Lord Beswick.)
3.38 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord said in opening that his Motion was moderately worded, but I do not think that the speech we have just heard is one for which the same claim could be made. He has asked a number of detailed questions and my noble friend Lord Gowrie, when he comes to reply for the Government at the end of the debate, will do what he can to help the noble Lord with the answers. I do not intend to speak defensively or apologetically in any way whatever. What I intend to do is to explain what the Government's economic policy is and to ask for your Lordships' support in pursuing this policy vigorously and thoroughly and in seeing it through, because we do believe that the counter-inflation policies on which we embarked

1669
last year are the ones which are most likely to lead to the result that we all want to see.
My Lords, the Government's economic strategy has two aims: the aim of expansion and the aim of countering inflation, and I hope that these aims are commonly accepted and can thus be regarded as national policies and not just as Government policies. Of course there will be differences about how they should be pursued and in what way they should be implemented: but that, after all, is only natural. But on the fundamental objectives, I believe that, despite what the noble Lord has said, there is in the country to-day a considerable measure of underlying agreement. Indeed, it is not really very difficult to say what should be done.
There is, first, the need to sustain a higher rate of economic expansion than we have been able to sustain in the past, as the prime means of improving our national prosperity. Secondly, in a situation in which inflation is an increasing problem in developed countries in many parts of the world, there is the pressing need to initiate and follow through resolute action to contain the rate of increase of domestic costs and prices in a way which is consistent with policies for expanding the economy.
These policies for expansion have already achieved substantial gains in terms of improved living standards, and we must not lose sight of that fact. Since this Government took office in June, 1970, the standard of living of the British people has increased, on average, more than twice as fast as it did in the period from 1964 to 1970. Moreover, the statistics show that the low-paid have done even better than the population taken as a whole, and that is as it should be. All the indications are that we have achieved the target of a rate of expansion of 5 per cent. per annum over the 18 months' period from the second half of 1971 to the first half of 1973 which we set ourselves in 1972. In this year's Budget, the Chancellor aimed to continue that 5 per cent. annual growth rate over the 18 months' period from the second half of 1972 until the first half of 1974; and here again the current indications encourage the hope that this target may also be achieved.
1670
What is, however, crucial is to lay sound foundations on which to maintain an improved economic performance in the future. It is particularly important to avoid the depressing slide back into stagnation which has so often been the lot of this country in the past. In this respect the most recent indicators are encouraging. Industrial investment is moving ahead well; the increase in productivity in the manufacturing industry—output per head—is showing one of the biggest increases on record; the volume of exports so far this year has increased almost twice as fast as the volume of imports; and unemployment is decreasing. For all these reasons, there are grounds for thinking that we are now in a stronger position to achieve a period of sustained expansion than we have been in the past. But in order to achieve that expansion, and to maintain it, there must be confidence—confidence in the future and confidence for investment. The intervention of my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing on this point was so very trenchant and appropriate at Question Time; that we very often show a lack of confidence in large-scale projects for the future, such as Concorde, Maplin and the Channel Tunnel, which some of our partners and competitors in Europe do not show in the same way.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, is the noble Lord really saying that the swing from a surplus of £1,000 million to a deficit of £900 million is a sign of confidence?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord made a critical speech. He picked out all the reasons he could find for saying why he thought that his Government could have done better than ours; why he thought his policy might be better than ours. He talked about statutory minimum wages and about food subsidies. Look at the record, my Lords! Look at what happened between 1964 and 1970! Look at what has happened since! I leave it to your Lordships to decide whose policy you prefer.
Public debate about counter-inflation policy tends to focus, perhaps inevitably, on the latest statistics or on the latest announcement of a particular price increase. But the battle against inflation will not be won in a single encounter. Indeed, it is a battle which has been

1671
fought many times in many parts of the world with a variety of weapons. It is a truism to say that there is no single solution. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, if I may have his attention for a moment or two. I listened to his speech closely and I hope he will do me the courtesy of listening to mine, even though it may not be any more palatable to him than his was to me. The origins of the current counter-inflation policy go back to July of last year. In that month, against a background of rapidly rising wage settlements and in the final stages of the C.B.I.'s voluntary price restraint scheme, the Government began discussions with the T.U.C. and the C.B.I. on economic management. In those talks, agreement was reached on what the economic objectives were, and perhaps I may remind your Lordships of them: faster growth in national output and real incomes; an improvement in the relative position of the low-paid; and moderation in the rate of cost and price inflation.
These objectives remain relevant to-day, and they remain the agreed objectives in the Government's present series of talks. In September, 1972, the Government put forward firm proposals designed to achieve these three objectives. The proposals included a commitment to a 5 per cent. rate of growth to cover the next two years—and I have already referred to the indications that that figure of 5 per cent. is being attained; a limit on the rate of increase of prices attributable to domestic costs, a universal cash limit on pay increases safeguarded by a threshold agreement; and help for the lower paid and for the pensioner. Unfortunately, it did not prove possible to reach agreement to implement these proposals voluntarily, and therefore on November 6, as your Lordships will remember, a temporary standstill was introduced. This was followed by Stage 2 which began at the end of March for pay, and at the end of April for prices.
The standstill which constituted Stage 1 of the policy, and Stage 2 which came after it, have had to operate against the background of an exceptionally steep increase in world prices over the past year. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, referred to this fact, very properly, in his speech. He mentioned that in sterling terms the price of copper has increased
1672
by 64 per cent. I could add that wheat has increased in sterling terms by 80 per cent. and wool by 155 per cent. While it is of course true—and this is on the point which the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, made—that the upward movement of the yen and of the Swiss franc means that Japan and Switzerland can purchase raw materials at a cheaper rate than the United Kingdom, it does not follow that an upward movement in exchange rates provides a safeguard against inflation. Indeed, the rate of inflation in Japan and in Germany, both of whom have revalued their currencies recently, has been greater than that in the United Kingdom in the recent past.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, does the noble Lord realise that I have anticipated his speech and have tried to get some figures? I shall be very grateful to the noble Lord if he will tell me how he gets those figures, which are double what the statistical digest shows. We have depreciated by 33 per cent. against the mark, and by 21 per cent. against the yen. The import values in Germany are unchanged as compared with last year.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Speech!
LORD BALOGH: I am sorry, my Lords, but if the noble Lord makes statements which are not compatible with facts, one must correct him.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, those are points for the noble Lord's own speech. He is to speak immediately after me and he will have an opportunity to develop his thoughts then. I was referring to the impact of the increase in world commodity prices on domestic prices in the shops here, and, of course, these increases have been reflected in the costs of United Kingdom manufacturers. The increase in the price of foodstuffs, as we all know, has been particularly steep. These prices are strongly subject to seasonal influences and to world demand. The United Kingdom is a substantial importer of basic foodstuffs—in fact we import over half our total food requirements—and demand for many of these on world markets has exceeded supply. Examples are meat, fish, dried fruits and cocoa. Housewives, not only in the United Kingdom but in America and Europe, have been faced with similar increases in the price of food in the shops.

1673
My Lords, these dramatic increases in world prices—and they are dramatic—due to a whole number of very deep-seated factors, are an inescapable charge on the living standards of all of us which, as a community, we cannot avoid. Nevertheless, our policies have had a marked impact on the rate of increases in prices affected by costs within our own control. I shall try not to cite too many statistics (I shall try to follow the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, in that, if I may; he was quite sparing in the use he made of statistics) but I want to quote a few by way of illustration of my argument.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I wonder whether I could make an intervention of a different nature. Would the noble Lord perhaps remember that if he speaks to the microphone we shall all hear him, but that if he turns to one side we shall lose him? While we may not agree with what he is saying, we at least want to know what he is saying.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, it is very seldom that I have been regarded as inaudible, but if the Front Bench opposite could not hear me I shall make sure that I keep my voice up, and I shall direct my remarks entirely towards the noble Lord during the rest of what I have to say.
LORD SHEPHERD: The noble Lord should speak to the microphone.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, if I may just digress on that point, when Members of your Lordships' House are speaking in a debate, we are speaking to all Peers in your Lordships' House. Although it is courtesy to face the Peers opposite, we are also speaking to Members of the House on our own Benches. I think the noble Lord will find that it is the normal practice to turn to different parts of the House as well as to address one's remarks right across the Chamber. But if I was inaudible I apologise, and I shall try to do better for the rest of my speech.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord the Leader of the House will remember that he has a microphone directly in front of him. It is that which is really the instrument by which he makes himself audible. If he turns round, he is then inaudible.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I am most grateful for these tips on speaking performance from the Opposition Front Bench. I am sure that at no point have they ever turned their heads to their own supporters in the course of a debate of this sort. Perhaps we should have a microphone behind us as well as in front.
My Lords, continuing now with the question of food prices—because this is, of course, the most topical and the most controversial issue in the economic policy at the moment—excluding all food (which, as I have said, is the item most subject to price fluctuations through world demand and seasonal factors), between November and June the retail price index rose by 3·8 per cent., which is equivalent to an annual rate of 6·4 per cent. This compares with the annual rate—7·5 per cent.—at which this index rose in the seven-month period before the standstill. In June—the retail price index figure for all items, including food was published at the end of last week—the rise for the month was 0·5 per cent. This represents the smallest increase since the standstill began, and I think we can take some encouragement from that fact. The increase in the food index—that is, the index for food only—was also down to 0·5 per cent., although here seasonal factors played a part. In addition, the increase in cost of manufactured goods in the period November to June was only 1·1 per cent., compared with 3·7 per cent. for all other prices. It cannot be denied, therefore, that, but for the standstill in Stage 1 and Stage 2 which followed it, the present rate of price increase would be very much higher.
My Lords, of course any policy of this sort tends to focus attention on individual increases, but there is other evidence, besides the statistical evidence which I have just put before your Lordships, of the effectiveness of the counter-inflation policy. For example, in the period from the beginning of Stage 2 up until July 13, only about a third of all applications to the Price Commission were approved in full. The rest were rejected, withdrawn or reduced. Over the next weeks, as the Commission examines reports of companies' profit margins, the pressure which it exerts on prices will be intensified. The Commission's regional offices also monitor

1675
complaints, and this has led to price reductions in over 300 cases. As the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, reminded us, the Commission itself believes that in the first two months it has saved the consumer £44 million a year. In addition to this, there is the effect of the Code on those firms which are not obliged to pre-notify price increases.
As the Price Commission gets over the first rush of applications and the pressures of getting new machinery to work effectively, it will be able to step up its activities. The Commission is now undertaking a three-point plan for additional action. It is starting to deal with medium-sized companies which are bound to report their price increases and profit margins. Where this information reveals that price increases have been made which are not in accordance with the Code, the Commission will seek price reductions. The Commission will also give priority to its work among medium-sized and smaller companies in ensuring that the profit margin limitation rules are complied with. This, too, will involve reductions where a company's profit margin has increased above the reference level. Finally, through its regional organisation the Commission is undertaking a programme of checks of retail and service establishments.
The overall picture, therefore, as we prepare for the next steps in the policy of countering inflation, is one in which our policies are biting on the prices of those items where costs are under domestic control. Exceptionally rapid rises in world prices have meant that the overall rate of inflation is still unacceptably high. But there is no doubt that without the Stage 2 controls the rate of increase would have been even larger. Nevertheless, earnings have, on average, kept ahead of price rises. In the year up to May, 1973—the latest month for which earnings figures are available—earnings rose by 14·2 per cent., while over the same period prices increased by 9·5 per cent.
My Lords, we recognise that there is a risk that pensioners and the low-paid may not be properly protected when world prices are rising so rapidly. The T.U.C. has, quite legitimately, put this to us with great force. So far as pensioners are concerned, the October revi-
1676
sion—that is, the revision coming in October of this year—will mean that pensions have increased since November, 1969, by 55 per cent.—substantially more than prices. We have also introduced, to avoid fears about the future, a system of annual upratings at least sufficient to compensate in full for price rises. For wage and salary earners the £1 plus 4 per cent. limit allowed for substantial pay increases, averaging 7 per cent. to 8 per cent. but representing more for low-paid groups. In a number of settlements the negotiators distributed the total amount available in favour of the lower-paid members of the group. By the end of June, some 7 million workers had received settlements within the terms of the Stage 2 code.
My Lords, for the next stage, Stage 3, we have said that we intend to propose to our partners in the talks that a new form of income safeguard should be included as part of the machinery. The precise form and level of the safeguard will be for consideration in the autumn, in the light of the circumstances then and of the Government's discussions with the T.U.C. and the C.B.I. A safeguard of this kind, allowing pay to be increased automatically if prices rose above an agreed threshold, would be of great help in reducing anxiety about price prospects. Decisions on the arrangements for Stage 3 will not be taken until the autumn, however, when we shall be able to take account of the state of the economy at the time. We also want to look at the present code and to consider comments on it. We shall be able to consider the Pay Board's Report on anomalies which is expected in mid-September. Discussions have begun both with the T.U.C. and with the C.B.I. on the prospects for Stage 3, and my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has already announced one proposal—that is, threshold agreements, to which I have just referred —that he will be making to the other interests represented in the talks.
As to the future, it remains our stated purpose to work towards the return to voluntary machinery for countering inflation, provided of course that the policy is effective. There can be no return to a free-for-all which can only hurt the weaker sections of the community. Thus the aim of our economic policy is to combat inflation by every means that can be worked out in consultation with the

1677
representatives of industry and the trade unions. At the same time, we are determined to press on with the measures which have made increases in real income possible by sustaining a stable economic growth. This then, my Lords, is our economic strategy. It is a carefully considered one—
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, before—
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I am just coming to the end of my speech. Perhaps I could just complete what I wish to say; then, if the noble Lord has something he wants inserted just as I sit down, by all means he may do so. I was saying this is our economic strategy, and it is a carefully considered one. This is the way in which it has been developed over the last period of months when we have been engaged in countering inflation. It is, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, a most carefully and thoughtfully considered strategy. It is positive, it is effective, and I have no hesitation at all in asking your Lordships to support it in preference to the Motion on the Order Paper.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him this question? I did not interrupt him earlier because I was quite sure that he was going to give us the most relevant piece of information which your Lordships need—but which so far has not been given—in a debate on the value of the pound: I refer to the estimated balance-of-payments deficit for the current year. The noble Lord did not give us that information in the earlier stages of his speech and perhaps I should have interrupted him earlier. I hope that he will let us have it at the start of the debate.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I am not in a position to let the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, have that information at the start of the debate. I will try to obtain it, however, and if I am successful the Government will give that figure in the course of the debate.

CHANNEL TUNNEL PROJECT
4.4 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I will repeat a Statement which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister for Transport Industries. The Statement is as follows:
"The House will recall that on June 15 I said that if the Government were to decide in favour of the Channel Tunnel I would announce the fact and publish a short Money Bill before the Recess.
"Financial negotiations between my French colleague and myself and the private interests are still continuing but they have not yet been concluded. This is necessary before the Government can take their decision on the project as a whole and I am therefore not yet able to announce one to-day.
"The Government's decision, when it is taken, will be announced in the form of a White Paper. If it is affirmative, draft clauses of a Money Bill which we would propose to introduce into the House immediately we resume in October would be included in the White Paper. There is, of course, no question of signing any Agreement or Anglo/French Treaty before this Bill is passed.
"I am sure that the House will agree that it would be wrong for the Government to decide on a matter of this importance before all aspects of the proposals, including the financing terms, have been satisfactorily resolved. Equally, once a decision is reached, it would be wrong to delay an announcement. We would wish to provide the fullest possible opportunity for it to be considered, by the public as well as by honourable Members, before we resume in October."
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I am sure that the House is grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating to your Lordships she Statement that has been made in the other place. The Statement is clearly very much a holding operation and there is not much to be said about it at this stage. But as the White Paper will be published during the Recess, I think the House would like to know

1679
whether the White Paper will answer some of the questions put by the Opposition in both Houses, for clearly Parliamentary debate on the White Paper will not be possible if the Bill is to be introduced immediately upon the resumption of the House in October. The particular questions to which we should like answers are these. In the event of the Government's deciding to go ahead, when will a decision be taken on the matter of the London railway terminal? Will the White Paper tell us what is likely to be the effect on the various regions in this country; and particularly, will the Tunnel add to the congestion in the already congested South-East of this country?
A further question which is germane, and which has some relevance to the debate we are having to-day, is: what will be the effect of the vast expenditure projected on our ever-present balance of payments problem? Then since Mr. Peyton told the other place on June 15 that November 15 is the latest date for putting off the signing of a Treaty, will this delay in announcing the decision result in any financial penalty? I ask this because when this matter was last discussed we were told that if the decision was put off after July of this year the delay in announcing a decision would be costly. I should like to know whether this will be the case.
My Lords, the Government are considering a momentous step. I very much regret that the decision will be announced during the long Parliamentary Recess. Clearly we have to accept the Government's decision on this matter, but I think we must register a protest that the Bill will have to be rushed through between the resumption in October and the end of the Session. I do not think this is paying proper regard to Parliamentary control in a matter of this sort.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, may I, on behalf of my colleagues, ask the noble Baroness two questions? One relates to the financial negotiations still continuing between the Minister's French colleague and himself and the private interests. Are we to assume—I think that we are—that a satisfactory conclusion of these negotiations is a precondition to actually signing an Agreement,
1680
or coming to an agreement with the French Government and issuing a White Paper as a result? Or is it, perhaps, largely in the nature of a formality which has to be gone through in order to allow further time for reflection; and, if the latter, is it not a case that the longer the delay, the more expensive the whole operation will be? The second question is: when and if the Government take their decision—which it seems they are likely to take—and come to an agreement with the French Government, and the Money Bill comes before the House of Commons for approval as a result of the White Paper, may we take it that the Government's intention is to leave the decision to a free vote in Parliament?
4.10 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I should like to thank both the noble Lord, Lord Champion, and the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, for their remarks on this Statement. First, on the question of timing, I should like to say to Lord Champion that we are very sorry that the White Paper cannot be published before the House rises, as was our hope; but the fact is that negotations have not yet been completed. I am sure he will understand that I cannot comment further on that matter. We hope that the White Paper will be published as soon as possible to give time for the public and for Members of both Houses to consider the very important matters it will contain. Among the matters to be considered will be all those that the noble Lord, Lord Champion, raised about the regions and of congestion in South-East England, and in Kent in particular.
The noble Lord asked a specific question about finance. May I say that in the intervening period of time—that is, the time between the Government's taking a decision in principle to go ahead and the passing of a Money Bill, which would be the next stage after that—discussions are to take place with the private companies as part of the total financing arrangements. It is hoped that the Government's total contingency liability for the continuation of the present phase following the signing of the documents will remain at about £4 million to £5 million, about which Parliament was informed on October 20 last year and for which provision was made in the winter Supplementary Estimates.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware—
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, is the noble Baroness not going to answer my supplementary question?
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I intended to do so but the noble Lord, Lord Davies, stood up.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, I thought the noble Baroness had sat down.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I was coming to the point raised by Lord Gladwyn. May I make it clear that the financial arrangements to which he referred are not with the French Government. The French Government and our own are at one. This is a matter of negotiations with the companies. I do not think he would expect me to comment further on that matter at this stage. On the timing, if the Government make a decision in principle to go ahead they will say so in the White Paper and, as the Statement made clear, the White Paper will include draft clauses of a Money Bill. On the question of debating the matter further, there will be an opportunity for this House to debate the Money Bill on its Second Reading. If further considerations are concluded there will be a further major Bill dealing with ail the other matters which the House will be able to debate again.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, what about a free vote of Parliament?
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I do not think that that is a matter on which I can make a pronouncement at this stage.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, some of us are very grateful that the Government have had second thoughts about this matter and are not rushing it through by July 31. We were promised by the noble Baroness that Parliament and the public would have an adequate opportunity to think about the matter, to discuss it and to get the facts. We were promised that about the Common Market, but we did not get it. Shall we have the engineering know-how? Is the noble Baroness aware that we were promised that trains would run through this tunnel at 100 miles an hour and would average one every 2·5 minutes? Is the
1682
noble Baroness aware that that would shift 3,500 cubic yards of air at a hurricane force of Beaufort 12 and that it would mean that at ten miles from the end of the tunnel people and trees would be either blown down or sucked in? Finally, is the noble Baroness aware that the Cabinet Paper entitled, The Future of London as an International Financial Centre and the report by the Inter-Bank Research Organisation says that the geographical location of a financial centre of London is important and that consequently, after other things, the move for a Channel Tunnel has been mentioned by us? Why was not the bridge mentioned, instead of this project for socialising the losses and "privatising" the profits?
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, in answer to the first point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, I hope that, as I indicated, there will be adequate time for discussion and opportunity for the public to make their views known after publication of the White Paper, and for your Lordships to do so in the debate on the Second Reading of the Money Bill, if there should be one. On the question of the technical matters, I hope that a number of the answers will appear in the White Paper. This is a highly technical matter on which we have taken and listened to a great deal of advice which will be set out for further consideration.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness a question? All along the impression has been current that this is a private affair between a company formed in this country and a company formed in France, and that all the Government are expected to do is to provide a nominal sum for the purpose of designs, blueprints and research; but nothing to do with development. If anything goes wrong, what is likely to be the financial liability of the British Government? Finally, are we satisfied that we can trust the French in a matter of this kind? We were not able to trust them in the First World War or in the Second World War, nor on many matters connected with the Common Market. Can we trust them on this question of finance?
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I think the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, is that all the matters on finance will be set out in the White

1683
Paper. As I indicated in the original Answer, it is on the question of financial arrangements that negotiations are going on at the moment; that is, financial negotiations between the French and British Governments and the private companies involved. On the second point about trusting the French, I should have thought that the answer is, Yes.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, would not the Minister agree that this is another example of the fact that we are moving into a pre-Election period in which the Tory Party must have a number of dummies in the shop window? Is this project not another of them?

ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
4.18 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, if there are no more pleasantries to be exchanged, I shall begin. We are met together here to consider the stewardship of the present Government over the last year. May I first express my deeply felt personal regret that it is no longer the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, who is to answer for the Government on these matters, if not for the matter at any rate for the manner of his putting forward the best case he possibly could for the Government? This was always impressive and pleasant and I enjoyed his humane wit. I hope I may be allowed to have this thought at this point of time.
This is the first time the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, has put forward the case, and I must say he displayed a case of staggering complacency. At that, I am not in the least surprised, because his master's voice was heard last week in another place, and he could not but follow the master in the pæons of the victory song, even if it is somewhat premature. I think it was a year or two ago when I said that the hen coops were full with the rotting corpses of chickens which had come back to roost. I must say that now, looking at the Government's policies, the hen coops and the hens have disappeared, have rotted; there is nothing left of the original policies of this Government but an acrid
1684
smell, a decay which bedevilled and still bedevils the solution of our problems, as I shall try to explain.
At first the Government tried to live up to their Election Manifesto. They applied general pressures—that is to say, increased unemployment—and at the same time, in order to give incentive to the better off, they cut direct taxes. This resulted in unemployment, unpopularity and rising wages and prices. At that point the Government really thought, to follow President Nixon, that monument of Anglo-Saxon probity, as the election was nearing, and instituted a policy of price and wage control. At the same time, they reversed the policy on general pressures, and the pressures were now applied to increase, rather than to cut, national income and production. As a result of that we had the run on the pound, and the Government's answer was to float it. This was to be the new, marvellous panacea which would enable us, so to speak, to harmonise expansion and at the same time retain the balance of payments.
Looking at the balance of payments—and I do not think Lord Diamond's question can accurately be answered at this moment—it now seems as if the trade balance will be out by about £1.400 million at least, and current balance by something like £700 million to £800 million, or perhaps £900 million. This of course is going to be carried on through enormous borrowing in terms of dollars at anything between 9 and 11 per cent., when the average revenue of our investments abroad is considerably less after tax. So what we are doing now is to borrow long, or medium term, in order to invest in less profitable enterprises. A surer way to bankruptcy has not yet been found by anybody. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, said, the Government now think that they have solved the problem of an export-led boom. I must say when I look at these statistics that his statements without statistics look a little odd to me, and I should be grateful if the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, when he comes to answer for the Government, would explain for what period and in what manner the increase in export volume and import volume has been arrived at, because I must say that to my untutored mind the figures look very different from those the noble

1685
Lord has given. I am sorry that the opposite Benches are so empty. We have not, of course, badgers and ponies under consideration, but only the balance of payments. Nevertheless, when I was asking the same question a little while ago when the Benches opposite were much fuller I was shouted down. That is the first problem.
The Government say that they have an export-led expansion. But if exports are leading, we ought to have a surplus and not a deficit; but we have a deficit and not a surplus. So where is the export-led boom that we boast of, according to Mr. Heath in the other place? Nowhere, I should say. Now we come to world prices. These world prices are intriguing things, because the Government spokesmen, be it in this House or in another place, never tell us which prices they are talking about. Are these, for instance, London commodity exchange prices?—which are of course quoted in sterling. Or are they Tokyo commodity exchange prices, or New York or Chicago stock exchange and produce exchange prices? What sort of prices are they? This is of interest, because if they quote American and London prices then they are cheating: in fact, they are bringing forward a prospectus for which in a less privileged position they would go to "jug", because of course prices in terms of pounds and dollars have risen. Who doubts this? We have depreciated, and therefore our prices have risen, because we see that people can sell at unchanged prices in Toyko, Paris and Germany.
My Lords, I am not going to be quite as bashful as the noble Lord and I shall quote some statistics. We have depreciated 33 per cent. against the deutschmark since the Government came into office, against the French franc 22·6 per cent. and against the Japanese yen 21·7 per cent. We need average import prices. We cannot have quoted at us produce prices such as that for wheat. What we are interested in are the import prices. This is what boosts or dampens the internal price. Western German prices since June, 1970, have increased by 1 per cent.—that is the February figure, which is the last that I have. French prices have increased by 11 per cent. from 120 (in 1963 of course 100)
1686
to 134. Japanese import prices have fallen by 6 per cent. The United States prices have increased by something like 20 per cent. and ours have increased by something like 40 per cent. The Government come here and tell us that there is no connection between the exchange rates and these mythical prices that they are quoting. I should like to know what sort of prices they are giving; whose prices; in what currency; how they compare the floating pound and so on.
I feel extremely worried, because a decrease in the value of the pound of this magnitude—this is much greater, on the average, than even the devaluation in 1967—has not brought about any adjustment in the balance of payments. When should we have smooth adjustment of the balance of payments if not after devaluation, and at the same time in a period when world trade and production all over the world are at the top record levels? So even if we did not have very much pressure applied on our economy, we ought to be able to export more smoothly and increasingly. But we have not. We have not previously had such controversy in the economic profession as we now have since these new prestidigitations of forecasting have been invented. I do not know whether I should like to endorse either the pessimists or the optimists. The optimists think that the present consumer goods boom in this country will shade over into a ceiling and that the further increases in G.N.P. will boost investment and exports. I am not saying that this is not possible—I do not say that at all. It is quite possible that they might slide over into a sustainable boom or expansion: that is quite possible. But whether or not we can achieve this is not an economic question but a political one. This is where the acrid smell, so to speak, of those hen-coops comes in—because this acrid smell bedevils the relationship between the various great Parties of the realm which have to decide about economic activity. It is not possible to expect trade unions to accept conditions which are seriously unfavourable, unless the burden is fairly distributed.
Can the Prime Minister, after what he has done in the last three or four years, secure the assent that is needed, and can he achieve the consensus which is necessary in order to escape from our present

1687
predicament? I must say that I dismiss solutions based on minor fiscal and monetary manipulation. I do not believe, for instance, that £500 million, more or less, from taxes will make all that much difference—£1,500 million, yes; but £1,500 million of increased taxes would be quite a lot. A Government would not wish to try that solution one and a half or two years before an Election; they might just get away with £500 million, but that is neither here nor there. Our weaponry, as it has been left by the 1951–1964 Tory Administration is not such that we can fine-tune the economy. We can rough-tune it, and we can "rough it up", but we cannot fine-tune it. An equal sacrifice would be necessary. It is no use for the noble Lord (who has now departed) to say that the standard of life has increased on the average. One of the things I should like to submit to the noble Lord—and perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, will translate this into Scottish for me—
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: Irish!
LORD BALOGH: Irish, I beg the noble Earl's pardon—is that unfortunately one of the problems of inflationary pressure is that each of the individual great trade unions, at the point at which it negotiates a wage increase, gains, but then the gain is obviously frittered away with the price increases. But at the point when they negotiate the increase they gain substantially. With the "freeze" and the present second phase, obviously this increase in real income which arises only nominally and temporarily has to be checked. Therefore there is no doubt that trade unionists will feel, and feel justifiably, poorer, even if they are not. I could go along a little more with the statistics of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, on wages and prices, but I would tell him that this is not enough. He would have to investigate how, at any moment of the wage negotiation, what the real level of wages achieved actually is and how much has to be sacrificed from it; and then acceptance to this has to be achieved. Full employment, in my opinion, is quite incompatible with stability without consensus, and therefore I feel a little disturbed by the tone of the noble Lord's statements. They are a little bit too "cocky" and they have solved too many problems for my comfort.
1688
They are giving the impression to people that they do not have to do very much more. This is not the sort of atmosphere which I think should be encouraged, quite apart from other unacceptable faces or aspects of capitalism.
It seems to me, therefore, that we must increase the share of investment and exports in our national income. This will not be possible unless investment itself is increased. We must do that before we can reap the consequences of investment; and finally we must invest in such a way as to maximise the return from investment. From that point of view, these white elephants, flying in the air or under the sea, are not the very best that could be chosen, for my money. If anyone can show me that Maplin is going to yield 10 per cent.—which is the present cost of borrowing—or that Concorde is going to yield W per cent., or that the Channel Tunnel will yield 10 per cent., then I will accept, but it would be after closer scrutiny than the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, has applied to his official statistics. For all our sakes, I hope that a solution will be arrived at, but I must say that after the noble Lord's speech to-day I am more depressed than I can say.
LORD REDMAYNE: My Lords, I cannot follow the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, in his economic assessments, but I shall look forward to the day when he refers to the "acrid smell of the white elephants" which I feel sure will come. I should like to comment on the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, which were balm to my soul. When I first came to this House I initiated a debate on "The 10s. pound" and I congratulate the noble Lord on the fact that he now admits his Government were wrong. I do not know why they were so resistant about it. I shrewdly suspect that their then Chancellor, having once changed his mind and gone one way, could not change it back again; and it is a pity that he did not. Personally, I suffered in the matter because some of my unkind if noble friends have occasionally called me "The 10s. Peer".
I wish to speak more simply on the Prices and Incomes policy. It may be known to some of your Lordships that I have a vested interest, in that I am a

1689
director of two major retail companies and chairman for the time being of the Retail Consortium which represents all but a small part of the retail trade throughout the United Kingdom. However, the views I shall express are my own, though I believe that most retailers would agree with them. I want to speak first of the price element in inflation, of which one can say that the price of consumer goods accounts for about 50 per cent. The other half is accounted for by the price of services; but it is with the problem of goods that I shall deal first.
Naturally enough since the only evidence of the price of consumer goods available to the consumer is the retailer's price, it is that price which attracts critical attention, both from the public and from those who are concerned with price control. As your Lordships will readily understand, if, in an inflationary situation, the retailer's profit margin is limited, as indeed it is, and has been since last November, then the question of the effectiveness of the control must direct itself more pointedly to the manufacturer's price from which the retailer's price automatically derives. In this respect the Price Commission, as my noble friend said, has been doing its best within the somewhat limited machinery available to it. The system of application for price increases by major manufacturers on an argument of allowable costs is by no means perfect, but it has certainly achieved a steadying influence, at least to a limited degree.
The weakness of the system is that its impact on the totality of item purchases by the retail trade is small. It is so small that most trade buyers cannot observe it in the daily round of their buying. To them the rise in manufacturing prices seems at this time just as inexorable and shocking as does the rise in retail prices to the buying public who have no knowledge of manufacturers' prices. Much has been said in all the debates and discussions on this subject about the need for watchdogs of retail prices, and my noble friend referred to that. There is an elaborate machinery for using the Weights and Measures Inspectorate for this purpose. Equally, the consumer is encouraged to report prices in the shops which appear to be excessive. In present circumstances such supervision, whether professional or amateur, is accepted calmly enough by
1690
the retail trade, since with the controls of margin that are in force all this "watch-dogging" is superfluous, except in respect of those fools and knaves who exist in every walk of life. Of these there are no more in retailing than in any other activity, although the retailer is more in the public eye. What therefore the retailer would like to see, if control in detail is necessary—and I do not Quarrel with it at this stage—is a more critical supervision of the prices which he has to pay to his suppliers and from which his price, under control, derives.
If I may digress for a moment, in all this discussion on the relationship of prices in the shops and prices from the supplier we should not lose sight of the considerable change which has taken place in the past ten or fifteen years in the improvement in the organisation and exercise of the buying power of large retailers which has certainly had a steadying overall effect on manufacturing prices and is still exerting that influence, although at this time it is perfectly obvious that it is neutralised by the more powerful pressures to which my noble friend referred. In any case, although the big battalions of retailing exert a strong, competitive influence on retail prices generally in the High Street, they cannot influence the prices which their lesser competitors have to pay for their supplies. Indeed, it is worth noting in this respect that it is possible that the smaller retailer—I am not talking about the shop on the corner, but about the solid but small retailers—may well pay more for their merchandise as a result of the pressures of the buying power which the major retailer exerts.
The smaller man is then squeezed between the millstones of higher purchasing price on the one hand, and the competitive retail price established in the High Street. He cannot move far from that retail price. His resource therefore—and this again is a comparatively new innovation—is to join one or other of the buying associations, and thus combine his buying power with others like him. The expansion and growth of such associations over the past few years has also had a beneficial downward effect on prices (both in cost and selling) and has combined with that some preservation of the profitability of the smaller retailer which must be in the public interest if we are

1691
to maintain an efficient distributive system.
I am well aware that the control of retailing by gross margin per cent. of turnover, which is the system now in force, is criticised because it means that rising manufacturing prices create a larger cash margin in the hands of the retailer at the same gross margin per cent. In respect of that criticism, it must be remembered that under this system the retailer has no allowable costs, as has the manufacturer, and must therefore absorb all increases of expense within his controlled margin. In to-day's conditions this is proving by no means easy, and by the year-end it may well be that as a result of the stringencies of this policy the net profit control of retailing will prove to be superfluous. The difficulty of the Price Commission in judging the effect of these controls is that the seasonal nature of the retail trade makes it impossible to find short-term proof of its effectiveness. There will be variations in the quarterly returns which will be explainable. It will not be until we get the annual returns, mostly still 9, 10 or 12 months away, that it will be seen that the result required by the Government is being achieved, and by then we shall be well into Phase 3, or so we would hope, and therefore to a certain extent the proved success of this control will be irrelevant. I am simply stating that it is succeeding.
The only proof of the success of price control generally lies in relatively stable prices in the shops, and through no fault of the retail trade we are by no means in that happy position at present. Equally, if we are to have to consider further systems of control in Phase 3 I do not believe anybody would want to impose a system in which the whole burden has to be borne by the retail trade, and which, therefore, in a time of rising costs, if those costs were unchecked, would destroy the viability of the retail operation. Therefore we must look for a revision of the present system sufficient to ensure that manufacturers' prices are sufficiently supervised throughout the whole field of finished consumer goods. It is at this point that I differ from what my noble friend said. I do not think he has a sufficiently comprehensive view of the situation.
1692
One must take into account, for example, that any chain of department stores may have supplying them at any one time as many as 30,000 separate manufacturers. Therefore supervision is an enormous task. It is true, as my noble friend said, that all manufacturers have a duty to abide by the Code, whether they are required to pre-notify increases or not. What is not sufficiently known, and is not sufficiently clear, is that these pre-notifying companies (category 1 in the White Paper), those with annual sales of over £50 million, are only a small minority by number of firms in the whole manufacturing scene —I would guess 100 or 200 at the outside. Equally, category 2, those with annual sales of from £5 million to £50 million, who must report price increases after the event, amount to only one or two thousand. The totality of those at present under inspection by the Price Commission are only a fraction of the whole. The many thousands of the majority who do not report, although they must keep records which will sooner or later be inspected, do their best to comply with the Code. But the application of the Code is extremely complex, as indeed the Price Commission has been finding. It may be many months before the real impact of these controls for this great body of suppliers can be assessed and by that time, although as I say I do not doubt they are doing their duty as best they can, the horse will be out of the stable.
I see two possible palliatives which may improve the effectiveness of the present control. One is—and I admit that this is almost laughable because it is so slight—that every supplier's invoice, regardless of his reporting or his record-keeping status, should bear a statement that any price increase contained in it complies with the Code. That is, if you like, a formality. It is no great solution but at least it would be a reminder that price control remains a continuing responsibility for all of us, whether we are manufacturing or retailing, all the time, regardless of the size of the enterprise. The second suggestion which I put forward, possibly with some reluctance because I know it will be by no means popular, is that all manufacturers, regardless of size, should have a duty to report

1693
increases in price, so that the Commission can see the complete picture and not only that small section which is now coming to its notice. In discussing all this, one has to bear in mind that the forces of competition or of example in manufacturing are by no means so strong as they are in the retail trade in the High Street, where competition sets the pace in full view of Press and public.
Of course, both my propositions, for what they are worth, suffer the disadvantages of all attempts to obtain control item by item in that comparison of prices invoice by invoice must relate to truly comparable items of merchandise. Nevertheless, they might have some uses and they would avoid a situation which will surely come, and that is (and my noble friend referred to this) that sooner or later when the Price Commission get round to checking the record-keeping companies inevitably it is going to find that some have done their sums wrong and are going to demand the lowering of prices, and there will be considerable odium attached to those orders when they come out. In my opinion, at the present stage the key to price control is at the point of supply to the retailer and not only at the point of sale to the customer. It is to this that detailed consideration of Phase 3 policy should direct itself.
On the control of net profits I have only one thing to say, briefly. I believe that for both manufacturers and retailers it is a dangerously blunt instrument which can both stunt growth and, even more importantly, promote inefficiency in the control of costs. I do not doubt that whether one was in the C.B.I. or in the Retail Consortium or any other trade body, we should all be in agreement on that.
The other half of the price element in inflation is services—rents, mortgage and other interest, rates, fuel, travel to work —although I know that travel to work is only of great importance in London and the great conurbations. I firmly believe that greater control exercised over this sector of the family budget would enable us much more easily to ride this storm of world prices and world shortages which has come upon us; and, equally, if we exercise control as firmly there as we do upon prices in the shops we should
1694
avoid the dangers to further growth of efficient production and distribution which excessive control of net profits continued too long will undoubtedly bring.
My Lords, on pay I have only two points to make. One is that there is no question at all, however much the Pay Board may be presently denying it, that the Pay Code has created a pressure on staffs to change employers in order to obtain a higher rate of pay for the same or very similar job. Against this, of course, the Pay Code provides no adequate defence since the requirement of the Code would not appear to be enforceable. As a result, there is now going on, certainly in the trades in which I am interested, a general post of employees between company and company of the same type, which cannot be desirable in itself and leads inevitably to anomalies and frictions if not to positive breaches of the Code when the employer seeks to replace the staff which he has lost. This is going on the whole time. It is a serious situation. I cannot pretend that I personally see any answer which is not wholly restrictive of individual freedom. Nevertheless, I believe that an answer must be found in some form if the Pay Code is to remain valid in Phase 3.
My second point on pay is this—and it applies in particular to my trade. This trade has been too low paid throughout its history. This last year, which, thanks to a Government-inspired consumer boom, has been profitable to a degree unknown for many years, seemed to offer to retailers the opportunity to put their pay scales on to a level competitive with other employments. But for the pay freeze this offer would have been readily seized, and indeed some companies, because of the way their negotiating year went, were lucky in that they were able to make considerable increases before the freeze struck. But for most others the opportunity was destroyed by the freeze. The emphasis on priority for the lower paid, given by the Government, is relevant to the retail trade as a whole, and in planning Phase 3 it must be borne in mind that retail staffs have a strong claim in this respect, and that the profits of retailing must be sufficient to meet it.
In some quarters, which shall be nameless, the profits of retailing have been

1695
subject to attack. As I say, through the years they have been low, too low I think for efficiency, too low to enable the industry to compete in the labour market, certainly low in comparison with other industries. During these last two years, particularly in the last year, profits have risen sharply. But that rise reflects two factors. One of course is the sharp upward trend in the level of disposable incomes generated by the Government's policy, and the other is the permanent factor that the retail trade is highly geared in the relation of turnover to fixed expense; and therefore a sharp rise in turnover at any time for any reason inevitably produces a sharp rise in profits. By past experience, that happy situation does not endure very long; but I would stress, and it is fair that I should do so, that even at to-day's figures the profits of retailing are in the main less than those of manufacturing or of other services, as indeed they have always been.
The fact is, of course, that profit is not simply the popular "acceptable face of capitalism"; it is the body and the brain and the breath of it, and if some day it becomes less acceptable, then we shall have to find some other system, and in my opinion a very bad day that will be. Therefore, I suggest it would be better that all sides of industry should get on with the job of trying to assist in moderating inflation by the united effort of every sector, rather than bicker about the profits of one sector or another. Certainly the sooner we are out of this wood, the better. Certainly in Phase 3 we should hope to see a greater freedom in terms of net profit, and if the price of that is a more precise effort to control the prices of our manufactures so that that control may be reflected in the retail price (as indeed it would be), that would be a fair bargain for us all. But it would only be half a bargain if the same pressure were not exerted equally on the service element of the household budget, and I was rather sorry that my noble friend did not refer to that sector of prices. And, if I may say so, it will be no bargain at all if in Phase 3 we cannot see the same laudable effort on all sides to restrain wage demands which have been our experience in this year so far.
5.1 p.m.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, in spite of the optimism of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, about the future, looking back over the battle against inflation and currency fluctuations I think we have a rather sorry tale to tell. As regards currency fluctuations I have lost count of the number of times in the last forty years that we have had acute international monetary crises. Finance Ministers have met in panic-stricken conference and have returned to assure us that they have laid the foundation of a more stable system in the future. If this structure is ever built it will be blessed with remarkably solid foundations. I cannot refrain from reminding noble Lords opposite that at a late stage in the campaign for the 1970 General Election, at a high level of the Conservative Party it was forecast that if the Labour Party were re-elected there would be a second devaluation. The word has been dropped, but the phenomenon has reappeared in its starkest reality.
Then if we look back at what the Labour Government did, they too took very short-term views. The Labour Government passed a Prices and Incomes Act in each of three successive years, and each of those Acts was under sentence of death from the day it reached the Statute Book; that is to say, the date of expiry was written into the Act itself. There was only one feature of that legislation that was intended to be permanent and that was the Prices and Incomes Board. That, of course, was "washed out" by the new Government when they came into power, and since that day the Leader of the Opposition in another place, much to my personal regret, has expressed the view that a statutory incomes policy has really no future. Meanwhile the Conservative Government have staggered from phase to phase—short-term policies again—and have shown a remarkable lack of originality. The first proposal that came from the Prime Minister, which was for £2 a week all round and anything up to 5 per cent. increases, was in fact—although I think it was not noticed at the time—borrowed from the Republic of Ireland. It has since been modified to £1 a week all round and 4 per cent. for the group. Thereafter we followed somewhat slavishly the United States of

1697
America in establishing, not a prices and incomes board but a Pay Board and a Price Commission and in introducing some remarkably complex provisions about the regulation of profits on the basis of the average, based on two or three years within a recent period.
I would certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, that our objectives, like his, are expansion and countering inflation. I regret that he omitted a third objective which weighs, I think, equally heavily with noble Lords on this side of the House, and that is the fair distribution of increasing income. All these objectives are long term and I do not think we can persuade ourselves that a succession of staggering from phase to phase and a succession of short-term legislative Acts will produce the results that we all desire, and particularly the results that we on this side of the House desire. What has been accomplished so far is that it has been demonstrated that wages and salaries can be held down pretty firmly to a prescribed formula for a short period. Heaven knows what will happen when that period is over, as we embark on Phase 3!
It has also been shown—and I think we must be fair to the Price Commission—that something can be done to control prices, but certainly not enough to convince the public that inflation is under control, or anywhere near under control. It is to the credit of the Price Commission that during May and June—their first two months of operation—55 per cent. of the applications submitted to them were either withdrawn or modified. I think the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, gave a later figure in his speech but I am afraid I did not catch it. I myself am sceptical whether any kind of price control can really be effective if operated on the present lines. I am sceptical for two reasons: the first is the magnitude of the necessary operation. The Inland Revenue authorities recognise that there are about 22 million income receivers in this country and we do not all buy only one thing. If we all bought one thing there would still be 22 million prices to control—unless we all bought the same thing. Even the poorest of us buy scores of things and many of us buy hundreds of things.
Secondly, price control, if it is to be really comprehensive, has to cover such
1698
an enormous variety of products that the opportunities for cheating are too easy and too many. I would ask your Lordships to think of all the things that you have bought, or your wives have bought for you, in the past week or two, and for which you have been charged more than you were the week before, and to ask whether these could possibly have come under the eyes of the Price Commission. I would ask you to walk through any supermarket or any main shopping centre and see the variety of commodities which in this so-called affluent society are exposed for sale. When things are precisely measured by weight, capacity or size it is possible perhaps to control their prices; or when there is only a given stock of them, as with land and, to a lesser extent, houses, it may be possible to control their prices. But when things are not thus precisely measured it is extraordinarily easy to cheat, and I think one of the experiences that most of us have is that many of the commodities we buy suffer from a wasting disease—each time they come on the market they are a little thinner and a little smaller than they were before.
Equally I am sceptical about the extraordinarily complicated provisions about the control of profits. Profits are residual: you do not know what your profits are until you have either made them or not made them. Therefore any control of profits in advance of your making them seems to me to be highly impracticable. Because of absence of data—and for no other reason, I think—the Price Commission has not yet got around to grappling with this problem, and it will be interesting to see how they do grapple with it when it comes within their grasp. So I would say that we must have a new approach to some of these problems and not just copy the Americans or the Irish.
I should like here to say something about the language that we use, because language is often revealing and significant. In the heyday of classical economics it used to be thought that both prices and wages were inexorably governed by natural laws which were not susceptible to any human intervention. Therefore we spoke of wages going up and prices going up and wages and prices going down. Some people held this doctrine so strongly that they said there was no point in forming trade unions, because after all

1699
the negotiations and all the bargaining and all the strikes no one could hope to get any other wages than the natural laws would have given anyway. No one believes that any more, or they would not address the trade unions in the castigatory terms which are to-day fashionable. But we still say that prices go up and down as though by some power other than human intervention.
I think it is time we realised that no price ever goes up or down of its own volition; it goes up and down because someone changes the price ticket. The same is true of the values of currencies. I know people change price tickets and buy and sell currencies because they think it will be to their advantage to do so; they will make some money or will avoid money losses. They are therefore under pressures, but nevertheless there is a human action. I think it is important that we get this firmly into our heads.
My Lords, this is where it becomes of some interest to see another side of the 55 per cent. of the applications to the Price Commission which were either withdrawn or modified. If there had not been a Price Commission the increases would presumably have been brought into effect; the prices would have been put up because the people who put them up thought that they would make more money. They therefore have a vested interest in inflation. Equally it is true that when people buy and sell currencies they buy up currency when they think it will appreciate and sell when they think it will depreciate, thereby making self-fulfilling prophecies, amiably described as "hot money ". These movements of currencies are simply the result, when they are not related to the economic realities of the comparative price structures of different countries, and short-term movements are not; they are simply the result of people's estimations of how they can make some money. In some countries they shoot speculators or imprison them. These are rather extreme measures and I would not be likely to commend them, but I think we also take an extreme view when we regard these movements of "hot money" and prices as being not the results of human action but, as it were, acts of God.
Therefore, my Lords, I want to make one practical proposal; that is, that we
1700
should take steps to see that nobody has a vested interest in continuing the inflation, and that nobody makes money out of it. I think this can be done only by fiscal means, and though my noble friend Lord Balogh was a little scornful or cautious about fiscal means, he had in mind something rather different from what I want to propose. I want to propose that we should proceed like this. First, we should decide—and I am sure the Government will go along with me on this—what is the available product which can raise real income in the next year. How much is there to distribute in real terms? Let us say the Government continue to realise their target of 5 per cent. growth. I would rather they based this on 5 per cent. growth that has been seen in the past rather than on some future estimate, but let us say it is 5 per cent. Then I think they should say in Phase 3 that all of us can have an overall average of 5 per cent. increase in actual income, wherever our income comes from, whether it comes from business, whether it comes from dividends, whether it comes from pensions, a wage or a salary—an overall average. Then I think they should make graded percentage incomes within that average, saying that groups at the bottom of the income scale should have 5 per cent. plus x, and groups higher up should have 5 per cent. minus y, and y may, in some instances, be 5 per cent. when one gets to very high level. That is how they should try and tackle the problem of the distribution of income within the limits that are set by our increase in productivity.
My Lords, may I say in passing that I hear with great alarm that the Government are falling for the attractions of threshold increases in wages. How can anyone think that a system of threshold increase in wages, in which wages go up automatically when cost of living figures go up, can possibly be put forward as a counter-inflationary programme? It is true that wages are not the sole cost in the price of things we buy—certainly domestic wages are not the sole cost—but it is true that wages are the single largest factor in costs. Therefore if we are going perpetually to increase wages, pari passu with prices, we are committed to an inflationary circle. That is why I would rather we regulated this by keeping the level of people's

1701
incomes within the overall rise in productivity, and that we distributed any increase more to the lower income groups and less to the higher income groups.
We should also need a Prices and Incomes Board—or the present two married together—to look after a number of exceptions to this rather simple proposal; to look after cases, as the Pay Board has to now, where people get promotion or change their jobs and therefore are entitled to something more than £1 plus 4 per cent.; and to look after those cases in which certain groups of workers claim that their work is under-valued—that is to say, they stand on a lower rung of the wages table than they ought. I believe that precise criteria have to be laid down to determine what are reasonable grounds for saying that a group is under-valued, that its work is under-valued. These are the questions that will need to come before a reconstituted Pay Board, or even the existing Pay Board.
My Lords, having done all that, prescribed and permitted increases, I should hope on a graduated scale, tapering off and allowing for special cases (and there are some special cases), and allowing for people to change their jobs and so on, then I think we should impose a 100 per cent. tax on net income to mop up anything that anybody had got over and above what he was permitted by this policy. It is very simple: you would take a man's excess unearned income, investment income, his excess wage or salary he had managed to wangle; you would take the excess he had got out of his business profits. This is a simple proposal in some respects, and it obviates a number of current difficulties. It obviates the complications of profits control because you do not control profits before they exist, but at the moment when they get into the pocket of some known individual.
Secondly, it would even obviate the necessity for dividend control and would achieve the same object in a more fair way. Dividend control is unfair because dividends are sometimes paid to people who are well off and sometimes to people who are not so well off, to whom dividends are an important element in their incomes. If you tax any excess as an excess of personal income over what the incomes policy allows, that will eliminate
1702
unfairness. It will also open the door again to collective bargaining under certain restrictive conditions; that is, under conditions that no bargains get approved which actually result in people enriching themselves at levels beyond those prescribed for that section of the population by our incomes controls, our proposed income grading.
My Lords, this is a proposal which involves a good many complications. There are a good many consequential problems to be dealt with, and I am prepared in due course to try to cope with these. I shall be very interested if noble Lords can indicate some that I have not thought of, or perhaps indicate even some general sympathy with the idea. I do not suggest that the scheme I have described is a panacea, I suggest it because I think that it is very worth while, whatever else we do, that we try to establish a system in which no individual is able to enrich himself beyond the limits allowed under the incomes policy, and in which nobody will have a vested interest in the continuance of inflation. If nobody had a vested interest in the continuance of inflation, I think we may find the problem of dealing with it very greatly simplified.
5.20 p.m.
LORD DONALDSON OF KTNGSBRTDGE: My Lords, I have never actually been a pupil of my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger but I always feel as if I had, and I wish I had been. I shall not discuss her proposals in detail; we shall all want to read them in Hansard. In the course of my speech I am going to make proposals for more positive action, and I wish I had made hers. Mine will be a great deal vaguer, but I am prepared to change them for hers at any time. In any case, as nobody living, with perhaps the honourable exception of my noble friend Lord Balogh, seems to know how to deal with the inflation which is threatening the comfort and security of the developed world, it may not be out of place for someone like myself who is neither an economist nor a businessman, nor indeed much of a politician, to express some views.
I would begin by expressing appreciation of my noble friend Lord Beswick's wide and overspreading attack on the present situation; and here we come to

1703
the difficulty in the meaning of words to which my noble friend Lady Wootton referred. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, thought it was a harsh attack; I thought it was a particularly mild one. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, said he was not going to be defensive; I thought that, very ably, he was exactly that. However, this is a question of words. I am glad that my noble friend put on sackcloth over the pound and 10s. It was a terrible decision, I think. One can only assume that it was decided by the toss of a coin, because no intellectual process could ever arrive at the conclusion that it was better to have the minimum coin one-hundredth of a pound than one-hundredth of 10s. It was one of the worst things done in many years, and I was very happy when my own side admitted that they were wrong, particularly as I got into trouble over the sixpence, if I remember rightly.
This leads me straight to the problem as I see it to-day. I believe it has moved over from the purely economic to the psychological field. The economic remedies fail to work not because they are in themselves inadequate but because people no longer believe that they are going to work. This is the point my noble friend was making at the end of her speech. The Government have not the conviction of the people behind them. As my noble friend Lord Beswick pointed out in some detail—and I support him—the Government have not done what is necessary to get the people behind them. I cannot resist here quoting the famous epigram of Monseigneur Ronnie Knox:
"They have turned their backs upon the people and now they claim that the people are behind them.".
I do not think that enough attention has been paid to the extraordinary change brought about in our social fabric by the runaway rise in property values. Here I am thinking not of the speculators, whom my noble friend has sufficiently castigated and whom most of us thoroughly despise; I am thinking of you and me, and particularly, in this case, me. Anyone who has bought a house, whether on mortgage or not, before this current year—and some millions of the population have done just that—has seen his property increase in
1704
value from twice to 40 times, according to when he made his purchase. I bought my house, North of Regent's Park, four years ago, with the help of a building society—and I shall not disclose how much help. When I got in, it stood me at a gross figure of £21,000. Its bock value to-day is £50,000. My neighbour bought his house 20 years ago for £1,500, and his book value now is the same as mine. Neither of us has speculated or shown avarice, or even especial shrewdness; we have just lived in the ordinary way; we have bought the best house we could buy within the means of ourselves and the banks. We both paid in the normal way, yet our financial positions are transformed, mine by 150 per cent., and his by several thousand per cent. It is the most extraordinary situation.
What is interesting about this is that it is not only the rich who have gained, though, of course, as promised in the Bible, they have gained more than anybody else. The transformation is taking place across all classes and through all levels of income—except as always, the very poor, who never get a break however the economy twists and turns. The significance of this change is that there is a very large number of people, many of whom until now have never been well off, still less thought of themselves as rich, who in fact are now quite rich and getting richer as inflation goes on, simply as a result of having a share, through a mortgage corporation, in a house. They already have a perfectly satisfactory hedge against inflation, and this means—such, I fear, is human nature—that, whatever their intellecutal approach to the problem may be, they are not sufficiently frightened of the upward march of paper values because they are "all right, Jack".
We must not think that the values are no more than paper. Of course it is true that if a man sells his house for £50,000 he has to find somewhere else to live and has to buy in the same market. But he can reduce his commitment by taking a short lease of a flat for £10,000 and give £40,000 to his children. Even after capital gains and death duties, this is a real difference to his children; they are actually richer as a result of this curious development in the modern world. Or he can borrow money from the bank on the increased

1705
valuation and buy things like pictures, or even wine, or furniture. To live in inflationary times, as we all know, you have to owe money and own things. I have always found the former easier to do than the latter part of that proposition. But it is a pretty sound principle. Relative values have changed, probably for all time. There is at the moment hesitation in the property market, but it is only a pause for breath, though prices may not go on rocketing for ever. But in my opinion the property market will never go back to 1960 prices. There is a permanent shift in values and those who have benefited have made a lasting gain. Many have done so in all innocence, which I claim for myself and my neighbour. Many others have taken undue advantage, which we deplore, and my noble friend has already referred to that.
We find ourselves in this curious position, with an enormously increased capitalist class, drawn from all income levels and across the old class lines of society, and these people can afford to be sceptical about Government attempts to deal with inflation. On the other hand, we have a powerful trade union movement which sees the property owners, large and small, many of them in their own ranks, insulated against inflation; consequently the movement is inflexibly determined not to be the one group which bears the burden; determined, and with the power to assert this determination, as we have seen in the last few years. So we have a very large part of the nation either, like the property owners, insulated, or, like the trade unions, able to protect themselves against the evil the Government is trying to fight. This must make the Government's task in mobilising public opinion much more difficult; and, quite frankly, they have not done what they should have done to make it easier.
I should like, with all modesty—and here I would perhaps substitute Lady Wootton's proposals, if we agree with them when we see them—to suggest that there is only one way of regaining the cooperation of these two sceptical groups who constitute, in my opinion, the majority of the nation. My suggestion has been made a hundred times at least, but it remains, in my opinion, the only way. That is to do whatever is necessary--and I mean whatever is necessary
1706
—to hold prices down. This, of course, means the inclusion of food prices and rents, however difficult, actually or politically, this may be. Here I think there is something we can learn from the United States. As noble Lords will know, rigid application of their Phase 2 controls are pretty well confined to some 1,500 firms who are responsible for 45 per cent. of all sales, the rest of the 10 million firms being monitored much more gently. I am not competent to go into the details, but as I understand it, the price control was applied to firms rather than to commodities. In other words, it was the total rise in profit-making of the firms rather than price by price. This seems to be more flexible and effective. We have to worry less—as I think the noble Lord, Lord Redmayne, suggested —about monitoring thousands of small retailers, and more of effectively controlling the behaviour of the thousand or two firms that are responsible for most of the business.
The real headache, of course, as we on this side freely admit, is the external rise in prices. In so far as price rises are caused externally, it is necessary either to let them rip or to keep them down by subsidy. There is no other way. My suggestion, while I admit that subsidising imports cannot go on for very long, and can be only a highly temporary measure, is that at this particular moment a year, or at the most two years, of stable prices would change the atmosphere so drastically that much less fierce and damaging measures would thereafter be effective. This would mean putting back some of the tax cuts from which we have benefited in the last couple of years; but as we on this side did not approve of them in the first place I shall not waste time discussing that idea. We should regard this as a small price to pay.
There has been some criticism of the Common Agricultural Policy in the Common Market. I should like to say, on behalf of those of us who have steadily supported our entry into Europe, that none of us has any illusions as to the inflationary effect of the C.A.P. as it now stands. We have said, echoing Dr. Mansholt—who has said it much more strongly than any of us, and for many years—that food prices are too high and are leading to over-production. This year's butter mountain is not quite

1707
so large, I believe, as the 1969 one, but it is absurd and tragic that there should be one at all. The C.A.P. has a direct effect on world economy, and is forcing inflation on us by keeping up prices artificially. It is vitally important that the policy should change. I do not believe for a moment that we can change it from over here, but I believe that we have some chance of changing it with our two powerful representatives in Europe. I think that this fact in itself, added to the logic which is already being exercised by Dr. Mansholt and his colleagues, is a sufficient reason for supporting our entry into the E.E.C.
The last Government, when my Party was in power, sacrificed many of their most cherished aspirations on the altar of the balance of payments. But by great determination on the part of my right honourable friend Mr. Roy Jenkins the situation was eventually transformed. The Party had to disappoint many of its supporters, and actually lost many of their votes at the General Election, because it did what it believed to be the best for the country. I make no comment on the heavy price paid for this, and the lighthearted way in which it has been dissipated; but it seems to me that the reason the present Government are so reluctant fully to control prices is that such action would be so unpopular with their main body of supporters, and that is the business community. People do not like being controlled, and still less do they like their prices being controlled—and I do not blame them. But I believe that if this Government are going to do what they ought to do they must be a little fiercer, a little braver; they must be prepared to give offence, as we did, in the nation's interest. I see no other way of producing a psychological atmosphere in which less drastic measures might be effected. I hope that the Government will fix their mind on this one objective, the control of prices; for without it we shall never get out of our difficulties. I have no hesitation in supporting my noble friend's Motion.
5.35 p.m.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, I must make an apology, in that they are discussing metrication in another place and, as I am Chairman of the Metrica-
1708
tion Board, I feel that it is my duty to go and listen to some of the speeches made there during pant of this debate. I hope your Lordships will excuse me for any discourtesy if I am not in my place for all the speeches.
I think that we do well to focus our minds on a problem which surely is the most devastating problem which this country and which democracies have ever had to face. I think that it was Marx, and Engels endorsed it, who said that "Religion is the opium of the working people".
A NOBLE LORD: Opiate.
LORD ORR-EWING: Opiate; I thank the noble Lord. He has a better knowledge than I. I think that it is true to say that to-day inflation is the opiate of democracy. Therefore, we do well, at the end of this Session before we rise for the Recess, to focus our minds on what is happening. I do not know that I differ with my noble friend when he said that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, made a powerful speech, with its constructive points, too. I would say to his noble friends behind him that he always looks as though he is about to bite his opposition, although his words are very often more kindly, so those who face him may feel he is being more hostile than those behind him. That is my interpretation of the different views expressed on his speech. He said in the course of his speech that he did not wish to argue about the standard of living. I think that this is important because we are moving to a very important juncture, Phase 3, where we have to consider whether the Government have acted in reasonable fairness—and this arose out of the last speech from that side.
It is fair to say that the real standard of living in the six years of the Labour Government rose by 8½ per cent. in real terms, and in the three years of this Government it has risen already over 13 per cent. So it rose 8½ per cent. in six years and it has risen 13 per cent. in three years. Of course this comes largely from the fact that we have switched over to a growth economy. Industrial growth, as your Lordships know, has gone up between 5 and 6 per cent. I do not think that anyone in this House would think that that is a bad thing. I suggest that

1709
the greater productivity partly comes from the reduction in unemployment, partly I think it arises out of incentives, partly out of better management and better organisation, and to some extent out of higher investment, although my own view is that we have not been investing enough of our rather small profits in this country in modern machinery.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, when does one expect a result from the investment which the noble Lord is applauding? Was not that investment made during the period of the Labour Government?
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, if the noble Lord had listened more carefully he would have heard me say that we have not been investing sufficient of our rather narrow profits. If we look at our profit margins in this country, we find that they are rather less than those of our competitors and as a result we invest less than I should like to see. There has been investment, and that investment has to some extent contributed to the productivity. Of course, I concede that a greater effort by those on the shop floor is an important point too.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting so early in the noble Lord's speech, but may I ask him a question before he gets too far from this point of the standard of living? Would he not agree that standard of living is really rather a relative thing, and for those who live on comparatively modest fixed incomes it has become increasingly difficult? Admittedly for those whose wages have been constantly rising it has become easier.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, I would absolutely concede that, and that is why I think that it is so important that we should, as a body corporate—all Parties—be dedicated to trying to avoid the increasing inflation which has undermined those people who have been most responsible during their working lives and who have tucked away savings, which is in the interests of our country as a whole and which should be in their interests as well. It is a very important point that the noble Lord makes.
Coming back to rising prices, we have to acknowledge that the biggest contribution to them, the biggest contribution in
1710
the price of any of our goods, comes from wages. On average over 50 per cent. of the cost of any industrial product in this country is wages. As the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, said, it is easily the biggest factor. The second biggest factor is the raw materials, and in this country we are generally talking about raw materials which are imported. That is why we have been knocked sideways—by the enormous rise in commodity prices—in our fight to contain inflation.
The Economist published an article on this issue a fortnight ago which noble Lords will have seen, where it showed a graph which really rose almost exponentially to hit a 70 per cent. rise overall in commodities in the last year. As the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, said in his opening speech, a 64 per cent. increase in copper has a devastating effect, particularly in our electrical industry.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, would the noble Lord face the point which I tried to make and which noble Lords opposite have ignored, that this increase is more to us because we have let the pound go to hang?
LORD ORR-EWING: Yes, in any equation there are many factors, and that, I concede, is one of the factors. But the pound has not drifted down by 64 per cent., which is what copper has drifted up; the pound has not drifted down by 89 per cent. which is the amount by which wheat has drifted up, nor has it drifted down by 155 per cent., which is the increase in the price of raw wool. It is a factor, I concede, but it is not the main factor by any means.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, probably the noble Lord was listening to my noble friend Lord Balogh when he pointed out that we had depreciated by a factor of 40 per cent. as compared with the Japanese yen. That is why, with their copper costing them only a 15 per cent. increase, they are such formidable competitors.
LORD ORR-EWING: Yes, my Lords, but as far as I know very little of the copper we buy comes from Japan; it comes from other parts of the world. But I think I had better continue with my speech, because there are others who want to speak and I am not yet being very

1711
controversial; I am terrified of what is going to happen when I get on to controversial issues. The cost of food imports has gone up by 25 per cent., and everyone knows how dependent we are in this nation on food imports. So there is the position where the cost of living in the last year has gone up by 9·5 per cent. But—and I think it should be stressed by all responsible people, and I re-quote figures from the Front Bench—earnings have gone up in the same period, not by 9·5 per cent. but by 14·2 per cent. That is a later figure than the April figure recently given by the Prime Minister. Should we not take some pride that this has been achieved without deflation? I concede that the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, said that the Labour Government dedicated their whole effort to the balance of payments, but resulting out of that dedication came the squeeze, the deflation of our whole industrial life and a rising unemployment, amounting, I think, to 640,000 when they left office and which continued steeply upwards for a year or more thereafter. It is with some pride that we have used the balance of payments to increase our output, to reduce the unemployment and to thus make more use of all the people who wish to take up work.
I thought what was a little alarming from the noble Lord's speech—I got the message very clearly, and it was endorsed by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson—was the indication that cutting taxation is unfair in the Labour Party's view. I would ask how you are going to increase incentive at all levels if you continue to take away from an executive or a working person far more of his earnings than any other of our competitor countries do? We are now taking 75 per cent. The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, shakes his head. Does he wish to take more than 75 per cent. away? If he does, I would say that he is unique. No other democracy takes away more than 75 per cent. of a man's earnings. They may find that lower taxation helps him to drive forward with ambition, and to make savings for his family which also help the economy of his country.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, the noble Lord knows that I must answer that, and I am grateful to him for giving
1712
way. I merely shook my head to contradict this myth, which every Conservative Front Bench speaker in the other House accepted was a myth, that we charge a higher rate of tax overall in relation to our gross national product than they do in other countries. If the noble Lord will be good enough to look at the figures of cur closest competitors all over Europe he will find that we are exactly in the middle of the league.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, I cannot agree with the noble Lord—we had better meet in some private room with our two lots of tax tables and sort it out for ourselves because your Lordships would not have the patience. My view is that other nations may tax as highly as 75 per cent. but they do not tax from such a low level at 75 per cent. You hit the top rate in this country much earlier than you do in other countries, as I think the noble Lord would agree.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, was trying to be constructive in his speech—he put seven points where he thought that something might be done. He said that there must be a way of reducing demand and thus reducing inflation; secondly, he asked would it not be better to raise taxes. To him it is not only a question of not cutting taxes but he is advocating raising taxes in order to reduce inflation. I thought we had been round this particular buoy several times in the twenty years that I was in the House of Commons. We came to the conclusion that increases of tax, because of wage demands, because of the trade unions' very strong bargaining position, led to further demands and further inflation. I think that was the finding. He also mentioned food subsidies—and I am not going through all these figures again. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, also mentioned this subject. Of course the Government have not closed their minds to it. There is at the moment a holding subsidy on milk and there has been on butter. But it means very big money if you are to subsidise effectively. Even £500 million, which is a fairly substantial sum, means that you have to take 45p out of the wages of every married working man if you are not to do it cut of borrowing–45p every single week. That is a big increase, and I wonder whether if we

1713
take that away we are going to get agreement in the Phase 3 talks. Is it the sort of climate that you want to create?
Sometimes, because we see inflation happening in this country and only travel overseas perhaps in our package tour holidays once or twice a year, we do not see the day-to-day events as to what is happening to inflation in Western Europe. I have the figures here expressed in annual rates: Italy, which is much the worst, 12·5 per cent. inflationary rate; Ireland, with an estimated 10 per cent., is the second worst; Belgium, 9·2 per cent.; Denmark, 9 per cent.; Netherlands with 8·8 per cent.; United Kingdom, 8·6 per cent.; West Germany, 7 per cent.; Luxembourg, 5 per cent.; France, 5·4 per cent. Compared with our competitor countries on the Continent we are better than the majority, and I think this should be known. Those figures, by the way, are taken from the O.E.C.D. main economic indicators.
LORD BESWICK: What year?
LORD ORR-EWING: This year. I will give the noble Lord the estimates—this is the mistake of being interrupted, my Lords. I will give the whole brief to the noble Lord and he will learn a great deal from it in the end which gives the figures and the source of the figures.
I think also that this Government should take some pride in the fact that they have been able to recompense those who have been most hardest hit. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, in his Motion did refer to this. He said it is "to mitigate the consequences of inflation on those least able to bear it." I think it is a proud fact that we now have the annual review of pensions, that pensioners will be getting in October 55 per cent. more than they were in June, 1970, against a rise in the cost of living of about two-thirds of that. So in real terms they will be getting substantially more to offset the rise in the cost of living. I think it is a matter for some pride that all National Insurance benefits now are going to be reviewed regularly once a year. I am sure that in an inflationary world this is essential, and it is just. The same applies to industrial injuries benefits, war disability benefits, supplementary benefits, and family income supplements. I think this is a correct effort to try to make things fair, and out of the increased industrial
1714
output to try to shelter those who are not able to help themselves.
I come now to Phase 3. This House will probably not meet again until the latter part of October, unless there is a real crisis, and we shall then be on the brink of the introduction of Phase 3. Some powerful voices are making themselves heard in the T.U.C., calling for the early re-institution of free collective bargaining. I take the view, as I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, does, that those days are gone for a very long while. However powerful and important they are, no group of men can feel that free collective bargaining within our democracy is a possibility for a long while to come. I hope that during these negotiations we shall hear the responsible voices of the T.U.C. playing their part—and there are many responsible people who see just the dangers that your Lordships see, if we continue with these inflationary difficulties—and I hope that the same will be true of the C.B.I.
If Mr. Scanlon, who predicted widespread industrial unrest, is right, then I would ask my noble friend on the Front Bench whether the Government are making contingency plans. We are deeply dependent in this country upon imported food, which has to be conveyed to our shops. We are deeply dependent upon deep freeze storage, and if the electricity supply was disrupted much of our food supplies could be at risk. We are deeply dependent upon electricity for running our sewage pumps, and for running the whole of our industry. I should like to ask whether some plans are being made, because, if they are not, any Government will be desperately vulnerable to the disruption which has been forecast. I hope that the Government will stand firm in Phase 3. It can only be in the interests of the whole country, and of every person who lives in it and who wishes it well, that they stand firm, and I hope that they will make some contingency plans.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him whether he is basing his argument upon Marx's theory of the labour value in all production? It seemed to me that, essentially, he was contending that it is the labour content which is the important point, in which case I would acclaim him as a pure Marxist. If he

1715
does not mean that, will he explain how he can suggest that the labour content is not the important factor?
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, I thought I was at pains to say that the biggest factor in any product is the labour content. On average, it normally exceeds over 50 per cent., and therefore it is of supreme importance that we find some negotiating machinery which recognises that fact, which gives fair rewards, but which does not destroy our economy in so doing.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, will the noble Lord just correct that last statement? He said that the labour content is the "biggest factor in any product". I think he will agree that it is correct to say "on average, in all products", because in some cases, such as electricity, it is a very small factor, while in other cases, such as coalmining, it is a very large one.
LORD ORR-EWING: I am sorry, my Lords. I meant to say "on average", because, as the noble Baroness rightly said, there are some products which have a very small labour content indeed.
5.54 p.m.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, I think the only connection that the noble Lord who has just spoken has with Marx, is with the Marx Brothers; and I say that in the friendliest way. His speech was a parody of what a young Conservative would have said in about the year 1925, just about the time when the Conservative Party decided to take on the trade unions after the First World War. The last part of his speech was extremely revealing. To the Front Bench he said, "Be prepared for Mr. Scanlon and his cohorts, when he and the trade union leaders are unable to accept the prescription." It is an old habit of mine, which I have brought from the House of Commons, not to read my speeches—I hope that the noble Lord the Leader of the House will note that fact—and also to reply because, essentially, this is a place of debate. The noble Lord made a great point of saying how earnings have risen and how the cost of living has risen. His argument was designed to stir the hearts of Conservatives up and down the country. The Government are great and
1716
friendly, and this is what they have done for the people of this country.
My noble friend Lord Brown will recollect what we inherited when we found ourselves in power in 1964. Did we inherit a favourable balance of payments of £600 million a year, which is what the present Government received from us? What we inherited was a deficit of £800 million in 1964 and, the most frightening thing of all, the deficit was running at the rate of £1,000 million a year. So if action had not been taken immediately, the situation in 1965 would have been worse than it was in 1964. If the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, does not recognise this fact, I am sure that the noble Lord the Leader of the House will recognise it. From 1964 until they went out of power in 1970 the Labour Government were living under the shadow of this enormous deficit which they inherited for political reasons. I say that because Mr. Maud-ling, as Chancellor of the Exchequer was setting the stage, as it is being set now. There was one dummy after another in the shop window, and we were left to pay the bills. During the last three years the present Administration have done people proud. But how? During this current year they are borrowing £4,400 million. Of course you can be generous with other people's money; every defaulting clerk knows that. So that the argument that things are better than they were has no substance at all.
Of course things are better in 1973 than they were in 1970. They were better in 1959. Do we remember the words of Mr. Macmillan then: "You've never had it so good"? When somebody reminded Mr. Macmillan that the terms of trade had turned in the Conservative Party's favour from 1951 onwards, what was his retort? He said, "What's wrong with a little bit of luck?" It was a little bit of luck when it was running his way. Only now, when the terms of trade have run against us, do we hear this Party of English gentlemen start to whine. Did we hear anything about the cost of living at the time of Korea? I fought an election in 1950 and in 1951. Every placard in Dudley had on it a stocking with a hole in it. It was no good getting up and saying, "We were doing fine until the outbreak of the Korean war". No one would listen. The Conservative propaganda was directed at exploiting rising

1717
prices. The same thing has happened again. In 1970, we were just beginning to get matters right and it is a tribute to the honesty of the Labour Administration that they did not arrange the dummies in the shop windows in order to win the Election.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to interrupt? Will he explain why the Labour Government went to the country one year before they needed to do so, if everything was so rosy? Should they not have stayed an extra year and reaped the wonderful reward which was coming?
LORD WIGG: My Lords, I am not in the confidence of Mr. Wilson on this point. I used what influence I had to urge him not to go, but he decided to go. If the noble Lord wants me to tell him, I think Mr. Wilson went—and I hope that the noble Lord will take note of this—because he was faced by the dilemma of entering into the Common Market.
I was always persuaded, and I still am persuaded, that basically my noble friend Lord Brown is right in the idea behind the national plan of using the resources of this country to the maximum at the expense of the City of London. It was the early dream of those who inspired our movement, and I believe it is the only way of getting out of our troubles, to have a partnership up to the point of production between the trade unions, on the one hand, and productive industry on the other. Of course, if in fact the noble Lord had read Marx, if he understood something of what Engels was saying about Marx's teaching, he would know that this is what he was preaching. The point of conflict in our society is not in the productive act; it is in the act of distribution. That is where the situation has gone wrong. This is why many of the speeches to-day are utterly and completely irrelevant: because the situation has now deteriorated to the point where we are all but powerless to put it right.
I have spent a few minutes—I hope I have not wasted them entirely—in saying to the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing (I said it many times in the House of Commons and it is still true), that before he comes to this House he should, for Heaven's sake!, do some homework. What frightens me is that when he talks
1718
the affable nonsense he has talked to-day, not here (because not even on his own side does anyone take any notice) but when he gets outside he will be in a position to mislead his fellow countrymen, as I regret to say he has been misleading them for years. The only thing that this country wants above all, from both Front Benches, is to be told the truth. I read the speeches in the House of Commons last week with a certain amount of dismay, because it is my view that down the centuries the British people have never failed provided they have been told the truth—and they are not being told the truth to-day.
The conflict of which we get the reverberations is a world conflict: a conflict, if you like, between East and West. This conflict can be expressed in two words: the West stands for "consumption", the East stands for "conservation". In those terms, in the long run there can be no doubt who is going to win. Look at our own society. Inflation is not an abstraction; it is a matter of reality. To-day, money does not matter. Look at the profits of the banks last week. If you have a credit card or a Barclaycard, or if you go to any of the big stores in London, you do not need money. Indeed, to cash a cheque now you have to produce a credit card. This is the situation we have reached. It is true that the supporters of the Conservative Party—Hambros, Kleinworts, the shark moneylenders Rothschild—are all behind them to a man. They have made millions, untold millions. For example, I read that Lord Samuel made £1,000 million out of property. Did it come from Heaven? Did it descend on him like manna? Did it grow like mushrooms? Or did he filch it, and is he continuing to filch it, on every article that is purchased in every High Street in this country?
Property values, I suppose, could be expressed in these terms: that the property developers have in fact taken nine inches off the topsoil of Great Britain. They have done that to their very great advantage. Then there are the mergers that take place. What has Mr. Charles Clore, that prince of asset strippers, added to the wealth of this country? He has taken a hell of a lot of it! You have only to look in the field in which I was recently interested to see what happens.

1719
We have had the arrival of Mr. Maxwell Joseph alongside Mr. Stien, Mr. Clore and Mr. Corran. Of course, this is the biggest business in the country, with a turnover of £3,500 million a year. As long as this goes on it finds expression, and must continue to find expression, in the purchasing power, or the lack of it—it is a pre-emption of the purchasing power—of every household in the country.
In my view, this will not be put right by Governments, because although at one time it was regarded as the prerogative of Governments (this is at the heart of Mr. Powell's argument) to create credit, now the power to create credit has passed from Governments to private individuals—to banks; to the merchant bankers, particularly; to the discount houses and to everyone who issues a credit instrument which enables people to get goods. This is what it adds up to. If one has a look at what has happened in the United States—and what happens in the United States, of course, is what is going to happen in this country within a decade—one sees that the young man and the young woman marry and buy a house. They work hard to get the down payment; and when they have got the house they have both got to work, so they need a couple of cars. They have a deep freeze, they have a refrigerator, they have a power machine, and their holidays and their clothes—everything—is paid for on credit. So he gets a second job and she gets a second job. But, of course, there is a limit because there are only 168 hours in a week.
The fact is that in the West we have societies which exist for one purpose, and one purpose only—to consume. I laugh my head off when I talk about the power of investment. Where will investment go? It will go where it will make the quickest buck; that is where it will go. If you look at the advertisements in the Press or on television do you find them advertising the need for reinvestment in the shipbuilding industry or in steel? No!, it is in something to eat, something to drink, something to make you clean, something to make you smell nice, something for the cat, something for the dog. The emphasis all the time is on consume, consume and con-
1720
sume—and you pay for it as best you can. This is the stuff of which inflation is made. What does the trade unionist say? Every day when he turns on the television he is being exhorted to consume; if he is not being exhorted, his wife is; and if neither he nor his wife respond, then there are the children. All the emphasis is laid upon consume, consume and consume.
Of course, the Government, when they came to power, in their analysis—and I have no doubt they listened to the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing—were guided by the statisticians. Mr. Heath did what Lord Orr-Ewing is advocating now: he took the trade unions on, and he created a pool of unemployment running up to a million. Then he found that he had to reverse his policy on every single issue. So now the tune has to change; you have to change the record. The record up till a few months ago was that the cause of inflation here was the grasping, greedy trade unions. So pass the Industrial Relations Act and get in a Tory stooge like Lord Donaldson—I beg his pardon; not Lord Donaldson: it ought to be, but, still, never mind—put somebody in there to do your bidding, and everything will be all right. Then they suddenly wake up and find that the trade unions are not the cause of the trouble. You can come to grips with the trade unions. After all, if Mr. Heath had been a wise man and had looked across the Atlantic, he would there have found a trade union movement which was an integral part of the capitalist system. So he changed his tune, and now the chorus is—and we have heard it to-day—world crisis. That is the new tune.
Now Heaven forbid that I should be the only person to draw attention to the Government's shortcomings! Let me go to an ultra-respectable source, the City Editor of the Daily Telegraph. That is Conservative enough; he is no crypto-Socialist. In the early part of this month he wrote:
"The Government is being less than honest in putting the price explosion down to appalling bad luck."
Of course world prices have got something to do with the Government's problem. It is hoped that world prices are going to level themselves out for our convenience. I do not believe it.

1721
In September there is a meeting in Algiers of the non-aligned countries. That fact has not hit the headlines yet, but it will, because the non-aligned countries, the under-developed countries, are beginning to add two and two together, and in the future they are not going to go on producing cheap food and cheap commodities because it suits the commodity market in London, Paris or anywhere else. We have entered a period when the economy of the world is being turned upside down. And it is being turned upside down, I suggest, because of the rising prosperity of the Eastern bloc. I am prepared also to believe that they frame their economic policies in order not to convenience us but to convenience themselves. In those circumstances, what we have to look at and face up to is a completely changed situation. I am one of those who are sufficiently Marxist, if you like, to believe that it is impossible to separate economics from politics; they are the heads and tails of the same penny. What one can do is to hope to have, at some time in the future, a rapprochement with the trade union movement. It is one of the tragedies of our time that we have a Prime Minister who is cordially distrusted by the trade union movement. They have had some; they are not going to trust him again. They can read, as I can. They see that the steps that Mr. Heath has taken, that his Government have taken, do not cheapen food but make it dearer.
I applauded the diligence of my noble friend Lord Beswick in commenting on the Intervention Board which the Government set up by Statutory Instrument through Clause 6 of the Economic Communities Act. On July 2, the Government published their revised Estimates. They are spending no less than £25 million—not in making food cheaper but in making it dearer. They are de-naturing food to make it unfit for human consumption, and they are also making an allocation of money in order to store food so that, for these commodities, the pressures of the market shall be relieved. This has not received much publicity. The Minister of Agriculture has found a new expression: commodities are now sold "into intervention", which means that the British taxpayer pays money to put these commodities into store or to destroy
1722
their nature so that they must be fed to animals and not to human beings.
There is something else about the Common Market which astonishes me. We were told that once we went into the Common Market there would be a tremendous flow of capital from the Common Market into this country. Again it does not make the headlines, but the deficit between the E.E.C. countries and ourselves is running at the rate of £80 million a month, £1,000 million a year—almost equal to the anticipated deficit. For the first time in the history of this country we have become net importers of motor cars. How the motor car industry was going to prosper! How many Conservative Members of Parliament came round my old constituency in Dudley to tell us what a wonderful time everyone was going to have because of the great Market! What has happened? The motor cars are not flowing from the West Midlands into Europe, but from Europe into this country. We have become the servants of economic forces, forces that we cannot control.
Let me be fairer than some. I readily admit that world prices are a major factor; and the Government have no control over them. I also believe that Mr. Heath has turned his back on his past and I am prepared to believe that his policy of compassion is genuine— genuine because it is also striking a note of political realism. I concede all that. But the fact is that Mr. Heath made a major error of judgment when, because of political pressures inside the Conservative Party, partly generated by the subscriptions collected by the Conservative Party, they went into the Common Market at breakneck speed, regardless of the consequences. So at the time when we went in we had to accept within a period of five years a year-by-year increase in prices. We have to do that—and the Intervention Board is composed of civil servants (which is very appropriate; Con O'Neil is the Chairman)—because the Board serve under a directive which comes from Brussels. There is no need to tell us, there is no need to tell the House of Lords or the House of Commons or the British people; they merely pay the bill. The policy is directed from Brussels.

1723
My Lords, there is one other point I want to make; and this accounts for my pessimism about the future. I do not think it matters much what I say to-day or, with respect, what your Lordships say; because at the end of the day this is going to be decided not by what men say but by what men do. Before many weeks are past, I forecast—and as a minor prophet I carefully keep the cuttings of what I say—that we are going to come back to a major economic problem which grows in size, in geometrical proportions, every day that passes. Here we are throwing away a chance of great magnitude. In September we start the GATT negotiations. Here was a chance for this country, with the support of the U.S.A., and with the support of many other countries who are facing the same dilemma that we face, to find a way of liberalising tariffs—even of going as far as the Labour Government tried to go in 1947, perhaps as far as the Havana Charter. But we are precluded from doing so as a result of the decision of the French that the decisions of the Common Agricultural Policy are not negotiable when we start the GATT negotiations.
My Lords, I say that no country that has not been defeated in war would accept such conditions as have been imposed on us by the French. We are for every purpose a defeated country. Britain is no longer independent; Britain is today a vassal of France. We are paying reparations to France as surely as the Germans had to pay reparations—and with the same economic consequences. The only way back, for me, is the recovery of this country's independence, plus the fact that the British people, sooner or later—either it will be the hard way or it will be because of their political genius—will face up to the consequences of the position in which they find themselves. I believe that then it will not be too late; but until then, nothing matters.
6.20 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Wigg. His speeches always provide novel ideas and, not infrequently, some vigorously controversial ones. I shall not attempt to deal with them to-day, feeling that they will be so much more effectively dealt with by my noble
1724
friend Lord Gowrie when he comes to reply.
My Lords, in former times we used to have a long debate on the Finance Bill itself. That enabled many to challenge items of the Bill and to voice their views, even though there is no privilege of revision. To-day, we have had this Motion by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, who moved it in his habitual persuasive and challenging manner. This, in turn, has been dealt with by my noble Leader, with his usual clarity and great vigour. To use his own words, my noble friend Lord Windlesham set out the Government's policy with vigour and effectiveness. I propose to take the opportunity which Lord Beswick's Motion has afforded us to make a few comments, because I share with others the perplexity about the Government policy of trying to pursue a policy of controls while at the same time a policy of undoubted monetary inflation. That, of course, means that the money supply has been largely increased and prices must obviously rise; and so I am perplexed by all this profusion of perplexity—nothing else about why this inflation should raise prices as it has done.
It appears that inflation is with us and has come to stay. Governments habitually have increased the money supply as a means of stimulating productive investment and as a means of containing politically inconvenient unemployment. But the increase of the National Debt is put by all authorities for 1972–73 and 1973–74 as something of the order of more than £6,000 million. That has been dealt with largely by the issue of Treasury hills. It is significant to notice that the Treasury bills in circulation to-day are £1,400 million less than they were some four years ago at the time of the previous Government. The Government have also encouraged borrowing abroad by large concerns. That must increase the total debt, but it helps to fill the gaps in the balance of payments. We must pay tribute to the success of the Chancellor in reducing taxation and also, in this position, in finding the means of persuading the public to buy long-dated securities, that is, bonds which increase the National Debt. But this is achieved only by high interest, which is loading our present difficulties on to posterity. If inflation is coming to be regarded as a matter that

1725
will live with us, perhaps a ten-year at 10 per cent. coupon at the end of 20 years will, in effect, come down to 4 per cent. or 5 per cent. But surely this whole idea of spending ourselves into prosperity is a big gamble. It may come off. It aims to produce higher investment and stimulate exports, and certainly must reduce unemployment; but it is going to increase the adverse balance of payments.
This is a time when, as the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, emphasised, the terms of trade are turning against us. Indeed I am surprised, looking it up, to see that it is up to a 12 per cent. increase in the adverse terms of trade. That is stimulated by the world commodity price rise, but also that must increase the buying power of the countries who get that advantage. I am among those who remember the time of similar need in this situation, which was followed by the Geddes Axe. Government spending was much reduced under all heads and greater efficiency undoubtedly resulted. At the present moment international exchange arrangements are in confusion.
We had a debate recently about the price of gold. There are many who feel that it is unlikely that we can restore any sanity into the exchanges until the American dollar is made convertible and the price of gold is increased, so that the absurdity of this two-tier system can be removed and again it will be one price. In the debate on the price of gold my then noble Leader expressed doubt as to whether there remained a place for gold in monetary policy. I am unrepentedly convinced that gold must have, and retain, its position in the monetary world because I doubt whether these special drawing rights will command the confidence of the world as a replacement for the power of gold, the one thing which must always remain scarce and for which there is an unrelenting demand. I repeat my conviction that at this time, when the energy requirements of the world are throwing so much wealth into the hands of the oil-producing countries, those countries are not going to put their faith in special drawing rights. They will demand something which is definitely linked to gold.
I think that savers must have some measure of protection. The idea is put
1726
forward that saving should in some way be linked to the wholesale price index or the price index figure. That involves a recognition that, as I suggested, inflation is here to stay. There are those who recommend that there should be a conversion of the outstanding National Debt and that all future debt other than Treasury certificates should be related to some common denomination, such as either of those two indices which I have mentioned. But again I am going to urge that consideration be given to national industries, in the interest of their efficiency, being obliged to go to the market for their required funds and not, regardless of their achievements, turn always to the Consolidated Fund.
Controls of any kind do not dispose of inflationary conditions in any economy; they only produce a temporary appearance of stability. There are these challenging alternatives that lie before the Government to supplement the vigorous policy which they have initiated and are following, as my noble Leader emphasised, which commit all of us to have thoughts as to whether this great gamble will come off. We on this side say it will come off, but the plans of men sometimes go astray. It is in those circumstances that we welcome the opportunity that this Motion put down by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, gives us to express our views.
6.31 p.m.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, I am sure that we have all listened with great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, and if I may, without sounding condescending, pay him a tribute, if I live as long as he does and have the ability to make such a cogent speech at that age I shall be delighted with myself. Time is an important factor and I will try not to repeat things that have been said, because much of it is already known, about the cost of living and the various increases. Let me try to take some things that have not been said. I agree with practically every word spoken by my noble friend Lord Wigg, because together more than 30 or 40-odd years ago one way or another we were studying these social problems. My study at home is strewn with pamphlets on this terrific problem of inflation going back to 1910 and 1913. I was reading only this morning a number of letters written to the

1727
Press by Montagu Norman, by Bradbury and others, all of whom occupied positions of status and power in that 30 or 40 years period. They spoke utterances as if they were making the laws of the Medes and Persians. But so too did President Nixon. When he was speaking of the Smithsonian Institute decision about what we were going to do, and he changed the parity of the dollar from 35 to 38 an ounce for gold, he uttered these words:
"This is one of the greatest acts in the history of the world."
How foolish some of these pompous people are. The real truth is that none of us is completely holding the open sesame to the problems of inflation. But there is one thing we demand, and that is that the weakest shall be protected from the inflationary processes that are taking place while mankind tries to unify and discover the answer to the problem. This has not been done.
As a bitter-sweet definition of inflammation—inflammation! Well, it is inflammation, as well; it is over-heated. The Gods were kind to me. That is exactly what it is: overheating of the body corporate. As a bitter-sweet definition of inflation, with an undertone of truth in it, inflation means being broke with a pocket full of money. In other words, despite the amount of money you have, you will not be able to get the basic necessities that you need. That is illustrated by the old woman, about whom such a fuss was made, that Harold Wilson's charming wife Mary saw go into a shop the other day. I have seen the same thing happen: a poor old woman going with an old-fashioned sixpence and asking for sixpennyworth of tomatoes when she did not understand the cost was lop or 2s. a tomato. She did not understand the difference between 10p and a sixpence. So part of our inflation problem is undoubtedly due to the fact that we rushed to change our monetary system. It cost us a great deal. Now we are going into the metric system. Who the hell wants to go into a pub for a litre of brown ale?
Mr. Heath, in his second year of office, almost a year ago this month—there he was with a Stock Exchange that had suffered one of the biggest falls ever, and there was a run on the pound. That
1728
would have been a crisis, but the support of a few five hundred pounds was found fairly easily. Trade and industry were offered, from the point of view of the Government, one of the most generous budgets in history. To try to encourage what?—and nobody has mentioned this to-day. Investment at home. But so weak is the patriotism of the pounds, shillings and pence that investment at home has been absolutely childish and poor. We have neither the tools nor the machinery to meet the rigour of competition that we are getting from the Common Market. I heard the noble Lord who is a tycoon of the motor car industry, when I was speaking against the industry going into the Common Market, saying that we were ready to move in and sell our cars, and that we had a bonanza market of 300 million people. What is the result? More foreign cars are being sold here this month than we are selling abroad. This is not due to strikes in industry, but due to the fact that there has not been the investment in modern machinery and in tooling for our industry at home.
LORD SELSDON: May I interrupt the noble Lord?
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: With pleasure, but do not make it too long.
LORD SELSDON: Just one point on motor cars. One of the reasons why we are having foreign cars over here is due to the time for delivery of British motor cars, which unfortunately is in many cases up to three years.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: Yes. There has been a delivery problem with Italian cars, and with American cars, too. But whatever the excuses are, the fact is that for the first time in history we are taking more cars in than we are selling out. I am a bit upset myself. I bought an expensive car and within the first four weeks it had to go back for pretty well a new gear box. I will not name the car; it would be grossly unfair to take the opportunity of privilege in a case like that.
LORD DIAMOND: What was it?
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: Why was not this money invested? Was it because industry and those who are at the head of it have no faith in the future of

1729
Britain? The Times of January 25 said:
"The Prime Minister predicted an end to stop-go economics and a prosperous Britain for all if only British companies would seize the opportunities to invest heavily in plant and machinery at home."
This was the hope of the Prime Minister; I do not blame him for it. But at the Press Conference on his return from signing away Britain's independence into the Common Market, that is what he said. What thanks did the industry give him? We all know that the giant monopolies, the multi-national companies that finance capital, are concerned with far more profitable areas than the British home market for investment than to build at home the productive economy of Britain. If somebody comes back at me and gives me the figures of the multi-national firms that have invested in Britain, my answer is (and I will explain this later on from the Midland Bank Review, and from Lord O'Brien's speech and Report the other day on multi-national companies) that these companies are moving that capital to spheres hitherto unknown and playing the markets all over the world—the dollar, the yen, the lira, the lot. It can do it, and can put Governments in their place, as this Government have been put in their place by the multinational Roche.
The Guardian on January 22 said:
"On the day that it was announced that unemployment in Britain had reached one million the stock market rose above 500 points for the first time in nearly three years."
This is absolutely the economics of bedlam. The old trick used to be to ask rhetorically a Labour speaker: "Can Labour govern?" What I say now is that capitalism had better pull up its socks, because it has not been able to govern since we have had sophisticated capitalism after the First World War. The old system before was roughly the Adam Smith laissez-faire; it was nearly true competition, but not quite.
There is no such thing any longer as true competition. If noble Lords do not believe me, I may say that there is a lot of thinking going on in City and financial quarters. I do not judge this House (as some do) as representing a crowd of fuddy-duddies. I have learned a lot since I came here. This is one of the most powerful places in Europe—it is
1730
loaded with tycoons—and I can prove it, because here is a list of all the donations to the Tory Party from industry for the last two years. For instance, Guest, Keen & Nettlefold gave the Conservative Party £33,000. I could mention a whole lot but I will just give a general total. The 1967 Companies Act requires every company to disclose in its annual report any donation over £50, and the amount given by these firms to the Conservative Party last year totalled £268,678. Nearly £750,000 was given by vested interests supporting the Conservative Party.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord—
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: Wait a minute: I have not given way yet—
LORD ORR-EWING: What about the donations of the trade union movement? They give £500,000, £600,000, £700,000 a year.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: I knew that would come: that is a piece of cake, anybody would expect that. These people are different from the trade union movement—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Why?
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: These people, my Lords, are non-political—all these great industrialists are nonpolitical, they tell me. The trade unions agree that they are political: that is the big difference. The noble Lord and his colleagues on the other side say they are non-political—does my noble friend want me to give way again?
LORD WIGG: My Lords, if I may interrupt for a moment, the noble Lord will recollect that he and I once had a collecting book that was sent round to all the firms in Birmingham and they were required not only to pay an amount but to sign their names, and it was made very plain to them that unless their subscription to the Conservative Party was up to scratch and their names were in the book, it might affect the placing of orders.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords. I agree. But let me get on because I do not want to take too long. I am tired of listening to arguments about this—for forty years I have read them inside out and upside down and I admire the

1731
wonderful phraseology. But the real fact is that we are still confronted with this, and inflation is an expected phenomenon of sophisticated progressive civilisation. In the reign of Edward II, for example, a sheep cost about sixpence. If anyone has studied the Industrial Revolution and what has been written about it they will see that inflation is something that we are told we must expect; it is a way of cushioning people against this by putting the creation of money into the right hands. The noble Lord opposite, my noble friend Lord Wigg and others have suggested that we must look at this. The old Encyclopaedia Brittanica tells the truth about banking: it contains this phrase:
"Banks create credit out of nothing."
Well, they do. The "nothing" of course is confidence. Multi-national firms can get credit out of banks from nothing on the basis of no investigation, whereas building societies, for example, want to investigate everything, and their top limit is £10,000. That does not happen with a multi-national firm: its name is almost good enough.
We are creating credit ad lib, and it is delightful to read a review in connection with the Midland Bank. There was an initial article in May, 1973, a paper by the General Manager of the Midland Bank. I will not quote it because the House can take the point, but it comments that in many respects the banking business of multi-national corporations may be little different from that of other large companies, but banks need some familiarity with the affairs of the group. But we can do better than that, because the Governor of the Bank of England, Lord O'Brien, came out with this—if the noble Lords below will stop muttering they will see I am throwing away masses of paper and shortening my speech. In the Guardian on May 12, in a very interesting speech, he lent his authority to the view that multi-national companies have played a big part in the recent currency upheavals. In other words, he is putting more blame on them for currency upheavals and inflation than ever you could put on the trade union movement. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, has gone out but I think, with the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, that the important fact here (which he did not
1732
say) was that the lower income group have 1¼ per cent. less real income now than they had two years ago because the cost of the basic foods which they must have has gone up more steeply than other costs. That is all there is to it.
Much as I would be delighted to give a little lecture on multi-national companies, in view of the fact that the Front Bench below me are straining at the leash, I will finish with this little point. It is an old English tradition—bless the English!—which is very deeply and widely held that it is not Party politics, or politics at all, to seek to retain things as they are. It is when you seek to change them that you are said to be political. So the Institute of Directors, the noble Lords opposite and all Independents and Conservatives on councils are not political. We are the only political animals. How much longer are we going to put up with this rubbish, when we see that £250,000 was pushed in by industry?
I will finish with what I think is a telling point, and refer to an erudite report, prepared for the Cabinet Office. Noble Lords will be able to get this from the Printed Paper Office. It is a report by the Inter-Bank Research Organisation entitled The Future of London as an International Financial Centre. This group of people—and whether you agree or not, they know what they are talking about—have come to conclusions very near to much that has been said on this side of the House. They say they searched for information and that:
"It was significant of the general readiness that now exists to discuss the City's problems openly that, of all Whitehall and City institutions with whom we requested consultations, only the Bank of England was reluctant to allow its officials to talk to us. Eventually we were in fact able to have useful conversations with one or two Bank officials."
And that is the Bank of England, which is nationalised! That is the Old Lady of Threadneedle Street—she has hardly got any thread but she is as pompous as my old aunt whose husband ran away from her because she was such a pompous old bitch! The Bank of England must be put in its place, like some other institutions. The object—and it is a pity that I cannot take 20 minutes instead of 17—of the terms of reference of this report was London's future as a financial centre. The report discusses the change

1733
in structure of the financial system; the impact of communications and computers on the technology of finance; the growth of multi-national banking; changes in the environment of banking and the harmonisation of Government policies with the E.E.C. Then comes the role of the company—and this I think is beautiful, and I will finish with this—
"The role of the company in modern society is going through a period of major reassessment. Both the C.B.I. and the Bank of England have study groups on the subject, and these are symptoms of the thinking that is going on. In due course, some argue, this reassessment could lead to the recognition in law that managements of companies should be accountable for the efficient running of their enterprises to groups other than shareholders, consumers, suppliers, local residents, etc., as well as employees. Company legislation and industrial relations legislation would be two means of implementing such changes. Developments of this kind would be of major consequence for City institutions, altering the whole concept of 'ownership' of companies. It is, however, most unlikely that within the next 10 to 15 years any such far-reaching changes will take place."
Nevertheless, it is a good piece of British thinking and along those lines I think we should do something to save our own country.
In 1906 Churchill said about the nonpolitical Conservatives that they were, and I quote:
"A Party of great vested interests, banded together in a formidable federation: corruption at home, aggression to cover it up abroad."?—
the dear old boy had an oratorical arpeggio here—
"The trickery of tariff juggles, the tyranny of a party machine; sentiment by the bucketful, patriotism by the Imperial pint; the open hand at the public exchequer, the open door at the public house; dear food for the million, cheap labour for the millionaire."
I do not believe that any longer; neither does anybody. But unless this country can get together along some of the lines of this Report our destiny could well be that of a fifth-rate nation, not a second-rate one.
6.50 p.m.
LORD SELSDON: My Lords, I am a little confused, I thought I had missed my place in the "batting", and that we may have been debating the Badgers Bill. I feel confused by what I have heard to-day. There have been many debates in your Lordships' House over the past
1734
two years that have been classed as economic debates. Many things have been repeated in different manner and guises, and I will try in a simple way to say the same things as I have said before. The question of our economy is not an insular one, it is an international one. There is one element which the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, raised, the question of confidence. I ask the question: does anyone outside this country have confidence in the economic future of the United Kingdom? Does anyone inside this country have any confidence, either?
We seem to be suffering from what one might call an infestation of atropus pulsatorius—the common deathwatch beetle. There are various types of atropus pulsatorius. One might say first the tyrannicus, or the Government that nibble away at everyone else, destroying their confidence in the country; meeting a rough, tough bit of old wood and turning round and going back. There is then the operandus, or the unions, nibbling away at the Government, nibbling away at industry, bent on self destruction. There is the mercatorix, or trade and industry, which nibbles away at the Government and the unions. And now suddenly the Government are nibbling away at them and the circle is complete, and the house will fall down. Then we have another type, the senex, the elder statesman, who is bent on saying that what was in the past was good, and what is in the future will be bad, and again bent on destroying our society. I have to live in this country for another 35 years, or more. Some people would feel sorry for me if I listened to what I have heard in your Lordships' House to-day and on previous occasions. I happen to be optimistic; I happen to be fairly confident that this country has a fairly substantial future.
What is the state of the nation? Have we declined so far that we cannot recover? Is there no "J" on the bottom of the "J" curve? People seem to be confused. They produce a mass of statistics; it seems as though there is only one pot and it is not big enough. One remembers that it was Robbie Burns who was invited to a poor supper, and, not having a big enough meal, said the Grace:
"Lord, though the taties be but small,
Lord make them plenty for us all."

1735
The question of robbing Peter to pay Paul: noble Lords opposite feel they are better at robbing Peter and that they pay Paul in a more generous way; noble Lords on this side of the House think they can rob without people noticing it and therefore everything is improving. But is our economy so great? There has been a 25 per cent. growth rate over the past ten years. France, that country we looked down on for so long, has a 65 per cent. growth rate. Look at the poor pound floating away in the international world. May I quote Aldous Huxley:
"Your maiden modesty would float face down
And men would weep upon your hinder parts".
Poor, poor pound! What has happened to it? We used to talk of currencies as relating everything to the almighty dollar. As Washington Irving said:
"… that great object of universal devotion throughout our land seems to have no genuine devotees in these peculiar villages".
What a sad, sad situation! Yet, to-day is July 24. Two years ago it was a Saturday, a nice sunny day; we were beating India at Lords; Mill Reef had won the King George VI and Queen Elizabeth Stakes; the pound against the dollar—a bit weak. Now, two years later, the pound against the dollar is 5 per cent. stronger.
If I were supporting the Government wholeheartedly I would now sit down and say that the pound is stronger. But suddenly in these intervening two years we have had the rise of the countries of continental Europe, the sudden significance of their currencies, many of which we did not know. Since that sunny Saturday there has been the fall of the pound against the Deutschmark, 30 per cent.; the Swiss franc, 27 per cent.; the French franc, 24 per cent.; the Dutch guilder, 24 per cent.; the yen, 22 per cent.; so it goes on getting steadily worse and worse—the peseta; 15 per cent. With that great currency, the one that has more noughts on the end than any of the others, the lira, the figure is 2 per cent. Looking at programmes on television, there was one with George Thompson speaking on regional development. A telling map of Europe appeared with parts hatched in strong
1736
lines representing the economic strength of Europe. Parts were plain white, which was most of the United Kingdom and Calabria in Southern Italy.
Are we really so weak, and are we really finished? I wonder! We have the pound and we wonder what will happen. We have it floating, but perhaps it has begun to float for too long. You take the initiative—and it was certainly creative initiative—to float the pound. Then you say, "Do we peg it now?" The mood is going round Europe that maybe it should be pegged; if not, it will only accelerate inflation, and things will get worse and worse.
But what about the United States? has the pound caught the leprosy of the dollar, or is it vice versa? Both seem to be based on confidence. In one case it is confidence in the Administration in the United States; in the other one might say it is confidence in Government and in the country as a whole. But is confidence there? It is about to be there, but one must doubt and continue to doubt when, as I do, travelling about three days a week round the Continent one talks in the financial centres and political centres and with Continental industry. They like the British; our stock as a nation is very high, but our economic stock is very low.
The Government say, "Invest in England. It is a great place; it has a great future." They ask, "How do we know? Why should we do it now? Can we get labour? Should we be directed to the regions, or is it the kiss of death?" Those who were wise enough to invest on that Saturday two years ago are regretting it very much; they could have done it cheaper to-day. They wonder: will the pound stabilise or continue to sink?
One has to take a view, and in your Lordships' House on July 5 last year, when the pound was down to 2·30 or so, I said I thought it would settle at around 2·50. I think it fair to say that the pound against the dollar is over-valued, and against the dollar it must come down. The dollar against the currencies of continental Europe is undervalued and must go up. The pound will probably improve its performance against the currencies of the Continent. But we have one overriding factor: Will industry, national and international, invest in this

1737
country? Will it have confidence in the future of England? I suggest that it will. I suggest that we have seen a phase of international expansion by British industry, criticised by those who attack the multi-nationals, and that we will see a corresponding inflow into this country. It is to my mind the most critical factor of all. Otherwise, little by little, the anti-Common Marketeers will be able to say: "We were right. The United Kingdom is now an offshore island, an island for the élite who live in the centre of London in houses inflating every year, like some offshore island in the Pacific."
My Lords, I worry a little about this deathwatch beetle that seems to have got into our society and every element of it. There is little co-operation between the different elements. We are faced with a problem now that the Government turned round and went for Phase 1; they went for Phase 2; they will go all out for Phase 3 and we will put our shoulders to the wheel and we will support them; and maybe, like the United States, they will move to Phase 4, Phase 5, Phase 6, and so on. Or perhaps this gamble for growth, as one might call it, will work. We cannot achieve a continuing 5 per cent. growth rate. It must inevitably come down, and if we can stabilise it at around 3 per cent., without the sudden stop that one is worried about, then we will go forward into considerable prosperity.
British industry is not doing badly at home or abroad. Order books are full; jobs are available; people are looking to expand. And yet they are still held up by that one element: Do we invest in new plant and machinery and bring our industry up to date, or do we fall behind? Your Lordships may well criticise countries such as Italy, but those of you who have seen the modern Italian industry of the South know that one would be surprised, because it can knock spots off even Western Germany. But the underprivileged countries of Europe, as one may have called them, the sick men of Europe, are now doing well because international industry decided to invest there and they encouraged investment themselves. We need not fear for our position in the world with the growing influence of this country; it has never gone ahead at a greater rate than it does now, thanks to our current foreign
1738
policy. We are respected; we are trusted, and people have confidence in us as individuals and as a country. That confidence in us as a nation can be transferred into confidence in our future economy, with a little bit of a push. It needs a bit of showmanship in these times in the international world.
There are problems. It is difficult. Once when a Cabinet Minister got up and said something optimistic, everyone used to feel enthusiastic; now, the stock market crashes and the world starts to say, "What's under the mat?" But we have a chance with Phase 3, which is the most critical phase in the Government's economic policy in this generation. The Government must seek support for Phase 3 privately beforehand. I believe that it is possible that all the elements that the Government need for support will support them, because, quite honestly, many of us are tired of what is going on at the moment and this niggling here and there —the little deathwatch beetle boring away. I hope that during the summer the Government will take time and think hard and realise that they have the confidence. It is certainly the best Government that this country has at the moment to do what it is seeking to do. That I have no doubt about, and I believe the world has no doubt about. But a little measure of support all round can pay considerable dividends.
I come, before I sit down, to the question of inflation—I have been dealing mainly with the pound and confidence. We have to accept, regrettably, that inflation in the Western capitalistic world is really here to stay, and we have to take this into account with all the underprivileged and those who suffer on fixed incomes and otherwise. I think it would be right to consider accepting that there will be a basic rate of inflation, as one may have a basic interest rate, and that that may be around 5 per cent. and that certain things should automatically increase by 5 per cent. every year, without the need for new charity hand-outs to make them up, so that people may not fear this erosion of their incomes and fear for their future poverty.
My Lords, I sit down with just one thought. This has been a little bit of a criss-cross, "ding-dong" debate in a way, one side of your Lordships' House tending to try to find someone to attack

1739
and to blame; the other side trying to defend with a barrage of figures and statistics, but not quite sure why they should have anything to defend. We are trying together to solve an economic problem which can be understood and which figures can show has actually taken place. The only way out of it is to generate internal and international confidence, and to get investment going, and (if I may be a little agricultural) to stop mucking about.
7.6 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I hope I do not embarrass the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, by saying to him that on this occasion, as on every other. I have listened to him with the greatest of pleasure and I can assure the noble Lord that I am not alone in that feeling. He combines what I might call a demureness of demeanour with an incisiveness of intellect which I find most attractive; and although, of course, I did not agree with everything he said, I certainly thought that he touched on some of the most important issues on which I will say a few words a little later on. But before coming to the main part of my speech I hope I may say to the Government that I trust that they will answer the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, clearly and to-night. I hope they will say to the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, that they are not again seeking confrontation with the unions but that they are seeking co-operation. Once the kind of question that was asked—and of course Lord Orr-Ewing is perfectly justified in making whatever statement he thinks fit—has been put, and in the context in which he put it, nothing but good will come of an immediate and clear reply explaining the Government's policy.
It would be invidious to pick on a variety of speeches. I merely say that I have had the pleasure of listening to practically every one and have enjoyed the experience. In particular, I want to say to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, how moderate I found the clearly argued, closely argued, and imaginative speech of my noble friend Lord Beswick. I am sorry that he did not share this view. It is just worth mentioning so that the noble Lord will realise how moderate are our expressions in relation to our feelings.
1740
It is always well to start with agreement and there is of course a wide area of agreement between all Members of your Lordships' House. I do not suppose there is a single Member here who does not share the view that what we should all attempt to do, whichever Government are in power, is to put into effect a policy of sustained growth. That is what we attempted in our time; that is what the Government are attempting now. And it would be stupid of anybody to deny that every Government find this a very baffling question. I imagine that all Governments share the same disappointment that I feel that somehow or other we as a country, throughout the last decade and into this one, have failed, notwithstanding the best attempts of Governments, to achieve as much as we are capable of achieving—as I am conceited enough to believe that the British man and woman is capable of achieving in relation to what has been achieved across the water and by other similarly developed nations. It is that disappointment which we must bear in mind.
I do not think that the answer lies in any black or white issues: it is a matter of emphasis. But where it is a matter of emphasis, one is entitled to look at those statistics which indicate, not that there has been a slight variation, but that there has been a record of some kind or another. That is why on a previous occasion (I think it was in February when we debated the counter-inflation measures) I started off with a list of records achieved by this record-breaking Government. Needless to say, they were records of the kind of "highest unemployment ever", and of that genre. I want to add two other records which are relevant to to-day's discussion. One is the achievement of a record devaluation in sterling, and the second is of the achievement of a record low price in Consols and War Loan. The first is the indicator of confidence abroad; the second is the indicator of confidence at home. Those two well accepted indicators are at an all-time low, and this is the question of confidence which the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, referred to in the early part of his speech.
There are some who seem to regard devaluation as having some sort of curious benefit or advantage to the country

1741
which devalues. You can get under the other man's export prices and undercut him, and somehow or other this is the way to achieve prosperity. In my view, nothing could be further from the truth. I regard devaluation simply as this: that one is being forced to sell one's labour abroad at a cheaper rate. One cannot any longer get employment at the rate to which one is accustomed and therefore one has to cut the hourly rate in order to get employment, put in terms of exports of goods abroad. That is what happens in terms of exports. And, of course, in terms of imports there is a rise in the cost of food and of raw materials.
May I dwell once more for a short moment on the rise in the cost of raw materials, because I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, fully took the point made by my noble friend Lord Beswick. With reference to copper, it is an undisputed fact that our price, compared with the price which is paid in Japan for those copper imports, the same copper coming from the same source, or the Swiss import price of that copper, is immeasurably higher. Our price, between 60 and 70 per cent, increase on what it was; the Japanese, 15 per cent., I think; the Swiss a little more than that. We are paying so much more for the import of raw materials. Why? Largely because of the devaluation of the pound. That is what this debate is about and one must not look for alibis solely in import prices: one must go behind that and see why we have to pay so much more than our competitors.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord, and of course I will study again the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, but it is still a fact (is it not?) that inflation in Germany and in Japan has been rising at a faster rate than here.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, it is because the noble Lord said that last time, which with the greatest possible respect I cannot see is really relevant to the argument, that I thought it necessary to repeat the argument. It may be that inflation is greater in those countries, but this is not what we are discussing. We are discussing inflation in this country in particular in relation to de-
1742
valuation of the pound in this country, and the point I am making is that it is no good the Government continuing to say, "What can we do about inflation? We cannot control import prices". Of course we cannot control import prices entirely but what we can do, and what the Government are doing, is to make import prices very much greater than our competitors have to pay for the same imports from the same sources because of the devaluation of the pound.
We were supposed to be having a floating pound; that is, a pound which could conceivably float upwards or downwards. If it had floated upwards as the yen has appreciated or as the Swiss franc has appreciated, for example, then our imports of copper would not cost 70 per cent. more, they would cost 15 per cent. more. That is the point I am trying to bring out. It is a simple point and it is something to bear in mind and it relates to the problem of the value of the pound abroad, which in turn is a question of confidence, as the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, wisely said.
I therefore deal immediately with those elements which relate to confidence. The first is the balance of payments. It would have been helpful for this debate if the Government could have started off by telling us what their estimate is of how we are going. We know the figures for the first quarter and for the second quarter; what the Government are doing depends for its justification or criticism entirely on their estimate of the way the balance of payments is going. Can you buy your way—I am sorry; I should have said can you borrow your way—into prosperity, or is it the kind of gamble which the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, referred to and which he gave the impression he was not going to put his money on, anyway? The answer to that depends on what you think is happening to the balance of payments, and we have not been told. I must say to the Government that there are estimates, and one estimate is that this year our balance of payments deficit will be in the order of £1,000 million—an all-time record. The other estimate is that it will be of the order of £2,000 million—twice as much. These are estimates by independent economic sources, not invented by politicians. I have no means of putting the figures together; I can only read what others say.

1743
I know, as the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, knows, what people abroad think of us. I share his view completely on the way they assess our character, our political institutions and our pound: the first two, very highly; the last one—you can have it ! The noble Lord or any one of your Lordships who has recently travelled abroad will know how many Swiss francs you get to your pound, or French francs, or German marks: astonishingly few, irritatingly few, making it almost prohibitively expensive to go abroad and do the things you want to do. I am glad to see one noble Lord opposite nodding in agreement. This is the difficulty; and if the fact is that the Government feel justified in their attempt to borrow their way to prosperity and to avoid the failure that met Mr. Maudling when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1964 and was attempting the same policy—if the Government feel that they can justifiably calculate on borrowing their way into prosperity, then they must say what they think will happen to the balance of payments.
It is no use the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, giving such a selective indicator as the fact that exports are leading imports in volume—I think he said twofold; anyway leading—and at the same time leaving us with a figure of between £1,000 million and £2,000 million deficit. The two just do not tie up, and we must put an enormous red neon question mark against the statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, on behalf of the Government—and that is the last thing we want to do—simply because the figures do not add up.
So I want to make quite clear what our criticisms are of the Government. The first is that they have allowed the balance of payments to slide much too far into deficit. One does not say that one should necessarily keep a surplus of £1,000 million every year. If you do that you will get a reaction from other countries which are obviously suffering the deficit which is our surplus but to turn a surplus of £1,000 million a year into a deficit of whatever amount it is—. £1,000 million or £2,000 million a year— in that short period of time is a matter which I think justifies heavy criticism. I do not see how one can do that and
1744
still expect to have confidence abroad. It is consistent only with the reckless disregard for making ends meet at home which the Government have shown in their policy of deficit budgeting and heavy borrowing. That must be the first criticism.
The second criticism, and here again I turn to something which the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, touched on, is for placing far too much weight on the floating pound. There is some justification for that as a temporary measure, to a limited extent and within the limits acceptable as a deviation from the expressed policy of the Government of joining with the Community in mutual support and joint action. There is some justification, I say, for that policy on a temporary basis. But I am bound to say to the Government that I feel they have carried it on far too long, and I am not one who favours wild attempts to "go it alone". It has already been suggested by many that in this way we have suffered a greater devaluation than is justified, that is to say, something of the order of 5 per cent. The actual devaluation, by allowing the pound to float downwards to the extent it has done, is held to be a figure 5 per cent. below that which could have been the pegging price of a fixed parity on a careful, well-thought-out planned policy. I believe, therefore, that the Government have turned what might have been a policy decision into one of ignoring their responsibilities and ignoring what they should have been doing, namely, to attempt to stabilise sterling, to attempt to prevent the pound falling in the way it has done.
My Lords, the third criticism we have of the Government is for the things they have done and for the things they have omitted to do, which have in the first place encouraged and added to inflationary pressures at home, and in the second place—and they could have avoided them: the things which have added to inflationary pressures, which I need only refer to shortly—rents, rates, prescription charges, dental charges, school meals, school milk, and the rest. The omissions are, and here I echo something that the noble Lord, Lord Redmayne, touched on, nothing to control the price of land, in particular nothing to control the price of agricultural land (an

1745
increase in the price of agricultural land is a built-in guarantee that the cost of producing food at home is going up and up); capital purchase prices have to be satisfied in turn by rents—everybody knows that—and a complete turning of their backs on any attempt to prevent either business premises, which I think was what the noble Lord, Lord Redmayne, was referring to, or agricultural properties or agricultural land being controlled in their upward rush. These omissions justify heavy criticism. So far as further omissions are concerned, while I will not say that nothing has been done, there has been insufficient done in the way of food subsidies to cushion the impact of rising food prices on the poorer section of the community. Nothing could be so inaccurate as the answer one sometimes hears, that it is not possible for a Government to do anything about food subsidies. Governments have been subsidising food in this country in one way or another for years and years and years. At present, as the noble Lord, Lord 'Orr-Ewing, pointed out, there is a subsidy on milk in particular; there is a subsidy on butter and on other things. There are many ways of doing this. The argument is not an argument of kind but of degree only.
What we are saying is that the Government have devoted resources to other purposes, in particular to tax cuts—£300 million starting this April. The Government have devoted resources to purposes which are not directed to helping the poorer section of the community on their food costs, and are not directed to inducing the kind of atmosphere which is essential for the negotiations which the Government are now undertaking in the hope of achieving some measure of agreement which would lead to greater price stability and greater prosperity all round. So it is that for which we criticise the Government.
Finally, I share with the Government the criticism of their having wasted their first two years, because there is no greater critic than the man who admits his own mistake by doing the opposite thing, as the Government have wisely, though belatedly, decided to do over so many fields of policy. Only to-day, the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, was congratulating the Price Commission on having saved consumers money at the rate of £44 mil-
1746
lion a year. I think that is what he said, and he was congratulating the Price Commission on doing that. As he said that, I was wondering how much more could have been saved in the previous two years or more if the Government had been of the same frame of mind then as they are now. To summarise, we are criticising the Government for having wasted those two years, for having frittered away a very substantial balance of payments surplus, for having turned it into a substantial deficit, for having invented the policy of the sinking pound as a result of having destroyed credibility at home and damaged confidence abroad.
7.29 p.m.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, in the very beautiful language of the Writ of Summons, which we heard again this afternoon when Lord Allan of Kilmahew was introduced, Peers are enjoined to attend your Lordships' House and to their public duties, and I quote,
"considering the difficulty the said affairs and dangers impending".
The phrase recognises that difficulty and danger form the context of human affairs and our conduct of them. It reminds as that no Government formed from Parliament at any stage of our history, and, by implication, in future time, may be allowed, without qualification, to pat itself on the back. The difficulties and dangers are ongoing; they provide shifting patterns of exchange, as it were. This debate is very much welcomed by the Government, in spite of the fact that the broad shoulders of my noble friend the Leader of the House and my own rather narrower ones have had to sustain critical blows as well as pats on the back. We must therefore thank the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for it, in principle, because by drawing the attention of the House to some of the undeniable problems facing the British economy at this time he has given the Government a chance to show not only what it proposes to do about them but what it has done and is doing.
My Lords, in free discussion of these problems we must remember two things. In a time of worldwide inflation and considerable international monetary difficulties, dangerous as these are to an importing economy such as ours, the living standard of our people is higher than it has ever been. That is the first

1747
thing to remember. The second is this: a higher standard of living breeds higher expectation, and great may be the disillusion if these are not fulfilled. So a higher standard of living must be soundly based—that is to say, on a steadily expanding economy. I do not believe it is a matter of dispute to-day that the British economy is expanding. I do not believe it is a matter of dispute that this expansion is based on increased manufacturing output—making more things—and an increase in exports—selling more things abroad. The very considerable rise in real personal disposable income, the very considerable fall in the rate of unemployment, are not the flickering of a match. They will provide a beacon to the Government so long as it is in office. My noble friend the Leader told your Lordships of his commitment and of the Government's general determination to see that this very considerable achievement is not eroded, on the one hand, by an uncontainable inflation, and, on the other hand, by a failure to restructure the British economy on the firm foundations of greater investment and greater participation by its working force, whether individually or collectively.
I am very glad to have this opportunity to play second fiddle to my noble friend and to echo the theme in a minor key. I do not believe there is enormous division between the two sides of the House, of this House at any rate, as to what sort of Britain we want. Indeed the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, went a considerable way to acknowledge this. I do believe there is division as to how to go about it. Faced with international difficulties when they were in office, noble Lords opposite deflated the economy. They argued then, and they argue now, from weakness. Our belief is that the greatest contribution which this country can make towards achieving a lower rate of inflation in the world, towards achieving greater monetary stability in the world, towards achieving more equitable standards of living for the poorer countries of the world, is by putting our own household in order and letting it be seen that that is just what we are doing.
Against this background of achievements as well as of intention, let me now turn to the debate. There were, as
1748
I heard it, two principal themes, and perhaps noble Lords would like me to summarise them briefly before coming to the questions which individual noble Lords have put to me. They could be called the "abroad" theme and the "home front" theme. The Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick outlined them perfectly, but in order to encompass other speakers perhaps I could broaden his terms of reference a little. A small and controlled level of inflation is in the modern world perhaps inevitable, perhaps even, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek believes, desirable. My noble friend Lord Barnby, I recognise, does not think it desirable. People today know more, want more, and they will put up with less—why indeed should they. Will they listen to Lord Wigg, or in the light of this speech perhaps I should say, to Chairman Wigg, and become conservers rather than consumers?
But inflation must be contained within moderate limits. In the last five years or so the beast has been let out of its cage. The keepers, or the ringleaders if you like, have become jumpy and short-tempered and prone to disagree with each other, the crowd restless and hungry for stronger doses of sensation. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, calls for more positive and effective policies. I suspect he would like to put the beast back in its cage, whereas we would wish perhaps to tame and employ it. Both he and the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, have made much of the difficulties which the Governments of the developed nations have had in establishing monetary stability. But surely the important point is that our exchange rate depends, in the end, on the strength of our economy. And surely our ability to argue the case for reform of the international monetary system must proceed from a like position of strength. It is, of course, very annoying that on occasion changes in our exchange rate do not represent the true strength of our economy. They do not represent the way that business investment is rising, the way that exports are rising by volume almost twice as much as the volume of imports.
My Lords, lest this be considered a partial view, I should like to quote the latest report by the O.E.C.D. published last Friday. The report forecasts that by the middle of next year our economy

1749
will be working at close to capacity, unemployment will still be falling and the deficit more manageable. It goes on to say that
"the past year's more flexible approach to exchange rate determination, and the present formal price and income controls, have helped to provide a better opportunity than the U.K. has had for many years to achieve full and sustained employment of productive potential."
Perhaps that will give some comfort to my noble friend Lord Selsdon, whose appeal to confidence I much enjoyed.
Indeed, as many of your Lordships have recognised, one of the principal reasons for the decision to float the pound was to enable us to adhere to the strategy of economic expansion, which is the only means of improving both our national prosperity and our bargaining position abroad. Through this expansion, the pound is fundamentally strong—even if, as my right honourable friend the Chancellor said in another place
"recent movements in rates in the foreign exchange markets, whether of sterling or of other major currencies, do not correspond with movements in relative costs and prices in the countries concerned".
And, my Lords, we all know that where the movement of currencies is concerned, particularly currencies held as reserves, other than economic considerations, may, in the short run, prevail.
Let me put the "abroad" theme in a slightly different way. Do not noble Lords believe that a continued and controlled economic expansion at home is a better contribution towards international stability than a deflated and largely nationalised economy, propped up by massive increases in taxation, and where political hostility towards profits would send investment reeling—reeling with a punishing Left hook, as it were?
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, surely the noble Lord—
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, I am going to deal with the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, in a moment. I hope he will let me get on to the specific points. Do noble Lords believe that these are steps on the way back towards the confidence that we need, and which the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, mentioned, whether this confidence is held abroad or at home?
LORD BROWN: My Lords, if the noble Earl is going to address a number of questions to this House, surely when somebody like my noble friend Lord Balogh gets up to answer one he must listen to him.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, has made his speech, on which I shall shortly be commenting. I am simply now trying to make mine.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, will the noble Earl desist from putting questions to the House if he is not prepared to give way when somebody rises to answer?
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, as an ex-English teacher, may I respectfully draw the noble Lord's attention to the art of the rhetorical question?
Turning now to the home front, the Government have already recognised, and they have said it time and again, that industrial and commercial power in this country depends on Government, employers and unions agreeing on the major objectives of the economy. The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, asked for that assurance, but now that I am giving it to him I am not sure that he is attending to it. The industrial expansion which I have talked about has been in very large measure achieved because there has been agreement about objectives, about ends, even if the means have to be decided by Statute. We hear so much about confrontation that we forget the consensus that has been achieved, and whose proof is the roughly 5 per cent. annual increase in real personal disposable income since June, 1970, double the rate, in three years, of Labour's achievement in six. Of course, the Government are pleased to take credit where it is due, and they are proud of their record. But Government cannot decree such progress. They create the context in which people get on with the job of improving their own and their country's standard of living. I was very glad to hear that that point was recognised by my noble friend Lord Redmayne.
Many noble Lords have dealt with prices, whether of food, or in terms of other vital needs such as rents. Most Western Governments are very concerned

1751
about rising food costs. I met a distinguished Canadian Minister the other day. He had never been to the House of Commons, and on his last day here he attended a debate. "What was it on?", I asked him. "Food prices", he replied. He was flying home to vote on an important debate. "What is it on?", I asked. "Guess?", he said. "Food prices", I said. I was right, and so we parted. No Governments are complacent about food prices. At the crudest political level, Governments are concerned to save their own as well as other people's bacon. But I do feel that we are apt to get food prices, not out of perspective absolutely but out of proper perspective; that is to say, in relation to other forms of expenditure. Consider the latest results of the Family Expenditure Survey. While spending on food increased by 18·6 per cent. between 1970 and 1972, this was less than the increased expenditure on goods and services as a whole: that is to say, 22·7 per cent. For instance spending on alcoholic drink—I will not say because of the rise in food prices—increased by 29·9 per cent.
LORD BESWICK: By whom?
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: Expenditure on household durables such as furniture and television sets in fact rose by 40·5 per cent.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, the noble Earl is giving us the figures in prices and not in volume; is it not the case that consumption in volume of food fell?
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, I am not suggesting that people consume television sets. I will answer the question. I feel that these figures show quite clearly the point I was making, that despite rising food prices there has been a significant improvement in the general standard of living of the average family in this country since this Government were returned to office.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, is the noble Earl going to answer one of my questions; that is, if we cannot afford to subsidise across the board, is there any reason why we should not have free school milk?
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, I am standing on a sheaf of questions which the noble Lord has put to me, and I will be answering them in a few minutes.
On the question of rents, the rent increases in May under the Housing Finance Act—not popular with noble Lords opposite—raised the retail price index by 0·1 of 1 per cent. Of course I recognise that I am dealing at this point in my speech with the quantitative picture of the majority of people in the country. Noble Lords dwelt, quite rightly, and on both sides of the House, on the not so pleasant picture of poverty within the overall and growing affluence of our society. May I just catalogue in shorthand form, since the clock is against me, some of the things that the Government have done, are doing and are proposing to do. There is the Stage 2 pay formula, the family income supplement, rent rebates and allowances, lump sum payments to pensioners last December, continuing up-rating of pension levels in real terms, increased family allowances (that is to say, proposed first child allowances) as part also of the new tax credit scheme.
LORD BESWICK: When?
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, I said what the Government are proposing to do. This is part of the continuing policy.
LORD BESWICK: When?
TILE EARL OF GOWRIE: So far as I know, in two or three years time.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I put a specific question here. The proposal is to have an allowance for the first child within five years. I ask whether it is not possible to bring this date forward. Would the noble Earl answer that specific question?
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, I will certainly find out whether it is possible to bring this forward, but at that point of my speech I made it clear that I was talking about what the Government have done, are doing, and are proposing to do, and the last must take the future into account.
I turn now to some specific points which noble Lords have put to me. Perhaps the cucial one was the question of

1753
the balance of payments forecast. I must tell the noble Lord this: we listen very carefully to noble Lords on all sides of the House, and to all noble Lords who have been senior Treasury Ministers with especial care. I believe that the noble Lord must know that the question of forecasting balance of payment deficits over the coming years is hardly a conventional thing to do. The trouble is that the margin of error here is so great. The noble Lord, Lord Balogh, who I am delighted to call to my aid at this point, himself pointed that out. The National Institute admit a margin of error of £1,500 million in their forecast of a £750 million deficit. The London and Cambridge Economic Bulletin gave us a pessimistic forecast of a £2,000 million deficit, and the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, gave us yet another estimate, though I am glad to say that it was rather less pessimistic. I hope that that deals with that principal question.
I am going on to say more about the balance of payments surplus. There was a small surplus, as the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, acknowledged, do 1970, and there was a very large one, as we acknowledge in 1971. This partly resulted, after the usual delays, from the 1967 devaluation, but was mainly at the expense of very high unemployment and very slow growth. Since then we have boosted the economy, and the immediate result is a sharp increase in the volume of imports. This, combined with the depreciation of sterling and the rise in world commodity prices, has turned this surplus into a deficit. We acknowledge this, we care about it and we are worried about it. But already exports are rising faster in volume than import, and this volume increase will eventually overtake the import price increases and turn the deficit back into surplus.
The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, said that the rise in world commodity prices was only partly a cause of the worsening in the terms of trade, yet it accounts for more than half of the rise in the prices of our imports. I believe that these figures cannot be wished away. We are not denying that the depreciation of the pound has contributed, but it must be remembered that the obverse of the depreciation is a considerable improvement in our competitiveness. We now
1754
have an expanding economy and competitive export prices. Our exports are growing in volume almost twice as fast as imports. That is to say, we are well into the "J" curve. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for using a piece of the jargon that he castigated.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the Government have been asked on a number of occasions by myself and my noble friend Lord Balogh where we can get the figures of these doubled exports against imports. Where are they to be found?
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, this is the third time that I have been interrupted on a point towards which I am trying to make my way. I have it in my speech here, and I hope that it will satisfy the noble Lord. If it does not satisfy him, I will try again to satisfy him on paper. He mentioned that the imports of consumer goods were going up, and we riposte that imports of raw materials and machinery rose 24 per cent. in the first half of 1973 compared with the second half of 1972, whereas consumer goods rose by only 22 per cent. He made a point, very crucial to his argument about fairness, that we lopped £3,000 million off taxes, principally towards the better-off. This is entirely untrue. Over £2,000 million of the tax cuts result from concessions on personal income tax, and the great bulk of this consists of increased personal allowances, which benefit the lower paid and the better-off equally. The cuts in the 1972 Budget in fact took nearly 3 million people out of income tax altogether. There is nothing in the record of noble Lords opposite which can match that.
The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, with the noble Lords, Lord Wigg and Lord Donaldson, criticised the Government's attitude to the review of the Common Agricultural Policy, the cost of the Intervention Board on agricultural produce, the cost of the denaturing subsidy for wheat, and they quoted the figure of £163 a ton for the import level of butter. The Commission is at present conducting a thorough review of the operation of the support system, and we shall continue to play our part in that. The Intervention Board was set up by Parliament to administer the Common Agricultural Policy in the United Kingdom. This has been,

1755
as we recognised, a difficult and complex task, but the system is settling down. To scrap the Board would be to destroy the administration that we have agreed to operate, and would be irresponsible and damaging to the interests of traders, consumers and producers. As to the denaturing premium, I think the necessity of increasing the output of animal foodstuffs at a time of inflation in food prices should be acknowledged by everybody.
The current net rate of levy on butter imported into the United Kingdom from third countries, other than New Zealand, is £165·50. But we are not importing butter from those countries; we are importing it from New Zealand under Protocol 18 of the Accession Treaty. The levy on this butter is nil. The market is also well supplied from home production and other Community countries. Thanks to the subsidy, butter is now cheaper in the shops than it was before we joined the Community.
I come now to the questions put to me about the relationship of sterling depreciation to world commodity prices. Certainly there has been an adverse effect on our prices from the sterling float, but we believe that this must be kept in proportion. Sterling's effective exchange rate dropped by about 10 per cent. in terms of other countries as a whole between June, 1972, and June, 1973, which is small compared with the overall rise in commodity prices. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, raised the question of a national minimum wage. This is an interesting notion and we will look at it carefully. I have a speaking brief about it, but as time is short perhaps he will allow me to write to him on that point. He also mentioned the land hoarding tax. The tax is only one part of the Government's package to release more land—noble Lords on all sides of the House will know what the others are.
My Lords, I must come—as he has interrupted me twice—to the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, and I hope this will answer some of the points of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, as well. The noble Lord said that my noble friend Lord Windlesham's speech was one of staggering complacency. I must say that the last time I made a speech on economics from this Box he used exactly the same phrase
1756
about my own speech. I do not know what that proved one way or another. He talked about the acrid smell of decay of the Government's policies. I was very glad to see that the noble Lord, who has been rather mild recently, has discovered his old vigour. It seemed to me that there was something of an "abrasion gap" developing between the noble Lord and his noble friend Lord Wigg.
Regarding the volume of exports, he questioned me on the export led boom. The volume of exports in the first five months of this year was 12 per cent. higher than the level in the second half of last year; the volume of imports rose over the same period by only 7 per cent. In case he thought that these figures might not be fair to take, I believe it is fair to take these periods of time, because the first one is the latest available. Exports always need time to get under way, and the first half of last year was in any case affected by the dock strike. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, that a smooth transition to a sustainable rate and pattern of growth is possible and that this requires a higher urge towards exports and investment. This is what is happening, as I have maintained, without the need for the tax changes which the noble Lord referred to.
My Lords, I come now, not without relief, to a noble friend, Lord Redmayne, a formidable figure in the debate as deputy chairman of Harrods and a former Chief Whip. It was a broadly encouraging speech, and I will relay his particular criticisms to my right honourable friend and see what we can do. He has raised the question of the Price Commission in operation. During its first two months, the Price Commission was primarily concerned with applications for approval of price increases from category 1 firms—the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, was also interested in this point.
In the field of manufacturing, firms in this category, where the control of the price code is tightest and is likely to be most effective, were estimated to account for about 50 per cent. of total output. In future the work of checking profit margins of category 2, as well as of category 1 firms, and the monitoring of category 3 firms, will, of course, become of increasing importance. The noble

1757
Baroness, Lady Wootton, made a characteristically interesting and original speech. I would say to her that the price code can actually reinforce competition, because large firms have been known to follow market leaders without reference to their own financial position. Now they must stop and think, and the price code allows varying increases, if any, according to data.
My Lords, I can see that I have been waved down. It has been a somewhat long debate and I am trying to deal with individual points. My noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing raised the question of contingency plans. Governments, my Lords, always have contingency plans, but it would destroy their point to outline what they are. My noble friend Lord Selsdon said that we needed a bit of showmanship in English Government. I am quite convinced that, on that principle, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, will perform an important office in my noble friend's administration.
My Lords, I must make an end. I have tried to balance the specific detail against the general picture of the debate. As for the general picture, or flight plan, as it were, of the Government's policy, your Lordships have heard this, appropriately from a Cabinet Minister, from
my noble friend. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, will not decide to press this Motion to a Division. If he does so, I know that noble Lords will reject it. Let us make no mistake about what pressing such a Motion to a Division would in fact imply. It would imply that the noble Lord would like to see the Government defeated, not on some point of detail to which the Opposition object and which it seeks to oppose, but on the Government's whole economic platform, a platform of continued economic expansion, of continued economic consultation, of continued ground rules for the common fight against inflation. My Lords, I hope the House will reject it.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, what is implied if we press this Motion to a Division is that the charge of complacency still sticks. We are concerned about the fall in the purchasing power of the pound even if the Government are not, and I therefore ask my friends to go into the Lobby to-night.
7.56 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 70; Not-Contents, 95.

CONTENTS

Arran, E.

Gardiner, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Arwyn, L.

Garnsworthy, L. [Teller.]

Rhodes, L.

Bacon, B.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Royle, L.

Balogh, L.

Hacking, L.

Rusholme, L.

Bernstein, L.

Hale, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Beswick, L.

Hall, V.

St. Davids, V.

Birk, B.

Henderson, L.

Shackleton, L.

Blackett, L.

Heycock, L.

Shepherd, L.

Blyton, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Shinwell, L.

Brayley, L.

Hoy, L.

Slater, L.

Brockway, L.

Hughes, L.

Snow, L.

Brown, L.

Jacques, L.

Somers, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Janner, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Kennet, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Leatherland, L.

Summerskill, B.

Champion, L.

Llewelyn-Davies, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Crook, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

White, B.

Davies of Leek, L.

Longford, E.

Wigg, L.

Diamond, L.

McLeavy, L.

Wise, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Maelor, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Wright of Ashton under Lyne, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Pargiter, L.

Fiske, L.

Phillips, B.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Raglan, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Barnby, L.

Abinger, L.

Balerno, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Aldenham, L.

Balfour, E.

Berkeley, B.

Bessborough, E.

Greenway, L.

Pender, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hailes, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

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

Redmayne, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Rhyl, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Harvey of Tasburg, L.

Rowallan, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Hayter, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Coleridge, L.

Hood, V.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Colville of Culross, V.

Kahn, L.

St. Just, L.

Colwyn, L.

Killearn, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Colyton, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Sandford, L.

Conesford, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Sandys, L.

Craigavon, V.

Limerick, E.

Savile, L.

Crathorne, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Selkirk, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Long, V.

Selsdon, L.

Daventry, V.

Lothian, M.

Strange of Knokin, B.

Davidson, V.

Loudoun, C.

Strathclyde, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Digby, L.

Lyell, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Tenby, V.

Eccles, V.

Mansfield, E.

Teviot, L.

Elles, B.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Milverton, L.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, B.

Exeter, M.

Monck, V.

Vernon, L.

Falmouth, V.

Mountevans, L.

Vivian, L.

Ferrers, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Ferrier, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Wakehurst, L.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Northchurch, B.

Windlesham, L. (Lord Privy Seal.)

Gage, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Gainford, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Young, B.

Gowrie, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

GOVERNMENT TRADING FUNDS BILL
Brought from the Commons, read 1a and to be printed.

BADGERS BILL [H.L.]
8.4 p.m.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(The Earl of Arran.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill 130 as first printed for the Commons]
[Nos. 1 to 8]
Clause 1, page 1, line 7, leave out from beginning to end of line 11 and insert "any badger, he shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) If, save as permitted by or under this Act, any person has in his possession or under his control—

(a) a recently killed badger, or

(b) a pelt from a freshly skinned badger,

he shall, subject to subsection (3) below, be guilty of an offence.
(3) A person shall not be guilty of an offence under subsection (2) above if the killing of the badger concerned was permitted by or under this Act."
Clause 3, page 1, line 23, leave out "may be authorised by licence granted under section 9 of" and insert "permitted by or under"
Clause 3, page 1, line 25, after "possession" insert "or under his control".
Clause 4, page 2, line 3, leave out from beginning to end of line 4 and insert "tag or other marking device to, any badger (other than one which is lawfully in his possession by virtue of section 8(2)(a) of this Act or of such a licence) he".
Clause 5, page 2, line 9, leave out "police".
Clause 7, page 2, line 23, leave out from "protection" to end of line 38 and insert ", an authorised person shall not be guilty of an offence under section 1(1) of this Act by reason of—

(a) the killing or taking or attempted killing or taking of any badger, or

(b) the injuring of any badger in the course of taking it, or attempting to take or kill it.

(2) Within an area of special protection, an authorised person shall not be guilty of an offence under section 1(1) of this Act by reason of—

(a) the killing or taking or attempted killing or taking of any badger, or

(b) the injuring of any badger in the course of taking it, or attempting to take or kill it,

if he satisfies the court before whom he is charged that his action was necessary for the purpose of preventing serious damage to land, crops, poultry or any other form of property

1761
or for the purpose of preventing the spread of disease."
Clause 7, page 2, Line 39, leave out "found".
Clause 8, page 3, line 7, leave out "appears" and insert "appeared".
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 to 8. Although they may appear somewhat complicated, they are, in effect, either drafting Amendments or Amendments designed to improve the clarity of the Bill. Therefore I hope that this House will agree to consider these Amendments en bloc.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Earl of Arran.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 9]
Clause 8, page 3, line 10, at end insert—
"(2) It shall not be an offence under section 3 of this Act for any person to have a live badger in his possession or under his control if—

(a) it has been kept in captivity by that person for a continuous period beginning before the passing of this Act,

(b) it is in that person's possession or under his control, as the case may be, in the course of his business as a carrier,

(c) it has, within the preceding seven days, been taken by that person in circumstances in which, by virtue of section 7(1) or (2) of this Act, the taking of the badger did not constitute an offence under this Act, or

(d) it has been taken in circumstances in which, by virtue of subsection (1)(a) above, the taking of the badger did not constitute an offence under this Act and it is necessary for the purpose of tending it for it to remain in that person's possession, or under his control, as the case may be.

(3) A person shall not be guilty of an offence under this Act by reason only of something done in connection with an experiment on a living badger if what is done does not constitute a contravention of the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876."
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 9. When the Bill left this House, there was some risk—of which I was very conscious—that people already owning badgers might find themselves contravening the law. Indeed, I have had several agonising letters from badger owners who fear that they might suddenly
1762
find themselves having to let badgers fend for themselves, in which case many might die. In short, this Amendment is designed to protect the position of those who at present keep badgers, and I heartily commend it to the House. Subsection (3) of the Amendment applies the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876 to this Bill. I think that this is desirable. Although it means that experiments may be carried out on badgers, they are not normally used as laboratory animals and the only reason why experiments would ever be conducted on one is in the interests of the badger himself and of his conservation.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Arran.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I am very glad indeed that the noble Earl has put in this Amendment about the 1876 Act, however sinister it may look. There are likely to be extremely few occasions when this is ever invoked, but the badger must be protected and there may be occasions when it is necessary for somebody to do some research on diseases which are transmitted by badgers, or something of that sort. I truly believe that if we did not have this Amendment it would be to the detriment of the well-being of the badger and of his preservation. I am very glad indeed that the noble Earl has commended this Amendment to the House.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 10 to 12]
Clause 10, page 4, line 10, at end insert "full".
Clause 11, page 4, line 35, at end insert "" area of special protection" means an area specified, in an order made under section 6 of this Act, to be an area of special protection for badgers".
Clause 11, page 5, line 24, leave out "the town council of a".
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 10 to 12 are drafting Amendments. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 10 to 12.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Earl of Arran.)

NATURE CONSERVANCY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
8.8 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Baroness Young.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill 154 as first printed for the Commons]
[No. 1]
Clause 1, page 1, line 16, at end insert—
"( ) the provision of advice for the Secretary of State or any other Minister on the development and implementation of policies for or affecting nature conservation in Great Britain;".
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. This Amendment was inserted at the Report stage in another place, following an undertaking which the Minister gave in Committee that he would seek to make it a function of the new Council to advise the Secretary of State upon a national policy of nature conservation. In Committee in another place, during a discussion on an Amendment which would have given the Council the function of designing and fostering a national policy for the conservation of nature, my right honourable friend made it clear that the policy must remain the responsibility of the Secretary of State. However, this Amendment also makes it possible for the new Nature Conservancy Council to give to other Ministers advice on the development and implementation of policies affecting nature conservation; for example, in the case of agricultural policy. This is specifically covered because if reference were made simply to advice to the Secretary of State on nature conservation policies this might be held to inhibit the Council from giving advice to other Ministers on their policies in so far as they affect nature conservation. The advice which the Council can give to local planning authorities and other bodies is not in any way inhibited by this Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Baroness Young.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 2]
Clause 1, page 1, line 22, leave out "and (ii)" and insert "to (iii)".
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2, which is consequential on the first Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Baroness Young.)
LORD ZUCKERMAN: My Lords, I do not wish to detain your Lordships' House, but may I ask the noble Baroness a question which I could also ask on the next Amendment? Clause 1(1)(a)(iii) refers to "commissioning or support" of research as part of the functions of the new Council, and on the next page reference is made to the powers of the Council. My question relates to the reconciliation of "functions" and "powers", I having read the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum. There, paragraph 4 refers to the "functions" and not to the "powers". I wonder if the noble Baroness could tell us whether that is an oversight.
BARONESS YOUNG: If I have understood the question of the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, correctly, he is asking the difference between the expression "functions" in subsection (1) and the expression "powers" in subsection (4). Is that the right question?
LORD ZUCKERMAN: The answer to the noble Baroness's question, my Lords, is that the functions talk about "the commissioning or support"; the powers talk about initiating and carrying out, et cetera; and the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum refers not to powers but to functions. I was wondering whether this was merely an oversight. There seems to be an inconsistency here.
BARONESS YOUNG: I do not think there is any inconsistency, my Lords. My understanding is that under Clause 1(4)(b) the Council will be able to initiate and carry out research in relation to this additional function—that is, the one to

1765
which I have just referred—as it is appropriate that they themselves should carry it out instead of commissioning or supporting other persons. I hope this makes it clear.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 3]
Clause 1, page 2, line 23, at end insert—
"(4A) It shall be the duty of the Council, in the discharge of their functions, to take account, as appropriate, of actual or possible ecological changes."
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, this Amendment was also inserted in another place on Report stage, following an undertaking given by the Minister in Standing Committee. The Bill as it originally stood enabled the Council to have regard to ecological changes, but the Minister accepted the desirability of including a specific reference to the problem of ecological changes in the responsibilities of the Nature Conservancy Council, and the Amendment meets this point. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Baroness Young.)
LORD ZUCKERMAN: Again, my Lords, I do not wish to detain your Lordships, but I am still confused. I could have raised my point on this particular Amendment instead of on the one on which I chose to speak.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I am very sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, but I think we have agreed to Amendment No. 3, and I have not yet moved Amendment No. 4.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 4]
Clause 3, page 3, line 8, leave out "by virtue of section 1(1)(a) above".
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, this Amendment relates to the new power which is given to the Council to pay grants to other bodies or persons, and removes a limitation in Clause 3 on the types of project which the Council may grant-aid. Under the clause as it stood, the Council had power to pay grants
1766
towards the cost of projects which the Council themselves had power to carry on by virtue of Clause 1(1)(a). The types of project which the Council can carry on under that provision relate to the establishment, maintenance and management of nature reserves and the provision of advice and the dissemination of knowledge. The effect of this Amendment is to remove this limitation and to give the Council a general power to grant-aid any project of a type which the Council can themselves carry on. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4.
Moved That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Baroness Young.)
LORD STRANGE: My Lords, I must intervene; I cannot help it. The noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, who is the greatest expert in the world, objects to a certain number of these things. He must be allowed to speak and to make his objections. With that, I sit down.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I think the difficulty here was that the Question had already been put to the House when the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, got up. I am sure that nobody in the House would wish to do anything other than encourage the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, for whom we all have a very great respect.
LORD STRANGE: Then let the noble Lord make his objection to this thing. He has not been allowed to say it. We are all fair. We all want a fair debate. We all know that we have the greatest expert in the world in this House. Let Lord Zuckerman say what his objections are.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 5]
Clause 5, page 3, line 30, leave out subsection (4).
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, subsection (4) was the Privilege Amendment made by the House of Lords to nullify the effect of the provisions involving charges. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Baroness Young.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 6]
Schedule 1, page 5, line 43, at end insert—
"Badgers Act 1973
12. In the following provisions of the Badgers Act 1973, namely—

(a) section 6(1) (special protection for badgers);

(b) section 9(2)(a) (licences); and

(c) paragraph (d) of the definition of "authorised person" in section 11 (interpretation);

for the words 'Natural Environment Research Council' there shall be substituted the words 'Nature Conservancy Council'.
Medway Ports Authority Act 1973
13. In section 93 of the Medway Ports Authority Act 1973 (protection of Nature Conservancy), after the words 'Nature Conservancy' there shall be added the word 'Council'."
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, this Amendment is a technical Amendment. The first part of it relates to the Badgers Bill, which the House has just discussed, and the other part to the Medway Ports Authority Act. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Baroness Young.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 7]
Schedule 3, page 6, line 46, leave out from "member" to end of line 47.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 7. This Amendment concerns the grounds on which the Secretary of State may remove a member of the Nature Conservancy Council from membership. In paragraph 6 of Schedule 3 are given the reasons because of which the Secretary of State may remove a member of the Nature Conservancy Council from membership. Although the words deleted by this Amendment were contained in the New Towns Act in relation to membership of the New Town Development Corporations, and in the Land Commission Act 1967 in relation to membership of
1768
the Land Commission, my right honourable friend accepted the view expressed in Standing Committee in another place that the other grounds on which a member could be removed were sufficiently wide to cover the kind of circumstances in which the Secretary of State should have power to remove a member. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Baroness Young.)

PRESCRIPTION AND LIMITATION (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
8.20 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(The Marquess of Lothian.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 1]
Clause 2, page 3, line 2, at end insert—
"(b) to any interest in allodial land;"
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. This was a Government Amendment. It was designed to classify the precise scope of the clause. I do not know whether your Lordships wish me to go into details on this. I fear that I might make it less clear if I did.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Marquess of Lothian.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 2 to 4]
Clause 6, page 5, line 10, leave out "without more".
Clause 7, page 6, line 4, leave out "without more".
Clause 8, page 6, line 17, leave out "without more".
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4. These Amendments all deal with the same point which

1769
I think was one raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, when the Bill was before this House. They are designed to leave out two superfluous words.
Move, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, as the noble Marquess has said, when this Bill was before the House I raised objection to the rather unusual language which appeared. These were the words to which I particularly directed attention. The Bill as it stood when it left this House said "shall without more be extinguished" I think the Commons did right to extinguish "without more", which I tried unsuccessfully to do in this House. I have no objection to any of the others. My only regret is that the Commons did not carry on the good work further. They brought in the word "allodial". I was tempted to ask the noble Marquess what it meant, but I was afraid that he did not know. In another Amendment they have taken out "effluxion" and substituted '"passage" which is an improvement. In the last Amendment they might have gone further and taken out "nonnage", the meaning of which I also do not know.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 5]
Clause 16, page 10, line 38, leave out "effluxion" and insert "passage".
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5.
Move, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Marquess of Lothian.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 6]
Clause 17, page 11, line 29, leave out "unsoundness of mind and" and insert" if on that date the said person was or became under legal disability by reason of unsoundness of mind, and in either case that person".
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6. In moving this Amendment I think I can help the noble
1770
Lord, Lord Hughes. I understand that the word "nonnage" is actually the word "non-age"; in other words, "under eighteen" in this context.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, if the noble Marquess had told me that previously I should not have believed it.

BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS (HULL DOCKS) BILL
8.23 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3ª. —(Viscount Simon.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
LORD STOW HILL LORD STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 1:
After Clause 3 insert the following new clause—
Restrictions on charges on goods loaded or unloaded overside at Hull Docks
"(1) In this section the following expressions shall have the meanings expressly assigned to them:
"the Board's merchandise dues" means the maximum charges at any time made by the Board for services and facilities which the Board provide at Hull Docks in respect of goods loaded or unloaded over the Board's quays, wharves, piers, jetties or embankments or any other charges of a similar nature;
"goods loaded or unloaded overside" shall mean goods loaded or unloaded over-side to or from ships into or from lighters, barges or rivercraft in the Port of Hull without passing over any of the Board's quays, wharves, piers, jetties, or embankments.
(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 3 of this Act the Board shall make no charges in respect of goods loaded or unloaded over-side in the period expiring on 31st December 1973 and thereafter may make maximum charges in respect of goods loaded or unloaded overside no greater than the amounts following, that is to say:
For the period expiring on the 31st December 1974–25 per cent. of the comparable rate of the Board's merchandise dues;
For any period thereafter—50 per cent. of the comparable rate of the Board's merchandise dues."
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment which stands in my name and which, as your Lordships may see, puts into statutory form what in fact was an undertaking given by counsel with regard to the upper limit of charges that might be made in certain circumstances with which the Bill deals. I think that perhaps I should, in order to make the case, outline the background of the argument which I propose to adduce to your Lordships relating to this Amendment, although in a sense I would submit to the House that nothing is directly relevant to the Amendment but the fact that it is in terms of an undertaking given by counsel and which those who are affected by the undertaking now wish to see, in order to have complete certainty on the matter, recorded in the terms of the Bill itself.
The background is this. Some ships using the Hull Docks bringing merchandise to the docks are in cases unloaded on to the dockside, or the quayside, and make use of the land installations of which the docks consist, including the storage and other equipment and facilities which are provided by the docks managers; other ships when they come into the Hull Docks do not use those facilities at all, they do not unload on to the quayside but are unloaded directly into river craft, barges and lighters and other craft, sometimes by cranage and sometimes without cranage, directly from the ship's hold into barges and lighters or other craft as the case may be. That practice is called overside loading. It stands to reason, so I would submit, that if you do not use the dock facilities, if you do not unload on to the quayside, if you do not use the storage facilities and so on, but you load directly into barges or lighters which carry away the merchandise unloaded from your ship, it is obviously unreasonable that the same charge should be made as would be made if the full land facilities of the dock were made use of for the purpose of unloading the ship. I have spoken of unloading the ship. What I have said applies equally to loading the ship. Some ships are loaded directly from barges or lighters and some ships are loaded from the quayside. The difference in charges applies both, so I should submit, as a matter of
1772
common sense and logic, to loading and unloading.
Ever since 1774 it has been recognised that there should be such a difference in the charge. For over a century and a half loading overside, as I have described it, has been either subjected to no charge at all or to a charge very much less than the charge made for quayside loading or unloading. The difference I think I can describe in this way. If you use the quayside and the land facilities, you are charged ship dues, you are charged merchandise dues and there are other charges such as cranage charges which you have to pay if you make use, as you generally do, of the cranage facilities that are provided.
As matters stand at present, before the present Bill is enacted, the position with regard to overside loading is as follows. If the ship which is loaded overside loads into craft or barges that do not stay in the dock premises for a period in excess of seven days, the lighter or barge company, as the case may be, has to pay ship dues and also has to pay a rent; but it is not charged merchandise dues. That makes the big difference. The charges in consequence are substantially less than they would be if the quayside and dock facilities and land facilities were used. That system has gone on, as I have said, in varying forms since 1774. It does not apply in other docks which are under the control of British Transport Docks Board, except in the case of London, where there is a not wholly dissimilar arrangement into which I will not go. In Rotterdam and Amsterdam, I am told, a system very similar to that which applies in Hull Docks is at present in operation. In other words, overside loading, broadly speaking, is free. What the Bill seeks to do is to give the Docks Board power to make charges for overside loading on the same scale as in the case of quayside loading. In other words, it seeks to take away that degree—
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, but he is telling your Lordships that the Bill makes provision for charging on the same scale as on goods loaded over the quay. With respect to the noble and learned Lord, I do not think that appears in the Bill at all.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, may I modify my language and say this. What the Bill seeks to do, and I think that the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, would probably agree about this, is to cancel any exemption contained in the existing legislation limiting or exempting craft from charges. I think that would be a more accurate statement, and I am sorry if I stated the position inaccurately. Those exemptions, as I have said, are contained in Statutes, beginning with one in 1774 and extending right through the 19th century and the early part of the 20th century. This Bill has come from a Select Committee and it was there spoken of as a Bill designed to cure an anomaly, to remove something which was anachronistic and out of date and not justifiable in modem circumstances. I submit that that is a wholly wrong way of looking at it, and for the following reasons.
My Lords, in 1960 there was a hearing before the Transport Tribunal which lasted for 29 days, in which this particular question of exemption or reduction of charges in the case of overloading was before the Tribunal. In that case I appeared as counsel for the Hull Chamber of Commerce which to-day is one of the Petitioners, the other Petitioner being the British Waterways Board. That was 13 years ago, in 1960, and I declare it to your Lordships. I hope that it is not necessary for me to say that today I have no sort or kind of financial interest whatever. I left the Bar in 1964 and I was asked if I would move this Amendment perhaps because it was thought that, having been engaged in that case for some 29 days, I would have some recollection of it. In fact, I have very little and I have had to re-study the whole matter rather thoroughly since. But that is my own personal connection, and I do not think that it counts as the sort of interest about which your Lordships would feel concerned. There is no question of money or any other sort of advantage.
My Lords, I say that there was that hearing in 1960. After that hearing, and I think it would perhaps not be incorrect to say as the result of the decision at that hearing, there was provision made in a Statute passed in 1962, the Transport Act of 1962, preserving these exemptions in 1962, They were deliberately
1774
preserved by Parliament after that long hearing in 1960 and, in those circumstances, to call them an anachronism or an anomaly is, in my submission, to use a complete misnomer. They were reenacted specifically as part of the law in 1962 by Section 43 of the Transport Act of 1962, and are still part of the law. So that in 1973 we are not setting about destroying something which is old and antiquated and serves no useful purpose at all. What we are doing by this Bill is seeking to destroy something of as recent re-enactment as 1962; re-enactment, as I shall venture to seek to show your Lordships, for a very sound reason. It is not an anchronism.
If I may continue with the background of the case, the position is this. Hull Docks has been declining in traffic for a number of years. I hope that I do not speak disrespectfully of it when I say that for various reasons it is regarded, apparently, by shipowners as uncompetitive. I do not want to burden your Lordships with figures, but in 1963 the tonnage using the dock was 9½ million—I speak in round terms. In 1972, it was just under 6 million tons, so it is going downhill. The overside loading is going downhill still more. If I may again give rough figures, in 1963, that is the first date I mentioned, out of that 9½ million, overside loading accounted for 1½ million tons, or some 14 per cent. In 1972, overside loading and unloading accounted for only half a million tons, or under 10 per cent. of the reduced tonnage as a whole. So the situation is that the Hull Docks traffic is going down and the overside loading and unloading is going down very much faster.
I read in the speech of one of the learned counsel appearing in the Select Committee that, even so, with that reduced tonnage there were a considerable number of craft lying unused in the port, say last year. So the position is bad in the case of both the tonnage generally and also the overside loading and unloading in particular. If I may complete the picture, to give your Lordships some sort of idea as to the amount of overside loading and unloading, take last year. There were some 3,000 ships that came to the Hull Docks in 1972. About 100 of that 3,000 were unloaded solely overside, about 450 were unloaded partly on to the quay and partly overside, and the remaining

1775
2,400 were unloaded on to the quay only. May I make this point, my Lords. It was said during the hearing that the over-side loaders and unloaders were obtaining a service for which they do not pay. It would be a wholly misconceived view to think that they do not greatly assist the port.
In point of fact what happens is that a ship's turnround is very greatly accelerated by this overside unloading. Frequently the position is that a ship may be anchored alongside the quay; it may be unloaded on to the quay, in part, by suction, cranage or by other methods, and at the same time, on the other side of the ship, there will be a lighter or a barge and there will be loading from the same ship into the lighter or the barge which is moored alongside. The turnround of the ship will thereby be greatly accelerated; and if it is the situation that Hull docks are regarded as on the whole uncompetitive and the traffic is accordingly declining, it is of great advantage to the docks to have the services of these lighters and barges which assist the process of loading, and, equally, the process of unloading. In the case of the process of loading the ship, if I may give your Lordships the figures for the same year, outgoing ships were loaded to the number of some 2,300. Of those, 85 were loaded overside and from quayside and only two were loaded from lighters or barges; so that one is not talking of a very large feature of the dock loading and unloading.
If I may complete the figures by one more set of figures (and I apologise for troubling your Lordships with figures) the position is that the total revenue of the docks and revenue from overside loading and unloading is as follows. In 1972 the total revenue at the Hull Docks was just under £9 million £8,865,000. The barges and lighters contributed, in the form which I have described, in the way of ships' dues and rental some £50,000. If they were charged the full amount that was charged for loading and unloading on the quayside and for using the full facilities of the dock, the revenue from them would be £290,000 out of £9 million. As it would be wholly unrealistic to charge them the same charge as is charged for quayside unloading, and supposing one takes a charge of, say, 50 per cent. As
1776
being appropriate, then the only loss to the Hull Docks from the fact that a lesser charge is made for overside loading and unloading is some £145,000 as against a total of nearly £9 million. So it is a comparatively small feature of the picture.
My Lords, I want to add this. As I have said, overside loading and unloading from barges and lighterage are declining badly. There is hope at the moment because there are new technical methods. One is called latchat and the other bacat. I will not go into the details, but that is a new technique which is now being developed and which holds out considerable hope for the future, under which the barge or lighter is loaded direct on to the outgoing steamer and transported direct from Hull Docks which means probably merchandise coming from Nottingham and Leeds—across the North Sea to Amsterdam, and it is hoped to take them even to Scandinavia. That is a new technique which is being designed and which holds out considerable hope for the future, and it would be a great pity if, owing to this extra charge being put upon overside loading, the downward process which I have described were accelerated.
One final feature in the background picture is this. There were two Petitions. One was by the Hull Chamber of Commerce and the other by the British Waterways Board. Really this is a dispute (and there have been negotiations and arguments about it for a long time) between two nationalised Boards. It is not a case in which it could be said that there was some sinister private interest which was seeking to deprive the public purse of money which rightly belonged to it. It is logical that the charge should be less, for the reasons I have given; and this is really a dispute between two nationalised Boards. Those two Boards were set up by the 1962 Transport Act, to which I have referred. Both, the Waterways Board just as much as the Docks Board, are under an obligation, under Section 17 of that Act, to carry on their undertaking in such a way that their outgoings are covered by their revenue. That is the ordinary provision in the case of nationalised undertakings. If this extra charge is to be imposed it will make little difference to the overall situation of Hull Docks. It will simply, as I have said, further

1777
depress overside loading and unloading and thereby deprive one of these two nationalised Boards, the Waterways Board, of the substantial toll income which they derive from the tolls paid by barges and lighters using the Trent and Humber complex of waterways. So it is simply taking from one Board and giving it to another, for no necessary reason. That is the background, and I do not think I need enlarge upon it.
My Lords, I now come to the immediate scope and purpose of the Amendment. After the case had been going on for three days, learned counsel who appeared for the Promotors of the Bill, the Dock Board, Mr. Marnham made a plain statement of intention as to what the charges were that the Board would seek to make if this Bill were brought into effect. I should like, if I may, to quote a little from learned counsel's speech. What he said was this:
"What I am instructed to say is that, so far as the intention of the Board is concerned,"—
that is, the Dock Board—
"they would not intend in the year 1974 to do more than charge 25 per cent. of the relevant goods due (merchandise due), which will be chargeable for the time being on the same traffic if landed on or loaded from the quays at Hull."
He then goes on:
"What the Board would intend would be not to charge more than 25 per cent. of those goods for overside cargo in the first year, in 1974, and not more than a maximum of 50 per cent. at any time."
Then he went on to explain this undertaking in this way:
"The answer is not more than 25 per cent. or 50 per cent., and individual items would have to be discussed with the port users in order to see whether the maximum was appropriate in each individual case or not."
That is what counsel said as being the intention of the Board. Later on, towards the end of that hearing, on the last day, he repeated that undertaking, and he added one thing which I should like to bring to the notice of your Lordships.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, if the noble Lord would give way for a moment, I think it is important that the House should have this right. At the beginning the noble Lord referred to "an undertaking". A little later on he read out "a statement of intention". He has now again referred to it as "an under-
1778
taking". It was in fact a statement of intention, which I think is rather different.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, one of the weaknesses of a lazy mind is to be inaccurate in the use of language. In using the word "undertaking" I was using inaccurate and loose language. I withdraw it, and I emphasise that the word is "intention" because that is part of my argument. The whole trouble is that what counsel has limited himself to saying is that "it is the intention". Those who run these riverside craft have to programme their operations over a period of years. These craft are expensive; they need maintaining; and these people have to formulate their budgets. Their anxiety is that the word is "intention" and is not "undertaking". What I seek to do by the Amendment is, in effect, to convert the word "intention into the word" undertaking ".
That having been raised, and counsel in effect having been asked, by implication at any rate, why he objected to it being in the Bill, he said this:
"The Board would certainly not wish to see incorporated in the Bill any restriction or definition of that amount. One of the principal reasons for that is simply that if it was included in the Bill it would not be possible to make any alteration without coming back to Parliament again."
What a reason! Here is a whole industry. These riverside craft are very expensive (I am afraid I repeat myself), and those responsible for conducting them must look ahead. These enterprises cannot be conducted on a day-to-day basis or on five-minute decisions. You have to programme what you are going to spend over a period of years; how far you are going to fit into this bacat or lashat system; and how much money you are going to expend—and it is a substantial capital expenditure. Anybody with the least sense of responsibility who wants to manage an undertaking of this sort must look ahead. It is not satisfactory to him simply to know counsel's statement of an intention, knowing also that counsel felt it necessary to use the word "intention", and was very reluctant, or his clients were, to have anything precise put in an Act of Parliament.
My Lords, why should they not come back to the House? This is a Private Bill designed to assist the interests of one of these nationalised Boards. If they

1779
want to disadvantage the other nationalised Boards, why should they not come back to this House to do so? That is what I am asking. Therefore, what I have sought to put down is an Amendment that proposes precisely that result. This being a Private Bill, it is not printed, and your Lordships may not have seen the Amendment. It is designed to implement in the terms of this Bill counsel's statement of intention. I say at once that I do not suggest for a second that there is any ill-faith. I am quite certain that counsel was instructed by people who really mean to honour this intention, and to honour it not only in 1974 as to the 25 per cent. limit but after 1974 as to the limit being raised from 25 per cent. to 50 per cent. I am sure they are perfectly genuine in that. I do not think there is any question of ill faith: if I did, there would not be much point in asking your Lordships to incorporate that intention in the Bill. It is a bona fide statement of intention, and those who are concerned to manage their affairs and who pay these dues to the Docks Board simply want to know whether they can in confidence look forward in the future to not having to pay the Board more than a certain amount. Therefore what the Amendment does—I will not read it to your Lordships—is simply to put into legislative language that intention, but it makes it an undertaking, not an intention. I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Simon for reminding me of the difference.
I should like to call attention to one small feature. The merchandise dues which the Docks Board are allowed to charge are defined in the Amendment as being the maximum charges at any one time to be made by the Board. It simply means, so far as this Amendment is concerned, that they can increase their merchandise dues. If they do so, any party affected has a right of appeal under Section 31 of the Harbours Act 1964 to the National Ports Council, and can dispute the amount of the increase. But so far as this Amendment is concerned, they can increase their merchandise dues beyond the present figure and anybody affected can appeal against it. So far, so good. As the charges that may be made for overside loading and unloading are to he limited to 25 per cent. and
1780
50 per cent. respectively of those merchandise dues, when the merchandise dues are raised then equally and proportionately the charges for overside loading and unloading can also be raised. So it is not putting anybody in a straitjacket, but simply taking counsel's clients at their word—and counsel speaks simply for his clients—and saying, "If that is your intention; namely, that there will be nothing up to 1974, 25 per cent. during 1974 and 50 per cent. for succeeding years, put that in the Statute and if you increase those merchandise charges, correspondingly you can increase the overside charges for loading and unloading."
My Lords, I respectfully submit that this Amendment will bring some sort of business sense or logic into this situation, this ridiculous dispute between two nationalised Boards. I do not say "ridiculous" from the point of view of the Inland Waterways Board—they are trying to be as reasonable as they can: they only want to know where they stand. May I withdraw the word "ridiculous"? This dispute, which has been the subject of much discussion, should be finally resolved by being put into the terms of this Bill, which is a Private Bill. I have read in the transcript of the proceedings of the Select Committee that the Government are neutral and do not take up a stance one way or the other. It is a matter between the two Boards and the Hull Chamber of Commerce with one of the Boards. I ask for it to be finally resolved—simply to introduce certainty and to put in plain terms into this Private Bill what counsel has said, on instructions, are the intentions of his clients. I beg to move the Amendment.
8.55 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, for giving us the benefit of his knowledge, which arises out of the background of these docks and these charges. His, of course, is a peculiar knowledge of the matters which are dealt with in this Bill; but I am bound to say that I do not believe that to-night we have to go deeply into overside loading and the method of charging. I believe the question we have to decide to-night is a relatively simple one. As the noble

1781
Lord, Lord Stow Hill, said, an undertaking was given during the passage of the Bill—and despite what the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, has said, I have read this as an undertaking and I am fairly sure that members of that Committee, sitting and listening to the evidence, accepted what Mr. Marnham, the learned counsel for the Promoters, said as one. He said:
"I said at the start of these proceedings this morning that the intention of the Board would be to restrict their charges to the 25 per cent. in the first year and to a maximum thereafter of 50 per cent."
That was an undertaking made in specific terms. The question is: ought we to embody those figures in the Bill? It was also said by Mr. Marnham that the Harbours Act 1964 gives a right of appeal to the National Ports Council in respect of any charge which is imposed or any charge which could be imposed on over-side cargo if the Bill were allowed to proceed.
The question that the House is being asked to decide to-night is not one as between the undertaking given by the Promoters' counsel and the Amendment now before us, but as to whether we ought to embody the undertaking in the Bill itself. If the circumstances of the Hull docks changed to such an extent that the modification of the charges set out in the Promoters' undertaking was desirable, and perhaps even acknowledged by the port users, the overside users themselves, ought this House, by embodying the undertaking in the Bill, to tie the Board to the extent that such a modification would be possible only by an Act of Parliament? I am bound to say that I do not agree with my noble friend when he said that undertakings of this size could come to both Houses, that money could be spent to get an Act of Parliament passed, and that we ought to take steps here which might indeed cause them eventually to have to do precisely that. To carry a Bill through both Houses of Parliament involves a very heavy expense indeed. I do think the safeguard of the right of appeal to the National Ports Council appears to be sufficient for the overside loaders and users. Only if a considerable change had taken place in the Board's circumstances would the Board face the National Ports Council, knowing full well that the undertaking of the Board
1782
is on record and that it would be quoted against them.
I believe that if such an appeal were made to the National Ports Council, that Council would take into consideration the undertaking that had been given, and I am sure they would not find for the Board if in fact the circumstances had not changed to such an extent as to justify a change in the charging set out in the undertaking given by Mr. Marnham on behalf of the Bill's Promoters. No Board would attempt an alteration of the 25 per cent, and 50 per cent. charges unless they could face the National Ports Council and support and fully justify the change which might be proposed by the Board. I am bound to say, having sat on some of these Committees and listened to all the evidence, as this Committee did over three days, and having come to the conclusion which it has now come to, to permit the Bill to pass in the form that it has reached us, that I do not think it would be right for the House to-night to alter what that Committee did, and certainly not to embody in the Bill the Amendment now before us.
9.0 p.m.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, it will be within the recollection of your Lordships that this matter was briefly alluded to on Second Reading of the Bill. I took the liberty to detain your Lordships for a moment or two then to draw attention to the conflict which had arisen between two nationalised industries each of which had been set up by Parliament with a particular purpose. I also drew attention then, as I do now, and as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, did so admirably, to the critical importance in the future of encouraging rather than discouraging transport on the inland waterways.
On Second Reading I ventured to say that unless an accommodation were reached between the Promoters and the Petitioners during the hearing in Committee, the Promoters must expect serious difficulties and opposition on Third Reading. I am not concerned to apportion blame as between these two nationalised industries. But since even the Department of Trade and Industry declared in Committee the most neuter of neutral stands, and since that position was reached despite the fact that there

1783
had been no representations from, or lobbying by, the British Waterways Board to the Department (and page 20 of the proceedings of the final day in Committee bears this out) we in Parliament have an obligation to look more closely at the matter.
Much has been made already of the point as to whether a statement of intention is or is not a binding undertaking. Also, some rather heavy weather was made just now on the costs of a Private Parliamentary Bill. I would have thought that this particular Bill must have cost its Promoters less than most Private Bills do in going through the two Houses of Parliament because it has arrived at this stage so quickly and with so little fuss. I submit the reason for that is because the Petitioners have shown the greatest restraint. Whether that be the case or not, I am not concerned to apportion praise and blame between the two, in effect, organs of the State. The simple fact is that the British Transport Docks Board have given the appearance of meeting the Petitioners' objection in that they gave their declaration of intention. But when the Chairman of the Select Committee asked whether the Promoters would put that declaration of intention into the Bill, they refused. The refused for a simple reason of which they made no secret. It was that if they wanted to change their minds they would not be able to do so. In other words, it was no more than a declaration of intention. They made it clear directly, and by inference, that they might change their minds; there might be a change of policy; there might be new situations; and for that reason they were not prepared, and refused more than once, to say that their declaration of intention was to be regarded as an undertaking.
It has been argued that the Petitioners, the British Waterways Board, still have left to them, if the Bill proceeds in its present form, the option of an appeal to the National Ports Council under Section 31 of the Harbours Act 1964. Both the Chairman and the Director of the National Ports Council will know that I personally have the utmost respect for them and admiration for the job that they do; but can it really be argued that the Inland Waterways, who have one job to do, should rely alone for their pro-
1784
tection in this matter on the National Ports Council, which is mainly and properly concerned in making ports pay, not in developing inland waterways or inland water transport?
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, said, the matter at issue in monetary terms and in volume terms is not a large feature of either the dock traffic on the Humber, or of the Hull Docks revenue; but it is a big feature of inland waterways transport. The British Waterways Board have said frankly enough that they recognise the chance to load and unload into and out of barges in sheltered water is itself a facility for which proper payment should be made. They do not deny that. They have said that they accept the range of the British Transport Board's intention of a 25 per cent, and 50 per cent. limitation provided they could be certain that those intentions would endure. It may be said that the Hull Docks and the Humber Estuary are like a key that turns the lock on a door. The Hull Docks and the Humber Estuary can kill barge transport with little damage to themselves, or they can assist it with some advantage to themselves.
In view of what has been said—and I have strong feelings about this—particularly since the Promoters were warned on Second Reading that there might be difficulty now if they did not compose their differences with the Petitioners, I hope and believe that unless the noble Lord who replies is able to say that the Promoters will accept this Amendment, noble Lords will agree to press this matter to a Division to test the feeling and thinking of the House.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down I wonder whether he can help the House, and certainly help me, by telling me at what point the British Waterways Board said they would accept this proposal, provided it was put into the Bill?
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I am speaking purely from my private understanding. I do not think it is absolutely clear in the record of the Committee hearings. The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, will I think be able to infer quite readily from his reading of the Committee proceedings that when the

1785
Committee Chairman asked the Promoters if they were prepared to put this into the Bill, and the Promoters said they would not, he then said, in effect, "Well then, this is a disappointment. We have got to carry on without it." In so far as the proceedings of the Committee, the deliberations of the Committee, are not recorded for the public—we have only to go by the transcript of the hearing of evidence—that is my direct inference. But it is also supported by my own private understanding of the situation. I do not, I should stress, in any way represent he British Waterways Board. I have no financial interests in either party to declare; I am merely speaking from such knowledge as I have been able to gather.
9.10 p.m.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, I think I should start by saying that I have no interest in either of the parties concerned or indeed any other parties in the area. I have no connection with Hull Docks. I have had considerable connections with the British Waterways Board in the past. On occasions I have helped them; on very many occasions, as the House has certainly in its memory. I have fought them very bitterly. The reason why I rise to-night is that I have one prejudice and two points which I think are of national interest; and for these three reasons I think that this undertaking, or whatever one sees fit to call it, ought to be in the Bill and not just a few words spoken in a Committee room upstairs.
My prejudice is simply this. In the course of the years that I have been in this House I have never liked at any time seeing a Minister or anybody else rise to his feet and say that he intends to do something, or even promise to do something. I have always wanted to see it in the Bill. This might be called a good Liberal principle. So far as I recollect, the Liberals have always supported insertion in the Bill of all such undertakings as being very much clearer, very much more certain, and very much more likely not to cause trouble later. It is the undertakings which are not in the Bill which cause disputes at a later date. Apart from that prejudice there are two points of national interest, and for these reasons I should like to see this undertaking, or whatever it may be, in the Bill.
1786
Overside loading and unloading of ships is enormously valuable to this country. One of the largest capital investments ever made by any body, any company, is into the building and operation of a ship. Its capital value is enormous; its continuous outgoings build up all the time whatever it is doing and especially when it is at a standstill. It is therefore important whenever a ship enters a dock that it should be got out of that dock at the earliest moment possible. The best way of doing this is to load it or unload it over both sides and not merely on to the dry land of the dock. For this reason, the loading and unloading of at least one side of a ship into barges has continued in many cases when it might appear to be uneconomic, simply because it got the ship away to sea earlier and thus saved enormous capital charges, insurance charges, crews' wages charges, demurrage and all sorts of things. The loading and unloading of a ship overside has thus for many years been regarded in this country as of supreme importance and this has appeared in Act of Parliament after Act of Parliament, including the Transport Act 1962, as has been mentioned earlier. I consider that any undertaking, any variation, any solidification of this position that overside loading should be treated specially is extremely important and should be put in a Bill which becomes an Act of Parliament and be seen by other port authorities and everybody else in the country as important.
There is a secondary point, which I know a number of your Lordships have well to heart. It is this: anything put into a barge is not taken by road. A number of your Lordships have pressed this point on me over and over again, that they support what I have always advocated; namely, the use of the inland waterways simply because a barge holds a great many more tons of cargo than does a lorry. If a heavy barge is going up a waterway it is positively pleasant and very different from the unpleasant state of affairs produced by heavy lorries on the road. Therefore, there is a national interest in preserving this barge traffic, in keeping it economic and, if possible, in building it up. I think all your Lordships have this at heart. If that is so, it is important that a point like this should be firmly in legislation where it is

1787
visible to everybody, whereas the proceedings of a Committee of ours upstairs are not quite so visible. For this reason in addition—a small reason but I think your Lordships may well find it important—I also wish to see this Amendment in the Bill and, if necessary, I shall support it in a Division.
9.15 p.m.
THE COUNTESS OF LOUDOUN: My Lords, I was a member of the Select Committee on this Bill and I voted against allowing it to proceed. We considered all the evidence very carefully but we never really considered whether or not the subject of a declaration of intent by the Promoters should be mentioned in the Bill. There was a slight reference to it by counsel for the Promoters but it was their opinion that it would be undesirable to have any definition or restriction of actual rate of charge put in the Bill, on the grounds that it would not be possible to make any alteration without coming back to Parliament.
But there must already be a precedent for this. It must be recognised that this legislation would take away established rights. It is right that Parliament should protect the Petitioners by requiring the Promoters to include the subject of the declaration in the Bill, which is what this Amendment seeks to do. We have 339 miles of commercial waterways in this country, of which 158 miles—that is 47 per cent.—of the national total are accessible from the Humber Estuary. Owing to its geographical situation Hull has always been a big distribution centre, particularly by water; but traffic has been slowly disappearing over the years, showing that it is very vulnerable. Despite this, on the credit side over the last year or two there has been a slight upward trend, particularly in cargoes from South Africa. There is a continuing need to attract new traffic to Hull, and new technologies have been introduced by the British Waterways Board to encourage this on their system.
The effect of a charge, whatever it may be, is something one cannot assess. Therefore, it is imperative that Parliament should still preserve some control in this matter. This clause, representing the solemn statement of intent given by the Promoters to Parliament, would achieve this. However, as I feel I have already
1788
had my vote in Committee I shall abstain tonight; but I hope your Lordships will support this Amendment.
LORD HAYTER: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, referred, in a phrase, to "business sense and logic", and it is this that completely bewilders me to-night. Business sense and logic dictates, so far as I am concerned, that if I set up a Committee to examine a problem I accept their conclusions unless there is something quite deleterious in them. It would seem that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, and indeed the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, should have appeared before this Committee and made their expertise available to the Committee as a whole. Why should we bother with just a small section of the evidence which doubtless was given in the two and a half to three days that this Committee sat?
The noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, said, on Second Reading of the Bill:
"My purpose now is to express the hope that under the influence of examination in the Select Committee good sense may yet prevail, whereas negotiations between the two nationalised industries concerned have hitherto been disappointingly abortive."—[OFFICIAL REPORT; 11/6/73, col. 376]
I maintain, looking at the matter as a complete outsider, that good sense has prevailed. All the points that have been made should have been brought up at the time when this Committee sat. This expression of opinion was mentioned to the Committee; it was quite clear that they did not feel that they should improve the Bill in that way by bringing in this express provision, and I feel most strongly that it would be a retrograde step to rehearse once again all that happened in the Committee, only to come out with the same answer, which is that the Bill should go forward without any amendment.
9.20 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I speak also as a member of the Select Committee who considered this matter, and I feel that it may be helpful to your Lordships if some explanation were given regarding the decisions to which the Committee came. Those of your Lordships who followed the proceedings will recall the transcript of the second day and will note that the Committee were very unhappy about the

1789
method by which the Promoters were proposing to introduce the charges, and the Committee sought that evening to establish the intention in order that they could give some support to the Petitioners' figures. Such an intention was given the following morning. It was quite clear and quite unequivocal. It appears to me that there has been from the start of this Bill, right through almost until this stage, a marked distrust between the two parties. If counsel for the Promoters of the Bill, in the circumstances in which they find themselves at that time, gives a declaration of intent that the charges shall be 25 per cent. of the shipping and merchandise dues for the succeeding year, 1974, and not exceeding (to quote it correctly), "to a maximum of 50 per cent. thereafter", it really should be good enough for the Petitioners to accept.
Until that time I was myself very much against the Bill proceeding. I must confess also that I was not tremendously enamoured with the management of the Hull Docks, in so far as they presented their case. After all, if one looks at any kind of business and finds a diminishing amount of business and a diminishing return on capital, one looks to a suspect management. Nevertheless, when the Committee came to make their decision I failed to persuade my colleagues of my point of view. I rested with that, which appears to me to be a quite reasonable way for a Select Committee to deal with their business. It is quite wrong for anybody to suggest the Committee were not seized upon both the matter of principle and the matter of cash. The Committee were indeed seized upon those things very well, and it worried them enormously. They were equally seized upon the necessity for the Docks Board to be able to negotiate with shipping owners, with barge owners, with lighter owners, with their customers, without one hand tied behind their back, and the Committee were equally seized of the point which the Promoter and the Petitioners made in suggesting that the dock haulage business was a changing business. It is quite fair to say that very many members of the Committee were quite aware that the technological changes that may well occur within a comparatively short period of time may militate against the Docks Board, putting them in an unfavourable position with the lighter
1790
owners, and that they should therefore be free to negotiate. In the event of such negotiation proving to be unacceptable, barge owners, lighter owners, the customers of the Hull Docks Board, have a right of appeal.
Surely that is the right way of going about things. I find myself, speaking from these Benches, perhaps too often in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Champion, who said quite clearly that the question before the House to-night was whether the Docks Board should have the Bill as it was promoted and get along with their business, allowing the Petitioners the right of appeal. In effect, I believe, that is what the noble Lord said. The noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, suggested, as did the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, that an intention was not really good enough, because, after all, they could do anything afterwards. I must say, as a businessman, that I find it incomprehensible that any two parties should enter any kind of business undertaking with that kind of feeling. If that is the feeling, I would suggest to the Hull Docks Board that they ban the barges, and I would say to the barge owners, "Quit and go somewhere else", because this is no way to do business.
There is going to be a change in the kind of merchandise that this dock is going to handle if it is to survive as a port, and I do not believe that the managers should be hampered in any kind of way in getting on with that piece of business. I do not think a nationalised industry is going to say one thing to a Select Committee and do, unreasonably, a totally different thing. That is why I am inclined now to support the Promoters of the Bill and go against the Amendment.
There is just one other very small point which I think it would be reasonable for your Lordships to consider. In the short time I have been in your Lordships' House it has appeared to me that a midsummer madness overcomes the House just before Recess. All sorts of things get carried through the House, timetables get upset, and because of the expediency of the Recess various matters appear to get passed. We have had a number of Select Committee Reports which have been challenged. Now it occurs to me that there is little purpose in your Lordships sending a Bill to a Select Committee and not having trust in that Committee to do

1791
that Committee's business, and with the full intention as declared perhaps at Second Reading, that notwithstanding what a Select Committee may do, we will raise the matter again at Third Reading.
Some of these Select Committees are a little arduous. This one was not very arduous; it meant three days of close attention with an extra half-hour on the second day. If Select Committees are going to do this work on behalf of the House, I think it would be in the better interests of the House to accent their recommendation, unless there are very momentous, pressing reasons why it should not. Otherwise I can see Select Committee procedure in the future falling down for sheer lack of people willing to serve and having then to proceed over the matter again. My Lords, do not be deceived that your Select Committee did not attend to their affairs properly or pay due regard to those things said and some of those things unsaid. They deliberated tremendously hard at the end of the hearing. I think, in fact, it was for about three quarters of an hour that the Committee talked among themselves before they finally came to the decision, clearly recorded in their minutes, that the Bill should proceed. It is upon that basis that I would support the Promoters.
LORD MOYNE: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I raise a point on what he said about a certain undertaking from the Promoters, understood to have been given by their counsel? He said, as a business man, that he would accept that. Businessmen do not normally operate under Acts of Parliament. Here we are trying to lay something down in an Act of Parliament; we are making a law. The important thing about a law is that it should be unambiguous, and if this is the intention of everybody concerned I suggest that it should go into the Bill.
9.31 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I thought that it might be of help to the House if I intervened at this point in view of the very great interest that has been expressed in this Bill. It is of course a Private Bill and, as such, the attitude of the Government is one of neutrality, and I should like to confirm what my right honourable friend the Secretary of State indicated in his report—that he has
1792
no objection to the proposals this Bill seeks to implement. I should, however, like to say this. Port authorities are expected to operate on a commercial basis and in competition with each other, and they are, in general, free to exercise their own commercial judgment in determining port charges. The British Transport Docks Board are no exception.
A point was raised on the question of free overside trade at other United Kingdom ports. My understanding of the position is that of the major United Kingdom ports only the Port of London Authority are under statutory restrictions of the kind which is the subject of the Bill. Even so, a separate levy is made by the Port of London Authority on all goods entering and leaving the port. The noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, raised a question as to whether traffic would be diverted on to the roads. I understand that the Board have stated that they do not seek, by their rate structure, to influence the movement of goods by road, rail or water, and that users must be free to choose their own form of transport. We cannot tell in advance how much traffic might be diverted as a result of the Bill. However, having regard to the current and prospective road improvements in the Hull area, and in particular to the schemes designed to improve road access to the docks, I am assured that there is unlikely to be any undue problem about accommodating any resultant additional road traffic.
In conclusion, I should like to make it clear, as I think other noble Lords have mentioned, that there is a right of objection to the National Ports Council under Section 31 of the Harbours Act 1964 in the case of ship, passenger and goods dues. In considering objections in a particular case, the Council can take into account the importance of the charges in question to the operations carried out by the objectors. There is, therefore, an effective safeguard in relation to any charges which the Board may impose on goods transferred overside at Hull. This being so, I should not think that there is any need to include in the Bill the restriction as proposed by the Amendment.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, will she allow me to ask a question as to whether there will not be a considerable

1793
amount more traffic on the Hull roads if the overside loading continues to decrease and is transferred to ordinary quayside loading? The figure that has been given to me—and quite frankly I am not certain that I have got it right—is something like 100 extra 20-ton loads per day. I may be wrong about that, and if I am I apologise to the House, but that was the figure which I think was given to me as an estimate.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, it is for the Promoters of the Bill to answer on all the general arguments that come up. On this particular matter I am afraid that I do not have the figures before me about numbers of extra lorries. My point was that, as regards extra traffic, there are to be road improvements near Hull, and it is not expected that this will create any extra difficulties.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, would the noble Baroness be so kind as to answer this further question: on the subject of her Department's neutrality, would she confirm the words that are recorded on page 20 of Day 3 of the Committee as coming from her Department's representative, Mr. Monk, who said:
"It would certainly be going too far to imply in the words 'no objection' that we actively support the Bill."
Would the noble Baroness be so kind as to confirm that those words do represent her Department's policy?
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, the only words which I am prepared to confirm are that we do take a neutral attitude on this matter, and on looking at this sentence I would have thought that that was exactly what was expressed.
9.35 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, we have had a long discussion on this Amendment and I must do my best to satisfy your Lordships that the Amendment is, first of all, ill-conceived and unnecessary and, secondly, objectionable. Perhaps I may deal first with the merits of the clause and the argument and then come to the procedural point; so I will not take Lord Stow Hill's first point which was that those affected now wish to see the undertaking written into the Bill—and I will not quarrel with the noble and learned Lord's reference to the undertaking, or whatever the word was.
1794
I corrected the noble and learned Lord only because I thought there was perhaps something a little pejorative in the suggestion that an undertaking has been given from which somebody is now trying to resile. Anyway, he said that those affected wished to see this undertaking in the Bill. I am bound to ask why they did not say so to the Committee. I do not want to trouble your Lordships with all the evidence, but when the notice of intention was given my recollection is that the representative of the Objectors—and the matter was just a little difficult to follow because the same person was representing both Objectors, so one was not quite sure which one he was speaking for—said that he did not think that did any good.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, went on to recite the long history of this matter and all the figures—and of course I am sure he got his figures right. These were all presented to and rehearsed before the Select Committee, and I venture to suggest to your Lordships that the Bill has been given a Third Reading and the principle that a charge can be made on overside cargo is now accepted. Therefore I do not think it is necessary to go back into all the history. However, I should like to make just one comment on the history because it was not taken up before the Select Committee. As is so often the case, the great port of Rotterdam was thrown in the teeth of the British Docks Board; but whoever threw it in their teeth did not realise that the great port of Rotterdam has not got any enclosed docks, so the position that the port of Hull is dealing with does not arise in Rotterdam.
My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, went on to refer to these new concepts of "bacot" and "lash", and of course we all welcome this, the port of Hull as much as anyone, because it appears to offer possibilities for a substantial increase in cargo through Hull. That increase in cargo will be brought to and from the ships in barges. So far as I can see, the whole basis of the Amendment is the assumption that the imposition of a charge is going seriously to affect the use of barges. I went very carefully through the evidence given to the Select Committee, and I did not see any evidence to that effect. A lot of

1795
estimates were made, and I think the Committee finally agreed that it was not possible to tell. As one noble Lord said recently one cannot tell what the results will be. But, certainly, the British Waterways Board, through their principal witness, appeared to be quite satisfied that it would not greatly affect the traffic; he was merely concerned with the matter of principle. I cannot find evidence for the statement by the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, that to do this will further depress overside loading and discharge, and thus damage the interests of the British Waterways Board and of merchants.
The fact of the matter is that traffic by water is cheaper than traffic over the quay by land, where it is appropriate and useful, particularly when the cargo is going direct to premises on the water. In fact, the water has gained a certain amount of the traffic which goes some way up by water and is then transferred to the road. This is admirable. I saw it stated by the Road Haulage Association, Hull branch—admittedly a source that might be suspect—that if a full charge similar to wharfage were put on to lighters, it would still be cheaper to send goods by lighter than to send them by road. The proposers of the Amendment obviously do not think that the decline in traffic has anything to do with charges on cargo that is discharged over-side, because up till now there has not been any. The decline in overside traffic has occurred largely because the waterside mills have closed down and there is less cargo that is suitable for carriage by water.
One point which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, made, I should like to suggest he did not get quite right. He said that under the proposed procedure, if the dues for landing over the quay were raised, then the percentage charged to the cargo going into barges would be correspondingly raised, by perhaps 25 per cent. or 50 per cent. With great respect to the noble and learned Lord, I think that he was not right, because the appeal to the National Ports Council against an increase in charges could be limited to the cargo discharged into barges. So that the effect of the Amendment might be that the cargo discharged into barges would have its rate
1796
increased willy-nilly. because that is what the Act states; whereas, in fact, if they relied on their present power to appeal to the National Ports Council they could get the matter dealt with on the basis of the overside cargoes only. I am assuming that if this Amendment were put into the Bill, the receivers would not have a second shot, in that they could go to the National Ports Council as well. I should have thought that that would be asking for too much.
I was most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Champion, who dealt with my next point about whether it is right for this House to challenge the recommendation of the Select Committee, and I think I shall come back to that a little later. The noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, reminded us of the warning which he gave us on Second Reading, and I hope he will not take it amiss if I say that I think that that slightly weakens his argument, because it shows that he was prejudiced, in the proper sense of the word; that is to say, he prejudged the issue before hearing the arguments of the British Transport Docks Board. He referred to what happened in the Select Committee, and said that the Chairman asked counsel for the Promoters whether they would put this note of intention into the Bill, and they said that they would not do so and gave a reason.
I suggest that there are other good reasons beside the one which they gave. For one thing, it is a completely open-ended statement of intention and if it had been in the form of a contract nobody would have said that they could guarantee that the charges would not be more than 50 per cent. of the quay charge for ever and ever. If it was going to be in the form of a contract, I should have thought you would have to have some limitation on it. One can conceive conditions in which, for instance, these new methods of transport, bacat and lash, become immensely successful. Let us suppose that 50 per cent. of the cargo which goes through Hull is carried in barges. In those circumstances, I am sure the Docks Board would have to come to some agreement with the shippers and receivers, because they would otherwise lose far too much revenue. It is not very likely to happen, but it is the sort of thing which can happen if they are tied up in this way in the Bill.

1797
The noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, told us of his prejudice against intentions not being put in the Bill, and he rather chided me with not accepting them at once, as a good Liberal. This is not a Party matter at all, and I am not going to be drawn into that. I fully agree with him, of course, that overside loading and unloading is immensely valuable, but the point I have already made is that there is no evidence that this relatively small charge is going to have the effect that some people seem to think. Of course it was natural that, in the Select Committee, people concerned who saw a charge being put on should go and object. We all do that as soon as we hear that a charge is going to be put on or increased. I would merely remind your Lordships that it is only in the last two weeks, I think, that the Price Commission has authorised quite a substantial increase in road haulage charges. That, it might be thought, again, would tip the scale a little in favour of barges. The exact relationship between barge traffic and traffic over the quay cannot remain static, and I do not think that the amounts we are talking about here will have a substantial effect.
I am reminded that the House is sitting rather late and that I must get on, so I will just say a few more words on the procedural position. I took the trouble to have a look at Erskine May this morning, and perhaps I may read a very short extract from it. I can give the reference if any noble Lord wants it. Speaking of Private Bills, it says:
"The House, although it has undoubtedly the power, should normally never reject the decision of a Select Committee unless new or special considerations arise".
I submit that there are no new or special considerations. All the considerations that have been canvassed to-day were discussed before the Select Committee, and it seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill has not shown us any reason indicating that there are new or special conditions which could justify our going against the normal practice of this House as set out in Erskine May. This House is a quite unsuitable body to discuss an issue of this kind. I recognise how badly I have dealt with it. The noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, is an accomplished advocate, and to that extent the promoters of the Amendment have a great advantage. But I think it is utterly wrong, as has already been said—and I welcome what
1798
the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, said—that here we have a Select Committee which has recommended that this Bill should go through in its present form and we are asked to accept an Amendment. I hope that, if the noble Lord goes to a Division, noble Lords will support me in voting to reject the Amendment. But I would much rather that the noble Lord, who I am sure cannot say that there are any new or special considerations, should think fit at this stage to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, as I have not a right to speak twice may I, before the noble Lord sits down (or, rather, immediately after he has sat down), venture to answer a question which I think he put to me on the effect of the Amendment? That was whether there could in any circumstances be a case in which the 25 per cent. or 50 per cent. could be increased, as I said. I said I thought there was not the slightest doubt about that, and may I just say why? The first subsection says that the Board's merchandise dues means the maximum charges at any time made by the Board, and so on. If one looks at the second subsection one finds that the relevant wording is that thereafter, from the beginning of 1974, they may make maximum charges in respect of goods loaded or unloaded no greater than the above, that is to say, for the period expiring on December 31, 1974, 25 per cent. of the comparable rate of the Board's merchandise charge, and after that, 50 per cent. I should have thought, as a matter of construction, that there could not be the least doubt that if the merchandise charge, as defined, is increased, it follows automatically that the 25 per cent. remains 25 per cent. of the increased charge. Therefore it is self-increased.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord. I do not know what question of mine he was answering. The point I was trying to make was that, as he said, with the Amendment this would be the result. Without the Amendment, supposing the intention was to charge 25 per cent., for the sake of example, and the basic rate went up, it would still be open to the receivers of overside cargo to appeal to the National Ports Council against a proportionate increase.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
On Question, Bill passed.
Their Lordships divided: Contents 11; Not-Contents 24.

CONTENTS

Conesford, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Stow Hill, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Moyne, L.

Strange, L.

Lauderdale, E. [Teller.]

St. Davids, V. [Teller.]

Wise, L.

Loudoun, C.

Saint Oswald, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arran, E.

Ferrier, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Balfour, E.

Gowrie, E.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Bowden, L.

Hacking, L.

Seear, B.

Carnock, L.

Hayter, L. [Teller.]

Shepherd, L.

Champion, L.

Hood, V.

Simon, V. [Teller.]

Colville of Culross, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Denham, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Young, B.

Ferrers, E.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

B.B.C. AND I.T.A. FRANCHISES
10 p.m.
LORD FERRIER LORD FERRIER rose to ask Her Majesty's Government.
Whether they will reconsider their decisions (as set out in Command Paper No. 5244) not to implement the main recommendations from the Second Report of the House of Commons' Select Committee on Nationalised Industries but to take steps to extend the franchises of the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. till 1981 without further inquiry.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name. It is one that is dear to my heart. I assure the House that I would have moved it to another day, if there had been another day, but I will be as brief as I can.
On Wednesday last, at 1.15, lunch-time, only a couple of hours after the delivery of a unanimous judgment by the House of Lords in its judicial capacity, the B.B.C. "World at One" broadcast an interview with the Editor of the Sunday Times, who had lost his case for the second time, in which he poured scorn upon the House of Lords judgment for millions of people to hear. Admitting that the programme in question, "The World at One", is quite often a mischievous one, I would ask: was this wise? To my mind, my Lords, it was outrageous. I am tempted to open my speech in this way, having read Mr. Wilson's letter in The Times this morning in which, inter alia, he said, quoting from what he had said at a rally:
"No one will presume to challenge the authority of the House of Lords in their interpretation of the law as it stands."
Where do we stand when the B.B.C. put someone on who does so presume?
When I put down this Question on the "No Day Named" list some weeks ago, I was reluctant to take up your Lord-debated to some extent on an Unstarred ships' time because this matter was Question of mine on February 21. In March, the White Paper to which I refer
1802
in my Question had been published announcing the Government's intention to extend the existing franchise of the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. on the same terms until 1981, contrary to the recommendations of the Select Committee. One has only to read Hansard of the debate in the other place on May 3 to realise that this decision has been viewed with some alarm. However, in the last few days events have occurred which lead me to believe that the issue raised in my Question is a very live one. In view of these more recent events, I inquire whether the Government will reconsider their decisions set out in that White Paper.
My Lords, I am not going to refer to the Payola scandal or to the continued prevalence, in my view, of violence and the like in some of the programmes on television. It is the political implications of the power of the broadcast and the dangers of its misuse which activate my mind. Take, for instance, the extraordinary case of the programme, "A Question of Confidence" on Sunday, the 15th July, under the heading "The People Talking". A long "blurb" in the Radio Times contains the following words:
"When we read reports of Parliamentary debates and watch political arguments on television, do we continue firmly to believe that politicians are the men who really rule the country?"
Further in the "blurb" these words appear:
"Do we trust M.P.s more or less as a result of television exposure?"
What happened? Perhaps millions of listeners saw and heard exchanges in which, despite the best efforts of Desmond Wilcox to control the proceedings, scorn was poured upon Members of Parliament, and through them on our whole system of Parliamentary democracy. Then the Chairman of the B.B.C.—more strength to his elbow! And I recall that the Chairman of the I.T.A. in another connection took this step previously—wrote to apologise to the Members of Parliament who had been ill-treated. Subsequently, a number of B.B.C. producers challenged the Chairman's right to do what he had done. Who was in charge?
In the debate on February 21 I expressed the belief that in an organisation like the B.B.C. there must be people who, if not dedicated to disruption, feel that their mission in life is to promote discord and unease. I was struck during the course of the debate this afternoon by the speech of my noble friend, Lord Selsdon, in which he emphasised, as other speakers had done, the importance of confidence in our national life to-day. In my view, this is impaired by much of what we see on television. Again, what about the absolute folly of the broadcasting in Scotland of a televised programme (I do not know whether it was shown in England) called "Scots on the Rocks". I will not waste your Lord-ships' time by describing it, but I can assure you that it was a most ill-judged act to put this piece on at this time when so much controversy was brewing across the Irish Channel. Again, whose idea was it that the B.B.C. should run a programme on which the Member for West Fife was to appear, attacking the Monarchy? Was it Mr. Hamilton himself, or was it some B.B.C. planner?
I feel I have said enough to satisfy at least some of your Lordships, who do not already think so, that there is something wrong here—and by "here" I mean in the B.B.C. In the light of these recent events, is it prudent to wait until 1981 before revising the conditions and structure of our broadcasting system, despite the weight of the purely technical reasons on which the Government based their decision in March? Will the Government reconsider the matter and clarify their intentions?
I have said nothing about the I.T.A.'s approach. I do not follow the Scottish Television programmes which for me represent Independent Television. I do not follow them closely, although I prefer the I.T.A. News to that of the B.B.C. I feel that they have a much more tolerant, realistic and objective approach to the whole thing. To enact Sir John Eden's proposals will require major Parliamentary debate, but when will that be? It cannot be soon. Ought not something to be done at once to remedy the present malaise? I believe that it cannot be done too soon. Accepting that the B.B.C. programmes, "Today in Parliament" and "Yesterday in Parliament" are first-
1804
class, it must also be accepted that their ratings are very small, largely because they are put on at hours when ordinary working folk cannot, and therefore do not, listen. I repeat, the ratings are very low. The "Box" if I may call it so, is now the main medium of communication with the people. Why do not the B.B.C. put an item such as "Today in Parliament" on the "Nationwide" T.V. programme at, say, 6.20 in the evening? Can anything be of greater nation-wide interest than the proceedings in Parliament?
What are they doing on the radio? What they are doing there may comply with the letter of their obligation under Section 13(2) of their Licence and Agreement (I was going to read it out, but your Lordships will know what I mean) to report the proceedings of Parliament. But television has overtaken radio and should carry effectual Parliamentary news, not processed stuff. That, my Lords, is what I believe should be done. The B.B.C. have the power to do it now: why do they not try? They themselves instigated "Today in Parliament". I do not know whether it is generally realised that "Today in Parliament" was broadcast before any Charter of the B.B.C. contained an obligation for them to include such a programme. The problem of producing a similar programme from the I.T.A. would be much more difficult, and I can leave your Lordships to consider the reasons for this.
I am not—I repeat "not"—suggesting the televising of the proceedings of Parliament. That is a hot potato which I prefer not to pick up. It may be years before televised proceedings reach the screens, as I believe they will some day. The remedy that I suggest is only a partial one, but it need not take much time to introduce. There will be more opportunities for Parliamentary discussion, as I said, when the legislation comes forward. And there are other matters which ought to be discussed: violence, moral issues, pressing problems in Scotland, both in terms of technicalities, content and so on. However, I am persuaded that, whereas there are millions of viewers who do not want to be bothered about Parliament, there are millions who are sufficiently serious minded and who want to be informed. They get little or no political information from the Press, other

1805
than from the "heavies"—and little enough in them—unless there is some scandal or sensation. As I said before, when I referred to Lord Selsdon's speech, it is the presentation of the position of Parliament in our national life that I believe is so at fault.
In closing, I should like just to add that if I have criticised almost ad nauseam the B.B.C.'s political presentation on television, I now declare my admiration for the wonderful contribution that the Corporation make to our way of life in many other directions. Their Overseas radio services, for instance, are splendid. Should they not have more financial support for these particular services? Be that as it may, while I may be alone in my view—very nearly alone in my view!—that the absence of true and adequate presentation of Parliament is a major and urgent problem of the day, I hold this view sincerely and I look forward to my noble friend's reply this evening. I hope that the Government will reconsider their decision. My Lords, I beg leave to ask my Question.
10.13 p.m.
LORD O'NEILL OF THE MAINE: My Lords, I hesitate to enter on a subject about which my noble friend Lord Ferrier is such a great expert, but I once took part in a debate on B.B.C. affairs (I do not think it had anything to do with the I.T.A.), and I said on that occasion that if ever the day arrived when the Government of the day were pleased with the B.B.C. I should be worried. I should like to repeat that, because nobody hated the B.B.C. more than the Labour Government and the Leader of the Labour Party when they were in power. I will not go into the details of that: maybe there are certain members of the present Conservative Government who to-day are equally critical of the B.B.C. It is the function of the B.B.C. to assert whatever independence they may have. Secondly, I should like to support everything that the noble Lord said about "Today in Parliament" and "Yesterday in Parliament", especially so far as your Lordships' House is concerned. While I appreciate that we get our fair rapportage in the quality Press, were it not for the programmes "Today in Parliament" and "Yesterday in Parliament"
1806
your Lordships' House would not get a fair crack of the whip.
I appreciate the suggestion which the noble Lord has made that as something like 90 per cent. (I do not know what the actual figures are) of the people watch television and only 10 per cent. listen to the radio, there is a case for going into the possibility of having some kind of television programme based on "Today in Parliament" on sound radio. There are some difficulties. If, for instance, the noble Lord, Lord Denham, were reported as having said something, we should expect to see a still photograph of him on "the box"; and that of course would have the effect that the general public would come to know exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Denham, looked like. The same would apply to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. The B.B.C. should go into this matter and consider it, to see whether it is not possible, despite all the difficulties involved, to conduct some kind of programme covering Parliament on television. I accept the difficulties, but I feel that the B.B.C. should give further consideration to this matter.
Having had either the good fortune or the bad fortune (I do not know which) to go to North America on many occasions, and having myself appeared on television in, I think, every major city there, I always come back from America, although I enjoy their television very much, and say to myself, "Thank God for the B.B.C.!" Maybe I ought also to say, if the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, is not here tonight, "Thank God for I.T.A.!" So, while I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, for raising these matters, I think at the same time that we should be only too conscious of how fortunate we are in this country with the television and sound radio that we possess.
Not having intended to take part in this debate, and while supporting in part, but only in part, the noble Lord in what he has said, may I add that I hope the Government will realise that there are many people in this country who are critical but at the same time grateful for the television and sound radio programmes which they receive. I hope that the B.B.C. will give further consideration as to whether or not it would not be possible

1807
to give some kind of "Today In Parliament" programme, or "Yesterday in Parliament" programme, on the medium of television.
10.16 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I intervene for three reasons. The first is that at ten minutes to eight I telephoned my wife to the effect that at the very worst I should be home by half-past nine, so by speaking at sixteen minutes past ten I can make it quite clear that I was in your Lordships' House. The second reason is in a sense to support the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, in the Question which he has asked Her Majesty's Government. I agree wholeheartedly with him that there ought to be a review, as was recommended most strongly by the Select Committee in another place—a full review right across the board of television and radio—before Parliament is called upon either to renew the Charter of the B.B.C. or to deal with the renewal of the Television Act, which will be due in 1976.
The noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, spoke as he always does about the B.B.C. He was perhaps a little unfair, because I think he rather misled the House since the Report of the Select Committee was really concerned with the I.T.A., which is a nationalised Board. The B.B.C. entered into the scheme of things only because the Select Committee found it necessary to take a short view of the B.B.C. I agree with Lord Ferrier that the reasons given by the Government for not having this review are extraordinarily thin—certainly that was the opinion of the Economist. To say that because a new Chairman has just been appointed that is a reason for not having a review is to me quite nonsense. Is it really conceivable that the present Chairman is likely to be in office in the 1980s? I doubt it very much. There are other aspects, too, which were very thin indeed. But this is not an occasion when we could or should go into this matter because I feel that it is something of wide-ranging importance that should perhaps be dealt with in the new Session of Parliament, at a more reasonable hour.
But I could not—and this is the third point—refrain from dissociating myself, as did the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of the Maine, from the sort of criticisms
1808
that were made of the B.B.C. I heard the programme on the radio in which the Editor of the Sunday Times expressed a very strong view—as he was quite free to do—about the judgment given by the House of Lords in its judicial capacity. My Lords, is this not what democracy is all about—the right to dissect? There are many programmes on both I.T.A. and the B.B.C.—they are not necesarily political—which make me slightly hot under the collar. But is not this what democracy is all about? I should hate to think we have reached the stage when all that was done on the B.B.C. or the I.T.A., whether on television or sound, was completely acceptable. There would be very little democracy, I suggest, if such a situation arose. So I am not unduly worried when occasionally programmes go wrong. I would perhaps not side with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of the Maine. It seems to me that, so far as human nature permits, both the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. provide a general balance—and that is what Parliament has required of them: nothing more and nothing less—across the political field.
Like the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of the Maine, I travel a great deal, and some ten days ago I was in the United States of America. I share with him that same feeling when I return home and look at my "box". I have only one question to ask, and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, may object to it. There is of course a big debate taking place in America in regard to the Presidency and the previous Election. It is fascinating television viewing, hut it is part of democracy, seeking to exert power over the Executive. I wonder whether, if we ever had such a situation here—and I am not complacent enough to believe that it could not arise, though I think it very unlikely—it would be possible under the Charter of the B.B.C. and under the Act for exposure such as is now taking place in America to occur here. To that extent I think the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, may rest assured that there is that particular guard against what he might regard as provocative political questioning.
I hope that we shall have an opportunity to come back to the whole question of television, both the I.T.A. and the B.B.C., some time next year, because

1809
I believe that we ought to have a good look at it, certainly in debate. And the noble Lord, Lord Denham, might also consider, since we have set up a number of Select Committees which have done important work, whether this is not a subject which the House of Lords could well deal with by setting up its own Select Committee in anticipation of being asked by the Government of the day for the renewal of the Charter of the B.B.C. and the continuation of the Independent Television Act.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, before the noble Lords sits down I should like to assure him that I listened to that radio interview. I am not concerned to express any view on the matter at issue. I understood the speaker to criticise the judgment in law of the House of Lords.
LORD SHEPHERD: But, my Lords, that is still democracy, is it not?
10.25 p.m.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, broadcasting is one of the most powerful media, if not the most powerful, of communication and it ought to be sensitive to the play of public and Parliamentary opinion. I believe that debates in both Houses are the most effective way of ensuring that broadcasting authorities are kept in touch with public opinion, and this short and interesting debate on my noble friend's Question has proved to be no exception to this. Noble Lords will not be surprised if I refrain from commenting on individual programmes. As your Lordships know, there is a long-established convention that the Government of the day do not intervene in matters of programme content. The policy of Her Majesty's present Government, as of previous governments, is that the responsibility for broadcast programmes rests with the Governors of the B.B.C. or the members of the I.B.A.
In the light of events reported in the Press during the last few days I should perhaps stress that the Governors of the B.B.C. and the members of the I.B.A. are the trustees of the public interest in broadcasting. They have a duty laid upon them by Parliament to maintain proper standards and to ensure, so far as is possible, that their programmes do
1810
not offend against good taste or decency and are not offensive to public feeling. We must leave it to them to live up to their responsibility. Some noble Lords may say, "But what if they do not live up to this responsibility?" Noble Lords may have noted what my right honourable friend the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications said in another place in the debate on May 3 when he made it clear that if there was a consensus of opinion in Parliament that the I.B.A. had failed in the observance of the duties placed on it by Parliament, it would be open to the Minister to replace the existing members of the Authority by others; and this applies equally to the Board of Governors of the B.B.C. If my right honourable friend were to intervene in programme questions, no matter how justifiable it might seem, it could set a precedent for political control of programme content. We must guard against this. This is more important than the occasional lapses which may occur in conditions of comparative freedom. Government intervention in programme content might begin relatively harmlessly, but might end by dealing a serious blow to the freedom of speech which we all value so highly and which includes the freedom to express views that many of us dislike.
My noble friend Lord Ferrier has repeated a view which he expressed in this House in February of this year, that there ought to be a short daily programme on television equivalent to the radio programme "Today in Parliament". The noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of the Maine, supported him in this view. It is obviously most important that the public should be fully informed about Parliamentary debates, but this is not primarily a matter for Her Majesty's Government. Each House could invite the broadcasting authorities to broadcast their proceedings, but so far neither your Lordships nor the Members of another place have felt inclined to take this step. As television cameras are not allowed into either House, the B.B.C. and the I.B.A., who are wholly and solely responsible for the programmes broadcast, must decide how best to inform the public of what takes place within the Palace of Westminster.
The B.B.C. take the view that unless they can televise the proceedings of

1811
Parliament, a television version of "Today in Parliament" would not offer much more than the radio programme. In general, as my noble friend has said, radio does not reach nearly as large an audience as television. But the picture is not quite so gloomy as he painted. I am told by the B.B.C. that they reckon that 30 million people listen to their radio programmes through the course of the day. This figure does of course include a fairly large audience who listen to Radio 1—not notable for its Parliamentary content. Although "Today in Parliament" may have a relatively small audience on sound radio (I believe, at its lowest, this is something like 100,000), the sister programme, put out in the morning, "Yesterday in Parliament", does have a fairly large audience of between a quarter of a million and 1½ million. I think that this total is largely made up of people who listen to this programme as they travel to work in their cars.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, if I may intervene, I agree with the noble Lord's figures; I have had those from the B.B.C. The trouble is that the working folk cannot listen at a quarter to nine in the morning or at eleven o'clock at night.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, that may well be so. But detailed accounts of Parliamentary proceedings are a specialisted taste. I know that the B.B.C. will consider very carefully all the views expressed this evening. But it is the view of Her Majesty's Government that it should be left to the Board of Governors to decide what is best in the interests of the viewers.
The main point made by the noble Lord this evening has been that there should be an independent Inquiry into broadcasting before the B.B.C.'s Charter and the legislation establishing the I.B.A. is extended; and I think this was the main concern of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. He has pointed out that this was the view of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, who considered that there should be a widespread and informed public debate about the past performance and future organisation and structure of broadcasting. My Lords, the Government accept the need for informed public debate, but we do not
1812
accept that it is necessary for this to take place by means of a Committee of Inquiry before 1976. My right honourable friend the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications explained why in a debate in another place on May 3. He pointed out there is nothing special about 1976; in fact, it is rather an inappropriate date. The new local commercial radio service which Parliament has entrusted to the I.B.A. will come on the air this autumn, and it would be premature to try to review its progress before it has begun.
Moreover, my right honourable friend's Television Advisory Committee, including representatives from the radio industry and independent members, who have no interest in maintaining the present arrangements, have advised him, after very careful consideration, that developments such as cable, satellites and cassettes are not likely to have a significant impact on broadcasting in the present decade, and that the completion of the present U.H.F. colour television coverage programme is the most urgent problem. So my right honourable friend has concluded that changes in the structure of broadcasting are not made necessary during the 1970s by any immediately foreseeable technical developments. He considers that changes may well be necessary in the next decade, and that it would be preferable for the whole position to be reconsidered in a few years' time when the technical outlook for the 1980s will be a good deal clearer than it is at the moment.
The noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, will no doubt consider that this decision does not take into account the performance of the broadcasting authorities in the last ten years and the standards of programmes which they broadcast. My Lords, the broadcasting authorities are human, and occasionally there are programmes which fall below the high standards which we have come to expect. It is right that noble Lords and Members of another place should draw attention to such programmes and my right honourable friend made it clear on May 3 that he would not hesitate to draw the attention of the broadcasting authorities to the views of Parliament if he considered they had underestimated the strength of feeling on any particular issue. But my right honourable friend does not

1813
accept that the present organisation of broadcasting is unsound or that occasional sub-standard programmes would be prevented by changes in the present constitutional arrangements. My Lords, my right honourable friend is confident that the B.B.C. Governors and the members of the Independent Broadcasting Authority are well aware of the high standards of programming which the public expect, and he considers they will be more usefully occupied in ensuring that good programmes are provided than in producing evidence for a Committee of Inquiry. Noble Lords may ask whether there are to be no changes at all in broadcasting until 1981. This is not the Government's intention, though it is their view that any changes can be made within the present constitutional arrangements.
My Lords, broadcasting will not be fossilised in the next eight years, and before seeking approval for the extension until 1981 of the B.B.C.'s Charter and the legislation establishing the I.B.A., the Government will bring before Parliament their proposals on the matters which have been reserved for further consideration: the allocation of the fourth channel, the representation of viewers' interests, the findings of the Committee studying the coverage of broadcasting services in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and rural England, and the future of cable television. We shall have opportunities in the future to debate these matters at greater length. In the meantime, my right honourable friend will be grateful for the advice expressed in your Lordships' House this evening.

DEE AND CLWYD RIVER AUTHORITY BILL
  GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL
  Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
HARWICH HARBOUR BILL
Message from the Commons, That they have made certain Orders relative to the Bill enabling the Promoters thereof to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill in the next Session of Parliament.
NORTH WALES HYDRO-ELECTRIC POWER BILL
Message from the Commons, That they have considered the Lords Message of yesterday and have made similar Orders relative to the Bill.
  GENEVA CONVENTIONS
  GENEVA CONVENTIONS
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY WORKING GROUPS
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY WORKING GROUPS
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY: COUNCIL OF MINISTERS' MEETINGS
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY: COUNCIL OF MINISTERS' MEETINGS
  CENSUS RETURNS AND POPULATION FIGURES
  CENSUS RETURNS AND POPULATION FIGURES
  MUSEUMS AND GALLERIES ADMISSION CHARGES
  MUSEUMS AND GALLERIES ADMISSION CHARGES
  E.E.C. MINISTERS AND LUXEMBOURG TAX POSITION
  E.E.C. MINISTERS AND LUXEMBOURG TAX POSITION