Sitting of 14 November 1973

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  EDINBURGH CORPORATION (NO.2) ORDER CONFIRMATION
  Mr. Gordon Campbell presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Edinburgh Corporation (No. 2); and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 12.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  ENVIRONMENT

    Thorpe Water Leisure Park
    Mr. Gryllsasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many square feet of new buildings are proposed by Ready Mix Concrete Company at the Thorpe Water Leisure Park.
    The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): I understand that proposals recently approved by Surrey County Council include about 87,000 square feet of new buildings.
    Mr. Grylls: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the plans suggest a Battersea Fun Fair type development in what is a green belt area? Is it right that a decision of this magnitude should be reached behind closed doors, because this only breeds rumour and counter-rumour? Will my right hon. Friend consider appointing a public inquiry so that local views can be expressed publicly, because only this will quell the local anger?
    Mr. Page: This development involves about 400 acres of worked-out gravel
    480
    lagoons as a water park. The outline proposal was referred by my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State in 1971 as a substantial departure, but we thought it right to leave it to the Surrey County Council to decide. The council granted planning permission in January 1972 and detailed permission on 1st November. It would be wrong of us, not having called in the first application, now to investigate the details. This is surely a matter for the local planning authority to deal with.

    Caravan Sites (Legislation)
    Mr. Bidwellasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the working of the Caravan Sites Act 1960 and the Caravan Sites Act 1968.
    Mr. Graham Page: There is room for improvement in the working of the Acts, and my right hon. and learned Friend and I, in co-operation with local authorities, are continuously striving to implement the Acts effectively.
    Mr. Bidwell: I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that complaints have been coming into the headquarters of my union—the Transport and General Workers' Union—from some of its old members on sites such as these? The complaints appear to relate to sites privately owned although licensed by local authorities. The complaints contain stories of harassment and, in one case, of caravan dwellers being told that they could have visitors for only two weeks of the year. As these people are not protected by any rent control or other control such as that which is available to ordinary householders, will the Minister undertake to look at that aspect of these complaints?
    Mr. Page: Caravan dwellers have the benefit of the law. It is an offence to harass a caravan dweller on a site which requires a licence. Any order for possession of a caravan can be suspended by the courts for a period of one year. Rented caravans have the benefit of the furnished letting part of the Rent Acts.
    Mr. Goodhew: Will my right hon. Friend take powers to designate parts of counties as areas under the 1968 Act? At present, wherever authorised sites are placed other caravan dwellers swarm into the area, with the result that there is a

    481
    great discouragement upon the counties to proceed with further caravan sites within the whole country?
    Mr. Page: My hon. Friend is right. I have had strong representations that we should designate part of a county. This matter is still under consideration. It may need legislation to bring it into effect.
    Mr. Oakes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on holiday sites in particular there are shameless abuses of these two Acts? There is complete neglect of the sites and ignoring of the regulations in many cases. This militates greatly against foreign visitors coming here with touring vans. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware also that many site operators, with impunity, increased site rents at the time of the operation of phase 2 and phase 3 of the counter-inflation policy and that they harass people on holiday sites by insisting that they buy a van at an inflated price from the site owner in many instances? Will the Minister look into all this?
    Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the problem of the sufficiency of caravan sites for touring vans? More and more vans are being left on lay-bys and along the hedges at a time when an increasing number of caravans is being produced and, if anything, fewer sites are in existence to take them.
    Mr. Page: Local authorities can impose conditions on caravan sites in granting licences for them and, in doing so, must follow the model which has been laid down.
    I repeat that caravan dwellers have the benefit of the law that harassment is an offence, and they have a certain security of tenure. As to rents, they have the benefit of the furnished letting provisions of the Rent Acts. The question of sufficiency of sites is for local planning authorities to consider when they have applications made for sites.
    Mrs. Sally Oppenheimasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to introduce comprehensive legislation dealing with caravan sites and mobile home residents.
    The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Paul Channon): As my hon. Friend will know from her recent discussions on this topic, there are great
    482
    practical difficulties in legislating in this field, and at present the Government have no plans for legislation on this subject.
    Mrs. Oppenheim: Is my hon. Friend aware that mobile home residents have no effective security of tenure and no legal protection against the imposition of conditions and a number of practices which would be unacceptable in any other context? Does he agree that we have an obligation at least to afford to mobile home residents the security and protection that is afforded to all other types of dwellings?
    Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend will know that some of the practices that concern her and many other hon. Members, as shown by an answer to an earlier question today, can be referred to the Director General of Fair Trading. I am anxious that nothing should be done which would cause the supply of places on caravan sites rapidly to dry up. It is extremely difficult to devise legislation that would have the effect that my hon. Friend has in mind. However, I shall be glad to consider any further representations from her on this topic.
    Mr. John: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that ground rent increases of 60 per cent. in 18 months, which have been imposed upon mobile home occupiers in my constituency, are an absolute disgrace. Does he further realise that his Department's circular on white land has discouraged the use of further land for mobile home residents? Is it not high time that the Government introduced control over increases in rent for mobile home residents?
    Mr. Channon: I do not think that the circular discouraged the use of mobile homes. I shall consider the point that the hon. Gentleman has in mind. I believe that the right kind of mobile home in the right place can frequently make a useful contribution. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will send me details of the cases that he has in mind.

    Parked Cars (Accidents)
    Mr. David Stoddartasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many night-time road accidents involved parked cars during the winter of 1972–73; whether the number of such accidents showed an increase on the previous year; and, if so, by how many.
    The Minister for Transport Industries (Mr. Peyton): 2,711 during the period November 1972 to February 1973; the corresponding figure for 1971–72 was 2,090.
    Mr. Stoddart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Wiltshire the number of accidents involving parked cars is 75 per cent. in urban areas? Is he further aware that, as a result of the 1972 vehicle lighting regulations, a good many people are now leaving their cars parked outside all night without lights, even though they have adequate drives and garages? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this practice is entirely reprehensible and inconsiderate, and will he do something about it?
    Mr. Peyton: This has been a very difficult problem for a long time. The previous situation was very unsatisfactory and I freely admit that the new regulations give no cause for being content. I am looking at the matter urgently with the police and others interested.

    Planning Applications and Appeals
    Mr. Molloyasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will review the planning appeals procedure.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): A review is already being carried out by Mr. George Dobry, QC, assisted by an advisory group.
    Mr. Molloy: I am grateful for that reply, but is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the appeals procedure can now be seen to be neither fair nor just, because ordinary folk cannot afford to employ the expertise required in pursuing their case? Is he therefore prepared to consider whether opposing groups ought to be given financial aid to prepare and conduct their case, and to make representations to local authorities or anyone else to whom they have to appeal? Will he please consider that aspect?
    Mr. Rippon: I hope that in many cases people will be able to make written representations. There really is no need in many cases why they should be involved in any considerable cost. But I shall certainly ask Mr. Dobry to bear in mind the points which the hon. Gentleman has raised.
    Mr. Sydney Chapman: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm whether individuals or other interested organisations may make written representations to Mr. George Dobry and his team of advisers who are undertaking this inquiry? Will Members of Parliament be able to make oral representations to this team of advisers?
    Mr. Rippon: Certainly. I know that Mr. Dobry and his group will welcome representations from whatever quarter they may come. I should have thought it correct, in the first instance, to write. Then consideration might be given by Mr. Dobry and the group to the question whether or not it would be helpful to receive oral representations.
    Mr. Rowlands: Will the Secretary of State also make sure that the answer does not lie in the loosening of democratic control over planning committees and planning applications, as has been suggested? In this age of considerable concern and suspicion over planning matters, particularly over individual applications, there should still be full democratic control and we should not revert to planning officers deciding in their own right, as has been suggested.
    Mr. Rippon: I hope that all suggestions for streamlining planning procedures will be considered by Mr. Dobry. There is some anxiety that ordinary routine matters should be speeded up as soon as possible, but there is no question of taking away from the appropriate authorities their statutory rights and responsibilities.
    Mr. Sydney Chapmanasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to call in for determination by him, under Section 35 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, any planning application of a local authority or local planning authority in its own area.
    Mr. Rippon: No, Sir. This would be quite contrary to our policy, endorsed by successive Parliaments, that local planning authorities should take decisions for both public and private development proposals.
    We consider, however, and have so urged local planning authorities, that they

    485
    should ensure that their development proposals receive the same publicity as private applications and that there is the same opportunity for the public to make representations. We intend to make provision in forthcoming regulations for these proposals to be placed in the statutory register.
    Mr. Chapman: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that planning laws should not only be fair but should be seen by the public to be fair? There have been recent cases of local planning authorities giving themselves permission to put up buildings which are out of scale with their surroundings, thus wrecking the character of their neighbourhoods. Will my right hon. and learned Friend look sympathetically at this matter?
    Mr. Rippon: In the circular that we issued on 5th June we said:
    "the basic principle should be that opinion should be enabled to declare itself before any approval is given to proposals of wide concern or substantial impact on the environment; and that this should be so whether the proposal is that of a Government Department, a local authority, statutory undertakers or a private developer."
    That is important. We are going to put these matters in the regulations to ensure that the public are informed.
    Mr. George Cunningham: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that that answer does not get round the objection that it is deeply offensive to residents that a local authority should be both applicant and judge in a case? Does he agree that it would be more in accordance with natural justice that such cases should be referred to the Department, or at least that all neighbours should not only be advised—which is desirable—but required to be informed?
    Mr. Rippon: The circular which I issued in June on the publicity of planning applications not only dealt with the register but indicated the circumstances in which notices should be put up on a site where any development of substance was taking place. I am sure that is right. Earlier, hon. Gentlemen opposite were urging me not to interfere with the democratic process. It may be right in certain cases for the Secretary of State to call in applications, but I believe that something more than a local interest must be involved.

    Maplin
    Mr. Jesselasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from the Council for the Protection of Rural England on the subject of the third London airport at Maplin.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): The Council for the Protection of Rural England has expressed the view that a third London airport is needed and that Maplin is the best site for it.
    Mr. Jessel: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is highly significant that the Council for the Protection of Rural England has expressed a clear view in favour of Maplin, because without Maplin there would be an intolerable expansion of aircraft movements and aircraft noise at the existing London airports of Heathrow, Gatwick, Luton and Stansted, which would damage rural life in Surrey, East Sussex, West Sussex, Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Berkshire, Hertfordshire and North Essex, as well as life in urban areas such as my constituency?
    Mr. Griffiths: The council most certainly drew attention to the possible effects on those areas, but, in fairness, it went on to say that Maplin is the best place not because it raises no environmental problems—some are inevitable, whatever site is used—but because the use of this offshore site and the routeing of aircraft over the sea which it makes possible reduces the environmental damage to a minimum.
    Mr. Oakes: Will the Minister say whether he has received any representations from the council for the rest of England—namely, the Cabinet—in view of yesterday's announcements and a 13 per cent. bank rate?
    Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman will know that my right hon. and learned Friend has promised that a full review of this matter will be placed before the House, and I am quite sure that it will be.
    Mr. Douglasasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the progress made to evaluate the economic viability of the Maplin seaport.
    Mr. Peyton: The Port of London Authority has not put forward detailed proposals for a seaport.
    Mr. Douglas: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this matter is becoming increasingly disturbing? Does he accept that by the time this port comes into being the whole pattern of the carrying of oil to existing refineries and, perhaps, to new refineries will have altered because of the increasing estimates of yield from the North Sea? Will he undertake to get the information from the Port of London Authority and the National Ports Council and make models and other information available to hon. Members before the Government in any way firmly make up their mind on this matter?
    Mr. Peyton: No, Sir. It is for the Port of London Authority first to decide if and when it wishes to put forward proposals for a seaport. It is for the authority to reach a judgment on the general market situation as it sees it.
    Sir Bernard Braine: Is my right hon. Friend aware that whatever the viability or otherwise of this project the Maplin Development Authority has already held a Press conference before representatives of local interests have been appointed, as the Act requires? Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the need for local public opinion to be carried with this project? Will he say when these people will he appointed to the board?
    Mr. Peyton: I do not know about appointments to the board. I appreciate my hon. Friend's anxiety to see that there is plenty of local consultation, and that, I assure him, there will be. As yet, I have not received detailed or formal proposals from the Port of London Authority. I cannot say anything or move until I receive those proposals.

    House Building
    Mr. Carterasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the present level of housing construction.
    Mr. John Fraserasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the latest available house construction figures for 1973.
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the latest available figures for house building completions in the public and private sectors for 1973.
    Mr. Horamasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the rate of house building.
    Mr. Greville Jannerasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the present rate of house building.
    Mr. Channon: The latest house building figures, to the end of September, were published on 30th October. As is customary, a copy is in the Library. Since June 1970, 2,162,000 decent homes have been or are being provided.
    Mr. Carter: In a whole catalogue of Government failures, is it not a fact that housing is among the most appalling? After the collapse yesterday of the Government's economic policies, should they not start all over again and this time base their priorities upon what people basically believe to be more nearly right?
    Mr. Channon: I cannot accept what the hon. Gentleman has said, and the House will not expect me to answer. I repeat that since June 1970, 2,162,000 decent homes have been or are being provided.
    Mr. Idris Owen: Is my hon. Friend aware that the resources of the industry have been somewhat drained from the new construction programme into the phenomenal housing improvement programme, under which nearly 1 million houses have been improved, in sharp contrast to the rundown in the industry in the late 1960s?
    Mr. Channon: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend in the conclusion which he has drawn. I am sure that all parties in all quarters of the House will wish to congratulate the Government on the fact that in the first nine months of this year 342,000 improvement grants were approved, compared with 131,000 in 1970.
    Mr. Horam: Is not the way the hon. Gentleman talks about the housing figures reminiscent of the way his former boss—"do-nothing-Walker"—talked about the

    489
    trade figures yesterday, and is the position not a complete sham? Does the country not know that the housing figures are a complete disgrace and that one has to go back to 1947 in some parts of the country to get figures for council housing that are as bad? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there can be no dramatic revival, especially in view of the economic shambles that was acknowledged yesterday?
    Mr. Channon: No, Sir. I do not think that I can agree with that either. If the house building programme is in such a shambles, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be kind enough on another occasion to explain how it is that we have total starts of 260,000, when under his Government in the first nine months of 1970 the figure was 242,000, which he no doubt thought was a triumph.
    Mr. Speaker: Dame Irene Ward.
    Mr. Carter: On a point of order—
    Mr. Speaker: I deprecate points of order during Question Time.
    Mr. Carter: It is strictly relevant and germane to the Question and the answer. My Question referred to housing construction and so far the Minister has not answered that point at all.
    Mr. Speaker: The Chair has absolutely no responsibility for what the Minister says. It is not a matter of order at all.
    Dame Irene Ward: May I congratulate my hon. Friend on the success of the improvement grants, which give lots of people good houses which they might never have had, but which they jolly well deserve? I sat on the Select Committee and I should like my hon. Friend to suggest to hon. Gentlemen opposite that they read its report. They will then know what they are talking about, which they do not know now.
    Mr. Channon: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. I have read with great interest the report of the Select Committee, to which the Government will be replying in due course. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and I should have thought that it was common ground in all parts of the House—I am amazed that it is not, and there is evidently a
    490
    certain amount of sour grapes—that we all welcome the great increase in improvement grants.
    Mr. Janner: How does the hon. Gentleman expect the increase in the bank rate to affect the already deplorable level of house building, and how does he expect local authorities—such as that in Leicester—which are Labour-controlled and desperately anxious to increase house building in their areas, to cope with this additional difficult factor?
    Mr. Channon: The measures taken yesterday were intended to deal with special circumstances. It would be quite wrong to assume that interest rates will necessarily stay at their new levels for long. As for local authority construction, I am only too anxious that local authorities which need to build should do so. If Leicester needs special assistance, perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will get in touch with me.
    Mr. Janner: I shall, with pleasure.
    Mr. Sydney Chapman: Although the decline in the number of completions each year since 1968 is undoubtedly a cause for concern, does my hon. Friend recognise that it is far better to renovate wherever practicable than to demolish, because it is economically cheaper and socially better?
    Mr. Channon: I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend. There are, of course, exceptions to the rule—for example, where slum clearance programmes are necessary to deal with genuine slums—but as a general statement of principle I agree entirely with my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Freeson: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that his answer to the supplementary question asked by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Sydney Chapman) and the question itself completely miss the point? The issue is not a matter of choice between renovation and construction; it is a matter of getting both under way on a much larger scale. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that in 1970 his own Department issued statistics compiled by the statistical division indicating the need for the construction—in addition to renovations—of 400,000 dwellings a year to

    491
    meet expected needs? The figure is running at a level of fewer than 300,000 completions this year. When can we expect to move in the direction of his own Department's figure of 400,000 completions a year, in addition to the improvement programme?
    Mr. Channon: That, coming from the hon. Gentleman, is a bit much. When he was at the Ministry of Housing in 1970 the figures for housing starts were running at a lower level than they are now and the hon. Gentleman did not make those noises at that time.
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the latest available figures for council house building starts and completions so far in 1973 compared with those for the similar period of 1970; and what steps he is taking to arrest the decline.
    Mr. Channon: Public sector starts and completions in the first nine months of 1973 were 87,000 and 79,300 respectively. In the same period of 1970 the figures were 118,000 and 132,000. Total starts for the same nine-month period were 260,000 in 1973 and 242,000 in 1970; total completions were 220,000 and 256,000 respectively; and improvement grants approved were 342,000 and 131,000 respectively.
    Mr. Allaun: Is the Minister aware that so far this year council house completions are the lowest for 26 years? As the 13 per cent. bank rate will mean an even more calamitous blow to the council house building programme, will he grant subsidised loans through the Public Works Loan Board instead of reducing the subsidy by £130 million a year compared with what the figure would have been in 1976, which is the Government's policy?
    Mr. Channon: On the point about subsidy, perhaps the hon. Gentleman would be good enough to look at an answer given recently to his hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), which shows that the amount of rent subsidy has increased. It certainly has not gone down; it has practically doubled. On the question of local authorities needing to build council houses, I very much hope that they will do so. The primary responsibility in that regard lies with local authorities. Local authorities have
    492
    had certain difficulties in contractual and tendering matters. This is why the Government have taken steps in the last month to try to see whether some help can be given to local authorities in contractual and tendering matters.
    Mr. Hardy: Will the Minister now answer the question that was put to him earlier? Will he confirm that building in both public and private sectors is inadequate—so much so that this year we shall build fewer than 300,000 houses? Would he also take note that in many areas houses are being pulled down faster than they are being replaced? This means that within a short time slum clearance programmes in older areas are likely to be seriously imperilled. Will he ensure that the Government's building policy is completely changed?
    Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that buildings are being pulled down faster than they are being replaced. That is a misunderstanding, which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment cleared up in the debate on the Queen's Speech. [An HON MEMBER: "What about making a forecast?"] I would not wish to make a forecast. I do not think that Conservative or Labour Ministers have ever made forecasts about the rate of building. I have already pointed out that in the past three years over 2 million decent homes have been provided. I do not think that is too bad.
    Mr. Freeson: Will the Minister make more explicit the figures he gave in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun)? The Minister said that 87,000 dwellings had been started in the public sector. Does he agree that about 20,000 of those 87,000 houses are by new towns, Government Departments and housing associations, and that the real figure to be provided by local authorities for this year will be in the region of 67,000, the lowest figure for 20 years?
    Mr. Channon: I have already told the House that the primary responsibility on this score lies with the local authorities. When the Labour Party was in power Labour Ministers argued strongly on this point. [Interruption.] I know that the Opposition do not like the answer, but I am entitled to make my case in the House.

    493
    It is the primary responsibility of local authorities to deal with the housing problems in their areas. Local authorities get the money from housing subsidies provided largely by central Government. I advise Labour Members who complain to look at the total figure of subsidy being provided to local authorities. As for any particular point to be made about the yardstick, or other difficult and specific matters, perhaps hon. Members will get in touch with me. So far as I know, I have not received any complaints from Brent.

    Compulsorily-Purchased Properties (Valuation)
    Mr. Ashleyasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied that valuations for compulsorily-purchased properties are made on the same principles and standards for different local authorities.
    Mr. Graham Page: The same statutory rules and basic principles govern all local authority valuations whether made by district valuers or local authority valuers. I cannot answer for individual standards.
    Mr. Ashley: If individual standards are causing concern, as they are in my constituency, where a number of people are being offered grossly inadequate compensation when their properties are purchased compulsorily, ought not the right bon. Gentleman to investigate the position? Does he not agree that he cannot wash his hands of such matters, and that he should ensure consistency throughout the country?
    Mr. Page: I investigated this complaint from the hon. Gentleman's constituency when the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant) put a number of cases before my Department. When we examined those cases it was significant that in 23 out of 47 the offer made by the city estate valuer was less than the figure recommended by the district valuer. On that basis the district valuer is perhaps a little more generous than the authority purchasing the properties.

    Empty Houses (London)
    Mr. Thomas Coxasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many requests he has received from inner London borough councils requesting his approval for compulsory purchase orders
    494
    on empty houses in their boroughs; and how many he has granted.
    Mr. Rippon: Since January 1971 the inner London boroughs have submitted 15 compulsory purchase orders on individual empty dwellings required for the provision of housing accommodation. Five of those have been confirmed, one rejected, and one withdrawn, and eight are still under consideration.
    The London borough of Camden has also made an order for the 36 empty maisonettes in Centre Point, which is awaiting inquiry.
    Figures are not readily available for empty dwellings which local authorities may have included in other compulsory purchase orders, mainly to provide cleared sites.
    Mr. Cox: I am grateful for those figures, but is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that his attitude to compulsory purchase orders is seriously affecting the housing problems of many local authorities? Speculators are making fortunes out of keeping houses empty while local authorities see their homeless lists increasing week by week. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman further aware that there are an estimated 100,000 houses empty in London which could and should be housing the people of London? When will he meet local authority representatives to discuss the possibility of speeding up and clarifying compulsory purchase order procedures, because this is what is deterring local authorities from sending orders to him?
    Mr. Rippon: I have given the hon. Gentleman the figures. Under the law the initiative lies with the local authorities. The hon. Gentleman can see the action that we have taken, with a considerable number of orders being confirmed. We have made it clear that we think that local authorities should make compulsory purchase orders in cases where properties are empty and they are satisfied that the position is unlikely to be remedied in the ordinary course of events.
    Mr. Evelyn King: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central (Mr. Thomas Cox) has it all wrong, and that, although there are tens of thousands of houses empty in London, many of them

    495
    are empty because London boroughs take up to a year to grant planning consent for the erection of any building? Is my right hon. and learned Friend further aware that at present rates of interest the delay can add £1,000 or more to the cost of buildings when they are erected?
    Mr. Rippon: There are many aspects to the problem, but the initiative lies in the first instance with the borough councils concerned. We shall play our part when they play theirs.
    Mr. John Fraser: May I assure the Secretary of State that in the Lambeth area of my constituency it is easy to find 50 houses which have been empty for more than a year? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that he will act promptly on compulsory purchase orders submitted by local authorities, that he will not make borrowing for the purchase of empty houses subject to key sector lending and thereby control the acquisition of empty houses, and that he will consider the use of requisitioning powers by local authorities, because the housing situation is very desperate? We simply cannot afford to wait for compulsory purchase orders to be confirmed.
    Mr. Rippon: I have set out the general position and I hope that individual boroughs will act on their own initiative. I indicated in the White Paper the circumstances in which compulsory purchase orders would be approved and the circumstances in which local authorities ought to act, namely, where properties are empty where they should not be empty, and where the position cannot be remedied in the ordinary way. Clearly there is a limit on the amount of money that local authorities can or should spend on buying up properties in the market.

    Licensed Premises (Rents)
    Mr. Lambornasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation to enable tenants of licensed premises to seek a legal limitation of the rent increases brewers are seeking to impose.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Reginald Eyre): No, Sir; but I understand that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs is in contact with all sections
    496
    of the industry about the brewers' relationship with their tenant licensees.
    Mr. Lamborn: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that licensees in my constituency have been advised by the brewers that it is their intention to impose increases of as much as 700 per cent.? Is not this a continuation of the policy of those now controlling the brewing industry to force out licensees and to put in managers? Is it not a fact that the licensee is perhaps the least protected person of any section in commerce and industry?
    Mr. Eyre: I understand that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs has under review with the parties concerned a proposed code of practice on tenant security for the tenants of licensed houses and has called for further details of reports of very steep increases in rents. I understand that good progress has been made in my right hon. and learned Friend's talks.
    Mr. Cyril Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman understand, first, that this problem is not confined to any constituency but is common throughout the country? Will the hon. Gentleman take special note of the point made by the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Lamborn) that many of these rent increases are being used to force the landlords of public houses to become tenants? Will the hon. Gentleman also bear in mind the early day motion on the Order Paper on this matter, in the names of a number of hon. Members, including my own? Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind, too—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Enough is enough.
    Mr. Eyre: I shall ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs to note the points made by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Cyril Smith). He will appreciate that my right hon. and learned Friend is primarily responsible for those matters and it might be helpful if a Question were to be addressed to him.
    Mr. William Price: In regard to the trend to management, does the hon. Gentleman not think that any alterations in the Landlord and Tenant Act will still mean that greedy brewers will kick

    497
    out tenants when notices expire? Will he ask the Government to refer to the Director General of Fair Trading the whole question of what is going on in the licensed trade?
    Mr. Eyre: I shall ask my right hon. and learned Friend to take note of the hon. Gentleman's points, but any discussion about possible amendment of the Landlord and Tenant Act would have to await the outcome of the discussions.

    Landlords (Register)
    Mr. Allasonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will seek powers to introduce a compulsory register of landlords in England and Wales.
    Mr. Channon: My right hon. and learned Friend announced in the debate on the Queen's speech on 6th November that the Government would shortly introduce a measure which will give all residential tenants the right to know who their landlord is. This seems to be more helpful to the tenants.
    Mr. Allason: I thank my hon. Friend for answering my Question so quickly. Would not such a register help to provide some check on the activities of the less reputable landlords, and also would it not help with the problem of some even less reputable landlords who appear to be based on Dublin and places such as that?
    Mr. Channon: I would not like to comment on any specific case without notice. If my hon. Friend has a specific case in mind, perhaps he will get in touch with me. I hope that the existence of the new arrangement will be of assistance to tenants, but I must ask the House to await publication of the Bill.
    Mr. Kaufman: Does the Minister agree that what is required is a register to which landlords would be admitted only if they could guarantee that the premises they owned lived up to certain standards for the tenants who lived in them? If these standards were laid down before landlords were registered, this would help many of my constituents who live in sub-human conditions and who are neglected by landlords, who make fun of those conditions?
    Mr. Channon: In so far as it lies within my power, I am anxious to do anything to help tenants who live in unsatisfactory conditions because of unsatisfactory landlords, in that minority of cases. I do not think that the answer necessarily lies in a register, but I think it is right that all tenants should know who their landlord is, and we have had complaints about this matter.
    Mrs. Knight: Will the Minister bear in mind that not all private landlords are bad landlords? Will be undertake that the Government will take no further steps to discourage the private landlord, who is discouraged quite enough already? Will he agree that housing provided by private landlords makes a valuable contribution to the housing situation?
    Mr. Channon: I agree with my hon. Friend that that contribution is both valuable and crucial. I think I can say from memory that nearly 3 million tenanted dwellings are owned by private landlords. One of the greatest tragedies comes from the Opposition's threat to municipalise all privately-rented property, at a cost of £14,000 million. This will make the housing situation in large cities worse rather than better.
    Mr. Rose: Will the Minister also include on any register those landlords whose properties are vacant? Is he aware that such a register will be of value only if it is a pre-requisite to special grant assistance to local authorities to take over those homes where they are vacant, or where necessary in areas of housing shortage?
    Mr. Channon: I do not think that a register is necessarily the right way to proceed. I do not intend to have a register. On the question of properties left vacant, perhaps the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) will look at the answer given on this specific point by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State earlier today.

    Water Rates
    Mr. Terry Davisasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the average increase in water rates charged by the water undertakings in the past year.
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: My Department does not collect information about individual water rates but I know that water undertakers generally froze their rates for the current year, and in most cases will be running at a loss. The very few increases which have come to my notice affect only the second half of the year and, of these, I understand that the worst is roughly 7½ pence a week for the average householder.
    Mr. Davis: Is the Minister aware that the East Worcestershire Waterworks Company has just increased its domestic water rate by 48 per cent.? Is he also aware that last year it had a surplus of £278,000, after interest, before dividends and income tax? Is he further aware that wages paid by the company went up by 13 per cent., but that directors' fees were increased by 65 per cent.?
    Mr. Griffiths: It is not for me but for the company to justify these increases by reference to the price code. I understand that the company consulted the Price Commission, which was unable to say that the increases were unjustified.

    A64 (Malton Bypass)
    Sir Robin Turtonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he can now give a firm date for the start of the work on the Malton Bypass on the A64.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Keith Speed): This scheme, along with others, will be considered for a place in the future programme during the review my right hon. and learned Friend will carry out shortly. A statement on the programme will be made before the end of the year.
    Sir Robin Turton: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that the delay in making this announcement is hampering industrial development in Yorkshire and jeopardising the plans of the English Tourist Board? Will he represent to his and my right hon. Friend that this, to Yorkshire, is a more important project than the Channel Tunnel?
    Mr. Speed: My right hon. Friend has already made that point clear both to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and myself. We certainly have taken it well on board.

    Motorists (Flashing Headlight Signals)
    Mr. Ashtonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will amend the Highway Code to introduce an official system of flashing headlights between motor vehicle drivers for give-way purposes.
    Mr. Peyton: No, Sir.
    Mr. Ashton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this method of signalling is already used by about 90 per cent. of drivers? Therefore, should it not be made official in some form to avoid a lot of confusion? As it is now a widespread practice, why not authorise it?
    Mr. Peyton: I believe that it would be difficult to draw up a sensible, easily understood code that people would be willing to practise—[Interruption.]—I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his interruption, which I am glad to say I could not hear. This point has been carefully considered. On the whole, I do not believe that a welter of bureaucratic advice would be very helpful.

    Rent Rebates
    Sir H. Harrisonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many tenants in local authority housing in East Suffolk are currently receiving rebates under the Housing Finance Act 1971.
    Mr. Eyre: I do not have a total figure, but inquiries indicate that the number is in line with the national level of about one-third of all council tenants.
    Sir H. Harrison: Does my hon. Friend think that this is a final figure, even for a national average, or are there still others who will claim this amount? Does he realise that large numbers of council tenants are most grateful to this Government, who have helped the less fortunate?
    Mr. Eyre: I do not think that it is a final figure. Comprehensive information is collected annually by the Institute of Municipal Treasurers and Accountants, and my hon. and gallant Friend will be glad to hear that the institute will publish data for 1972–73 by the end of the year.
    Mr. Concannon: Will the Minister also publish figures showing the numbers of tenants who are now paying less rent than before the Act came into being?
    Mr. Eyre: To some extent those figures will be disclosed when the data can be examined, but the two large increases in the value of the rebates this year more than offset any rent increases for the lower paid. Many people are now paying less rent than before.

    National Sports Council
    Mrs. Castleasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will appoint a disabled sportsman or woman to the National Sports Council.
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Not as such; but I agree that the sports council must have knowledge and understanding of disabled people's needs.
    Mrs. Castle: Who better than the disabled can give that knowledge and understanding? Why does the Minister continually refuse to allow the disabled to have representation, as of right, on the National Sports Council when other special interests have such representation—the Armed Forces, local authorities and other governing bodies of sport? Will he appoint a representative for the disabled to the governing body on sport?
    Mr. Griffiths: I could not be more sympathetic to the general point that the National Sports Council needs to have regard for disabled sport. I have seen much of it. But essentially the council is not a representative body. It is a body of people appointed in their own right. I will give sympathetic consideration to the possibility of appointing such a person very soon.
    Dame Irene Ward: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the request made by the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) would have the support of many people in the country who believe that the more we can do to give the disabled representation the more helpful it will be in every way? I thank him for saying that he is considering the matter, and I hope that it will not be too long before he conies to a decision.
    Mr. Griffiths: I agree with my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Ashley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when he uses the term, "not as such", he fails to appreciate the special significance of the case put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), because, while no member of the National Sports Council is a representative of a specific organisation or walk of life, there is a powerful case for the disabled being recognised as such because their needs are not properly understood by the council or anyone else? Will he reconsider the matter in the light of that submission?
    Mr. Griffiths: I cannot accept that the present Chairman and members of the National Sports Council have no knowledge of disabled sport. On the contrary, they have a keen interest in it. I repeat that I shall again consider whether it is possible to find a suitable disabled person for appointment. I remind the House that there are many forms of disablement, and it may not be possible to cater for them all.
    Mr. Marten: Perhaps it is a matter of appointing not so much a disabled person but a representative of the Central Council for the Disabled to enable the disabled to have a place on the National Sports Council.

    Tyre Pressure Gauges
    Sir R. Thompsonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is aware of the low standard of accuracy of tyre pressure gauges at garages and filling stations; and if, in the interests of road safety, he will introduce regulations to remedy this.
    Mr. Peyton: Having considered the available evidence, I do not think that legislation is necessary.
    Sir R. Thompson: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider this question? Is he aware that considerable road safety implications are involved in these days of very high motoring speeds? Does he not agree that wrong tyre pressure settings can prove fatal? Is my right hon. Friend aware that in a survey last July the London borough of Croydon found that 25 per cent. of the gauges inspected were seriously defective? Does he not think that this should be put right?
    Mr. Peyton: On the whole, this is a valuable and free service to the public. My information is that in one survey 82 per cent. of the gauges showed an error of 2 lb. or less. I doubt whether legislation would prove profitable to anyone.

    Council Houses (Lavatories)
    Mrs. Knightasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will issue a circular to local authorities urging them to step up the provision of inside lavatories in all council houses or provide covered ways to outside ones.
    Mr. Eyre: No, Sir. I am confident that local authorities are already fully aware of the need for improvement to their houses lacking these and other basic amenities, and of the Exchequer assistance available for such work.
    Mrs. Knight: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the city of Birmingham many hundreds of elderly and infirm people are living in houses without these amenities, and that for these people to have to face the winter months in these conditions is excessively depressing? Is he aware that the city holds out no hope of an early rectification of this matter for elderly people?
    Mr. Eyre: There is no restriction on expenditure by local authorities on improvements of this kind, as far as the Government are concerned. Of course, the administration of a scheme of the kind that my hon. Friend describes is essentially a matter for the local authority.
    Mr. Heffer: But surely the hon. Gentleman accepts that, although in theory there is no stopping a local authority from having the money available, in practice, with all the various problems which it has in relation to building new council houses, and so on, it is an impossible situation. Is he aware that areas such as Birmingham, Liverpool and other great cities, which have a good record of building council houses, now have the problem of modernisation of council houses as well as the need to build more houses? Will he, therefore, make more money available to the great conurbations in order that they can do both these jobs? The Government are failing to provide enough money at present.
    Mr. Eyre: I cannot accept the implied criticism made by the hon. Gentleman.
    504
    So far this year, Government contributions for improvements to 94,100 local authority dwellings have been approved, compared with 77,800 for the same period last year.

    Housing (Young Married Couples)
    Sir Gilbert Longdenasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for encouraging local housing authorities to sponsor low-cost housing schemes for young married couples.
    Mr. Eyre: Circular 60/73, issued on 27th April, informed local authorities of my right hon. and learned Friend's readiness to approve schemes of building for sale designed for this purpose. I hope that more authorities will follow the example of those who have already responded to this initiative.
    Sir Gilbert Longden: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but does he recall that it is now many years since I brought the Department's attention to the scheme of the Bushey Urban District Council and only 18 months since he was talking about a conference as a result of the Newham scheme? What has happened since then?
    Mr. Eyre: Since the beginning of 1972, about 40 local authorities have received approval for schemes comprising well over 3,000 dwellings, and several other local authorities have schemes under consideration. More could be done in small towns and in villages and in large towns, and I agree with my hon. Friend that these schemes should be very helpful to young married couples and others on the housing waiting lists.
    Mr. McNamara: I appreciate the point made by the hon. Gentleman about low-cost housing schemes for young married couples, but what steps is the Department taking to meet the strain and anguish being created for so many of these young married couples who, with their wages severely restrained if they are buying a house at the existing mortgage rate, are finding it almost unbearable and will find the rate now threatened as a result of yesterday's announcements completely unbearable?
    Mr. Eyre: My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction has already made the Government's position clear in

    505
    this respect, but I stress that the helpfulness of such schemes, which would apply in so many parts of the country, makes it more and more important that local authorities should bring them forward.
    Mr. Marten: Is not part of the blockage in council house vacancies due to the fact that council house tenants cannot move out when they want to, because they cannot, on the average industrial wage, get a mortgage to buy the house they would like to buy? Would it be possible for local councils to grant a second mortgage, admittedly at some extra risk, so that a council house tenant wishing to buy his own house could be helped?
    Mr. Eyre: A scheme of the kind mentioned by my hon. Friend would certainly be considered, but the figures show that young married couples have been holding their own in the home ownership market. Again, I stress that schemes of this kind would be extremely helpful in assisting more of them to move on to home ownership.
    Mr. Freeson: The Minister said that 3,000 dwellings had been approved for building for sale in the last two years, as if that were a marked improvement. Is he aware that in the last 10–15 years the average has been 1,500 dwellings built for sale by local authorities? That indicates that the figures for this year and last year are no better than they have been over the last 20 years.
    Mr. Eyre: The hon. Gentleman must remember that he was a member of the Labour Government who did not encourage local authorities to bring forward these schemes. The difference is that the Conservative Government are prepared to give every encouragement to local authorities, and we hope that more and more local authorities will bring forward schemes for approval.

    A617 (Pleasley Bypass)
    Mr. Concannonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the progress of the Pleasley Bypass—A617.
    Mr. Speed: I understand that it is in an advanced state of preparation by the highway authority—Derbyshire County Council.
    Mr. Concannon: The scheme has been in a high state of preparation ever since I came into the House seven years ago. The road that goes through this little village is the main feeder road from Mansfield to the Ml. I hope that the Government will do a U-turn on this—there are enough U-turns in the village. The people in the village are asking how many more accidents and deaths there will be before they get a bypass.
    Mr. Speed: In that case I suggest that they ask the Derbyshire County Council, because it is a principal road within the responsibility of the local authority. We are doing all we can to help.

  QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
  Mr. Sheldon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There are several Questions on the Order Paper which relate to the Manchester Picc-Vic scheme. This is a matter of extreme importance to all in the Greater Manchester area. Have you received any representations that those Questions should be answered separately?
  Mr. Speaker: No, I have not.

AMBULANCE SERVICES (DURHAM)
Mr. Mark Hughes(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the difficulties facing the emergency ambulance service in County Durham during the current industrial dispute.
The Secretary of State for Social Services (Sir Keith Joseph): The ambulance service is a local health service responsibility. I understand that ambulance men in County Durham withdrew all services at 8 a.m. last Monday—including emergency services. The Durham County Council is maintaining an emergency service with the help of volunteers.
Mr. Hughes: May I ask the Secretary of State, first, whether his Department undertakes to give all necessary assistance to Durham County Council in the preservation of an effective emergency ambulance service at this time, secondly, whether he will give such assistance to Mr. Don Robson, the chairman of the

507
council, in mediating between the ambulance men and their employer, and, thirdly, whether he will confirm that the ability of the county council to make an offer in line with the McCarthy Working Party recommendations on the structure, pay and conditions of the ambulance service has been vetoed by him?
Sir K. Joseph: I understand that the county council is able to tackle all emergency calls effectively. More than 600 offers of help have been received, and I am advised that this number is increasing. As for mediating, the hon. hon. Gentleman will know that the negotiations are for the National Joint Council. The McCarthy proposals, of which I am thoroughly aware, have been considered by me on an approach by both sides of the employment, and I have reluctantly had to say that they did not appear to conform to stage 3.
Dame Irene Ward: While I agree with mediation because people should have good pay, may I ask my right hon. Friend please to thank the volunteers for the work they have done to keep the ambulance service running in the interests of the Durham community?
Sir K. Joseph: Yes, I admire and respect the offer by the volunteers and the service they are carrying out for the public.
Dr. Summerskill: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there is a serious possibility that the present campaign of partial strikes and working to rule in certain parts of the country will be found by the end of next week to be more widespread? Does he realise that stage 3 of the incomes policy is totally unacceptable to, and resented by, public employees, of whom the ambulance men form a part, as they are among the lowest paid in the community?
Sir K. Joseph: I understand that there are strong feelings. I also understand that the action of the men in Durham and in some other places is unofficial and that their trade union has advised them not to take industrial action but to await a national delegate conference later this month.
It is true that the basic pay is relatively low but the average earnings cannot be described as low.
An Hon. Member: Including overtime?
Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Gentleman speaks as if it were a mystery—of course including overtime. The average earnings are not to be described as low—
Mr. William Hamilton: For how many hours?
Sir K. Joseph: For 48 hours. The average earnings for those on the lowest basic pay are £36 a week for 48 hours. For the middle grade the average earnings, I understand, are £39·63p for a 48-hour week.
I wish that the hon. Lady had told the House whether she and her right hon. Friends are in favour of the unofficial action that is being taken.
Mr. William Hamilton: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm or deny that many of these men are working 60 hours and more a week to get the money he is talking about?
Sir K. Joseph: I cannot confirm or deny because I am not aware of that. I have been informed that for 48 hours work the earnings are as I have said, but, as the hon. Gentleman puts me on warning, I will find out.
Mr. Hamilton: The right hon. Gentleman could have found out before he came here.
Mr. John Silkin: While the Secretary of State is busy finding out that, will he also find out that ambulance workers have to remain on stand-by call over weekends for a sum which I believe is under 20s?
Sir K. Joseph: These arrangements have been going on for some time. We cannot put the world completely to rights in a moment. It is in the country's interests that stage 3 should be carried out. These actions are unofficial and against union advice. I ask again whether the Opposition Front Bench is in favour of them.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 30th NOVEMBER
Members successful in the Ballot were:

Mr. David Knox.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  CONSUMER CREDIT BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.38 p.m.
  The Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill provides for radical reform of the whole law on consumer credit. It will establish a new framework for the conduct of consumer credit business and afford substantially increased protection for the consumer. It is the outcome of careful study by the Government of the report of the Committee on Consumer Credit, of which the late Lord Crowther was Chairman, and of detailed consultations with the many interests which will be affected by it.
  I am sure that the House would wish me to take this opportunity of expressing its appreciation of the achievement of the late Lord Crowther and his colleagues in producing such a valuable report. The best tribute a Government can pay to a committee is to implement its recommendations. We all wish that Lord Crowther had lived to see this Bill and to take part in the consideration of it.
  The House will be aware from the White Paper which we published recently that the Bill gives practical effect to the committee's recommendations in the consumer credit field proper. The places where we have departed from what was recommended by the committee—in the consumer credit field—are few, and there will, of course, be opportunity to discuss these in later stages of our consideration of the Bill. It may be helpful if I stress now that there are no significant omissions or differences between the outline of proposals summarised in the White Paper and the detailed provisions contained in this Bill.
  The concept underlying the Bill is the provision of a basic framework of regulation to cover all types of credit transaction, with, in addition, specific provisions relating to particular forms of transaction when these are clearly needed.
  For the consumer the same basic protection is needed to redress the differences
  510
  in bargaining strength and background knowledge between the credit grantor and his customer, whatever the form of the contract. The Bill provides that basic protection. No longer shall we have the situation where there is a cooling-off period if the doorstep salesman offers an HP contract but none if he offers a personal loan secured by a second mortgage. No longer will the courts be able to re-open an extortionate agreement only if it is made with a registered moneylender and be quite unable to look at an identical agreement made by an institution that has exemption from the Moneylenders Acts.
  At the same time, new protection will be provided for the consumer. In particular, there will be protection against concealment of the cost of credit. Truth in lending, with full disclosure of the cost of credit, is one of the keynotes of this Bill.
  For the credit industry it means creating a situation in which fair and open competition can thrive. At present one set of rules applies to pawnbrokers, another to moneylenders. Banks, including those recognised under Section 123 of the Companies Act 1967, enjoy effective exemption from all regulation. In future, all credit grantors will be subject to the same licensing system and the same basic regulation. Within this framework they will be able to compete on equal terms for business.
  The Bill also recognises that hiring arrangements and here I mean hiring as distinct from hire purchase—are today often an alternative to buying on credit. Accordingly, the Bill provides for parallel regulation of the hiring industry. Likewise it will cover, so far as appropriate, brokers of credit, debt counsellors, debt collectors, debt adjustors and credit reference agencies.
  In short, the Bill sweeps away outmoded legislation and replaces it by a framework which is simpler in its fundamentals, gives the consumer reasonable protection across the board and makes possible fair competition between different providers of credit. The Bill makes a worthwhile contribution to the rationalisation of the statute book. It repeals seven United Kingdom Acts in their entirety and parts of many others. In total, 232 sections and 22 schedules are

  511
  swept away. As will be evident from the Bill, they are replaced by something which is substantially less in scale, length and complexity.
  One of the difficulties of legislation in this field in the past has been that it failed to allow for the development of new types of business. We must expect over the next 20 years to witness at least as great changes in the credit industry as we have seen in the last 20 years. We do not want to find ourselves once again in the position where our law has failed to keep pace with commercial developments because of its rigidity. For this reason, the definitions in the Bill are drawn as widely as they can reasonably be and provision is made for regulations to be made under the statute covering many important aspects of the business.
  I should like to mention in passing the widely held and quite false view that delegated legislation is a twentieth century heresy and departure from the proper standards as maintained in the nineteenth. To quote from the invaluable textbook "Practical Legislation" published in 1878 and written by Lord Thring, who was founder of the office of the Parliamentary Counsel and the grandfather of them all, so to speak,
  "Procedure and matters of detail … should … be left to be prescribed by a court or department of the Government.… The adoption of a system of confining the attention of Parliament to material provisions only, and leaving details to be settled departmentally, is probably the only mode in which Parliamentary Government can, as respects its legislative functions, be satisfactorily carried out."
  It is in perfect accord with that sentiment that we have drawn this Bill. The framework, structure, pattern and purpose of control are set out in it and will no doubt be subject to the discussion which they should properly receive in the House. But there is no intention that lack of legislative time should any longer be a constraint on making proper provision for regulating new types of business. Neither—this is equally important—will it lead to loss of protection for the consumer as a result of new developments.
  With that general introduction, I turn to the specific provisions of the Bill and set them out part by part.
  512
  Part I of the Bill provides for the appointment of a Consumer Credit Commissioner by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He will, as the Crowther Committee recommended, have an independent status and be directly responsible for carrying out the duties imposed on him by the Bill. He will have his own staff.
  I would like to emphasise particularly three of his duties. First, under Clause 2, he will be responsible for administering the proposed licensing system and for adjudicating cases arising under it. Second, by the same clause, he will be required to keep under review developments in the credit field and in the operation of the statute so as to advise the Government of any changes which may become necessary in the orders and regulations made under it or, perhaps later, in the statute itself. Third, by Clause 5, he will be able to make information and advice available to the public on credit matters generally.
  Part II sets out the scope of the Bill and closely defines particular types of transaction for the purposes of the Bill. I will not discuss these definitions here, but no doubt they will be scrutinised carefully when the Bill is being examined in Committee.
  Broadly speaking, the Bill covers credit transactions with individuals—that is, with persons and non-corporate bodies. It covers transactions where the amount borrowed on any one occasion does not, or need not, exceed £5,000. It covers hire agreements where the total rent payable may be £5,000 or less.
  There are certain exemptions to these general provisions provided in Clause 15. All house purchase agreements entered into by local authorities, building societies and some other institutions will be exempt. That clause also gives power to exempt certain kinds of agreement, such as those made at a very low percentage rate of charge. It is our intention to use that power to exempt credit connected with the sale of goods and services which is repayable in fewer than three instalments. We have in mind under that heading trade conducted on a monthly account or broadly similar basis which we do not want to complicate.
  Part III is concerned with the licensing of credit grantors and those who provide

  513
  goods on hire. The licensing of credit brokers and other categories is dealt with in Part X of the Bill, to which I shall refer later. The basic requirement is that all those carrying on the business covered by the Bill will need a licence. The only exception to this, provided by Clause 20, is that licences will not be required by local authorities or bodies corporate empowered by a public general Act of Parliament to carry on business.
  In Clause 21 provision is made for two different types of licence—personal licences issued on application to named persons, and group licences. The latter will cover broad categories of business. A group licence might, for example, cover all practising solicitors or all retailers who obtain no commission for introducing customers to credit grantors. The commissioner will be able to issue group licences where he concludes that this is in the public interest.
  But the basic criterion provided in Clause 24 for the issue of a licence is that the applicant should be able to satisfy the commissioner that he is a fit person to engage in the business to be covered by the licence. The commissioner will have to take account of any history of fraud, any contravention of a provision of this or other consumer protection legislation, and any discrimination on the grounds of sex, colour, race or origin.
  If after preliminary consideration the commissioner thinks that he ought to turn an application down, he will have to tell this to the applicant, giving his reasons. The applicant will then have the right to make written and, if he wishes, oral representations at a hearing to be held by the commissioner or someone appointed by him. The commissioner will then give his decision. If the applicant believes that the commissioner has reached a conclusion not supported by the evidence, he may appeal on any point of law to the High Court. That is the effect of Clause 4, which brings the adjudicating functions of the commissioner under the supervision of the Council on Tribunals. A similar procedure giving the licensee the same rights applies where the commissioner considers it necessary to refuse to renew or to suspend or revoke a licence.
  I realise that some hon. Members may wonder about the introduction of a new licensing system. To them I would say
  514
  two things. First, licensing in this area is not new. For many years we have had licensing of moneylenders and pawnbrokers. Secondly, this is an area in which new ways of business and new abuses can develop very quickly.
  Indeed there are many hon. Members who have drawn the attention of my hon. Friends and myself recently to particular abuses affecting their own constituents. Licensing will curb those abuses; it is the corollary of competitive freedom for the credit industry, and all those in the industry who wish to give their customers a fair deal will, I believe, welcome these provisions.
  Part IV will regulate advertising and canvassing. I should like to emphasise that some types of business which are excluded from the generality of the provisions of the Bill will be subject to the requirements of this part. It will, for example, cover loans of more than £5,000 secured on the borrower's home. Clause 42 provides for the main advertising rules to be laid down in regulations, and the first appendix to our recent White Paper sets out in detail what we have in mind here.
  Putting it briefly, the advertiser will either have to confine himself to a general statement of the business he offers or else give reasonably full information about what he has on offer. He will not be able to blazon forth one favourable element in the offer and leave unmentioned others which are less favourable. If he gives any specific information about offers he will, for example, have to disclose the cost of the credit in both cash and percentage per annum terms.
  The disclosure requirements and the prohibition in Clause 44 of false or misleading advertisements are the first element in the "truth in lending" provisions.
  Clause 46 prohibits telephone canvassing. The House will remember that the White Paper invited comment on this proposal in a paragraph that was an island of green in a paper that was otherwise white. So far, comment has been very limited, but on balance, clearly in favour of this prohibition, which now finds itself in the clause. This again is a matter which will no doubt be considered further at a later stage.

  515
  Clause 46 also makes it an offence to canvass in person straight money loans as distinct from loans connected to the purchase of goods and services. In practice this will cover mainly door-to-door canvassing. There is a similar restriction in the Moneylenders Acts which are to be repealed, and we think it right to extend it to all those offering straight cash loans. Hon. Members will note that Clause 47 prohibits the sending of circulars offering credit or hire facilities to minors, and Clause 48 prohibits the mass mailing of credit cards, which was a matter of some concern to a number of hon. Members recently.
  Part V gives various protections to the consumer at the time when he negotiates an agreement.
  Clause 54 provides him with a cooling-off period in every case where he is offered a loan secured on land, except where the loan is to be used to purchase that land. In common language, that is a cooling-off period wherever a second mortgage deal is offered. Clause 63 and those which follow it similarly provide a cooling-off period for other types of credit transaction, but only if signed away from trade premises after the visit of a salesman. That means that the cooling-off provision will not apply, for example, to mail order business or to the usual credit transactions conducted in retail establishments. Similarly, there will be no cooling-off period for any unsecured credit purchase of goods involving a loan of less than £30.
  Clauses 57 and 58 provide for regulations to be made concerning the form and content of agreements and secondary documents. That is the other leg of our "truth in lending" proposals. We have set out in the second appendix of the White Paper the details of what we have in mind. Broadly, our proposals will follow the present requirements of regulations made under the Hire-Purchase Act 1965.
  Under Clause 70 the commissioner will be able to exempt, subject to such conditions as he thinks fit, from the requirements of this part of the Bill the normal overdraft facilities offered by banks as part of their service to customers having current accounts. This provision is necessary in order that the requirements of the
  516
  Bill should not make impossible the present facilities offered by banks to their customers.
  Part VI deals with a number of matters which can arise during the currency of an agreement.
  Clause 71 provides that where goods or services are supplied on credit under arrangements made between the supplier and the credit grantor, the latter should be jointly liable with the supplier for any misrepresentations or breach of the contract by the supplier. Many hon. Members will be aware of cases where a supplier has arranged with a financier that the financier should provide credit and the supplier has traded on the financier's good name, has supplied defective goods or no goods at all, and then has disappeared leaving the consumer with a fully enforceable debt to the financier. This provision will encourage financiers to consider the bona fides of those with whom they deal, those whom they finance. They will know that if the consumer is let down or swindled their profit on the deal, and perhaps more than that, will be at risk. This is an important recognition of the association between the financier and the trader whom he helps to finance.
  Mr. Peter Rost: Does that apply where a financier finances a broker who subsequently absconds with the money instead of passing it on to the borrower?
  Sir G. Howe: That is not the provision to which I am referring. This is on a slightly different ground. There are provisions to which I shall come later dealing with the position of brokers in certain circumstances. I am dealing with what is known in the jargon as the connected lender liability—the connection between financier and trader. The House will recollect that creditor's liability of this type already exists in the hire-purchase field in certain circumstances. The Bill will extend it to almost all other types of transaction where creditor and supplier are effectively engaged in a joint business transaction. There will be only two exceptions to it. The first will be when the cash price of the goods concerned is less than £30. The second is where the cash price of the goods is more than £10,000; that is, more than twice the limit of agreements regulated under the Bill.

  517
  Part VII of the Bill deals with problems arising on default of the debtor or when the agreement is to be terminated.
  Clauses 83 to 85 regulate the repossession of goods under hire-purchase agreements, effectively repeating and simplifying the provisions of the Hire-Purchase Act 1965. Once one-third of the total price has been paid, the goods cannot be repossessed without a court order. If they are repossessed in contravention of this provision, the agreement lapses and the debtor will be entitled to recover all sums already paid under the agreement.
  Clauses 87 to 91 provide the debtor with a right to complete payments ahead of time and, if he does so, to be allowed a clearly specified rebate on the charges for which he is liable under the agreement. The calculation of the rebate must, as a minimum, be made according to a formula to be set out in regulations. We have set out our detailed proposals for this formula in the third appendix to our White Paper. Many reputable finance houses already give their customers rebates of about the level which we now contemplate. But, on the other hand, we are aware of instances of consumers being asked to pay charges in full even when seeking to repay debts early. This may be particularly onerous when a long-term debt secured by a mortgage has to be rapidly repaid because the individual needs to move house.
  Clauses 92 and 93 continue the right under the Hire-Purchase Acts for the debtor to terminate his agreement and return the goods without further charge if he has already paid half or more of the cost of the goods.
  I should draw particular attention to Clause 94. This provides the consumer with a right to terminate hire agreements. Unfortunately, something has gone awry with the wording of the clause in the Bill at present. I am glad to see so many alert heads on the Opposition side of the House nodding assent to that proposition. I admire the tenacity with which they have ploughed through to the line where the meaning runs off the end of the page. We shall propose an amendment in Committee to bring it into line with the White Paper, which provides that this right should be effective
  518
  only after the agreement has run for 18 months.
  I believe that, even with this correction, the clause may cause difficulty for some renters for business use. We shall be ready to consider possible further amendment to it. Nevertheless, there is need here for protection, not only of the consumer renting consumer goods for his personal use but of the small businessman.
  Part VIII of the Bill deals with the giving and taking of security for loans regulated by the Bill. A third person providing the security will receive the same type of protection as the debtor and will not have more onerous terms imposed on him following default of the debtor than are applicable to the debtor under the main agreement.
  Clauses 103 to 111 make provisions for pawnbroking business to replace provisions of the Pawnbrokers Acts, which are being repealed in their entirety. A number of detailed requirements of those Acts which no longer appear appropriate or which have been effectively superseded by more recent legislation are omitted. No longer, for example, will it be an offence for a pawnbroker to carry on his business on a day appointed for public fast, humiliation or thanksgiving, or to fail to post appropriate notices on church doors.
  Of more substance, there are three main changes. First, there will be no statutory control over pawnbrokers' charges, in line with the general philosophy of the Bill. Secondly, the Bill provides that all pledges will be redeemable for at least six months. Thirdly, it provides that a pledge given for any loan of up to £15 will become the property of the pawnee if not redeemed. The dividing line of £2 for this purpose in the old legislation is clearly not realistic today in the light of the decades that have passed since it originally appeared.
  Clause 115 is very short, but it provides a most important protection. Where a consumer has entered in a second mortgage agreement it will not be possible to turn him out of his house following default except on court order. In this respect I would also draw attention to the powers of the court set out in Clause 123. Under that clause, where the court considers it just to do so it may make an

  519
  instalment order in terms which it considers just rather than enforce the security immediately.
  Part IX is concerned with judicial control generally, and I would draw the attention of the House at this stage, to two main points. The court is given a wide degree of discretion in many issues, and a general power to reopen extortionate agreements. At present the court's powers in respect of extortionate agreements are limited, perhaps more than many people appreciate. The court can reopen only extortionate agreements made by registered moneylenders, and even in those cases where the rate of interest in the agreement is less than 48 per cent. per annum the onus is on the debtor to prove that that rate of interest is extortionate. This is a heavy burden on the debtor. In future the court will be able to reopen any agreement made with an individual or non-corporate body. I stress the word "any".
  This power will apply to agreements which otherwise are not regulated by the Bill—such as agreements for more than £5,000 or those where the creditor's business is not regulated by the Bill, such as building societies or agreements made by private individuals not in the business of making loans. Moreover, wherever in a court action it is alleged that the rate of charge—not just the rate of interest—is extortionate, the onus of proving that it is not so will always rest upon the creditor. Thus the old 48 per cent. dividing line goes, but it goes in order that the consumer may get, as he will get, better protection. Clause 120 provides the court with considerations to take into account in determining whether any agreement is extortionate.
  Part X of the Bill is relatively short, but very important. It brings within the appropriate sections of the Bill ancillary credit businesses; that is, credit broking business, including that of retailers arranging credit for their customers, debt-adjusting, debt-counselling, debt collecting and the operation of credit reference agencies.
  Special provision is made by Clauses 133 to 136 for protecting the individual against inaccurate information held about him by a credit reference agency, as recommended by the Younger Committee. He will be able to demand a
  520
  copy of all information held about him. If he thinks it wrong he can require its removal from the record, its amendment or its supplementation by a notice of correction. If he cannot reach agreement with the agency the matter can be referred to the Consumer Credit Commissioner for adjudication, and he may order the agency to amend its records. That is an important and significant addition to the recommendations of the Crowther Committee, but one that we think it right to include in the Bill at this stage.
  Part XI of the Bill makes the Consumer Credit Commissioner and local weights and measures authorities responsible jointly for enforcing the Bill. The provisions are closely modelled on those contained in the Fair Trading Act passed by Parliament earlier this year. It is the intention that the weights and measures authorities should bear the principal burden of enforcing the Bill, and that the commissioner should deal with cases where it appears more appropriate that investigation should be undertaken centrally or where he has some particular reason for intervening.
  In conclusion, I remind the House that in today's society credit has grown to play a much bigger part than it has done in the past. It is the means whereby the opportunity of purchasing particular goods and services has become available to a large section of our society. It is, therefore, right that the provision of consumer credit should receive close attention from this House, as it will during the consideration of the Bill.
  The Bill will provide a just and equitable framework within which the consumer can manage his affairs and within which those who provide credit facilities can develop their business in competition with each other and to the benefit of the consumer. This is, in other words, a Bill which deals sensibly and equitably both with the provider of a service and with the consumer of that service. Upon that basis, I commend the Bill to the House.
  4.9 p.m.
  Mr. Alan Williams: The Bill, like the Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act which we discussed earlier this year, is a bipartisan Bill. It is not a Bill which will provide the basis for great political dispute. Were it not for yesterday's debate on pornography, I

  521
  think we could describe the Bill as a jointly conceived Bill. The committee was set up in 1968 by the Labour Government. It reported in 1971, and the present Government are correct in saying that, to a large extent, they are implementing the proposals arising from the consumer protection element of the report.
  I join the right hon. and learned Gentleman in congratulating the members of the committee, and the late Lord Crowther, on the exhaustive work that they undertook in preparing the report. It is an excellent report and, in view of the time taken on it, a report on which it would be difficult to improve.
  In the Fair Trading Bill I commented adversely on its complex draftsmanship. It was recognised universally as a monster of a Bill to follow; anyone who did not believe so would have been welcome to join us in our somewhat protracted Committee stages to discover just how many confusions could arise, legitimately, on both sides of the Committee. In contrast the Bill before us is readable, and I congratulate the parliamentary draftsmen on a move which I am sure most hon. Members will welcome. The lawyers in the House tend to have a certain monopolistic advantage in debate in that they understand the complexities of these wretched Bills, while the rest of us do not. This Bill, however, goes some way towards putting back-bench Members on an equal footing. We welcome the improvement in drafting.
  The Opposition want to see Crowther implemented. We have made that clear at Question Time and in debate. I regret, that, while that report took understandably, two and a half years to prepare, it should have taken the Government a further two and a half years to introduce the Bill, and, as it contains 169 clauses, it is reasonable to predict that it will be at least a full three years, with all good will of both sides in getting through the Committee stage, between the production of the report and Royal Assent for the Bill itself.
  What is more, that may not be the end of the delay. How long after the Bill is enacted will it be before we have the regulations based upon it and, more important, how long will it be before those regulations are implemented?
  522
  How soon can industry make the changes which are required? I have a document here from the Finance Houses Association, which welcomes the Bill and, I am sure, will co-operate in its implementation. The document says:
  "The Association believes that the Consumer Credit Act will impose upon consumer finance organisations a once-for-all work-load of preparation of an order not previously suffered by any United Kingdom commerce-oriented industry because of the inter-reaction of two factors: 1. the extreme complexity of the legislative provisions themselves and, 2. the size and complexity of the computer-based administrative machinery upon which the industry has become almost totally dependent in recent years."
  The association makes a valid point. We should not underestimate the administrative difficulties that will face the industry.
  It is no good looking to the 1964 Act and the time that that took to implement. That is no guide, because the industry today is twice as large as it was then. There is a wider range of credit terms in existence. In 1964 to 1965 most of the transactions involved hire purchase. Today in the major houses we have between 20 and 100 different forms of agreement available. In terms of the range of credit we are dealing with a different industry from that of 1964. Furthermore, the Bill is far more extensive in scope—I welcome that—than was the 1964 Act.
  In 1965 there was virtually no computerisation in the industry. Today it is virtually completely computerised. One of the problems of computerisation is that, while it eases the day-to-day work of an industry, the changeover from one system to another may be more difficult than it was in the days before computerisation.
  After meeting representatives of the Finance Houses Association, I asked them to estimate for me the period which they thought would be needed for them to implement the regulations. They sent me a document in response to my questions, and I take it that the points made therein have been put to the Department also. If not, I shall gladly make the document available to the Department.
  The finance houses argue that there will have to be the redesigning of computer systems and then a large programming change for the computers, the reason being that the computer system at present in

  523
  use is not designed to identify various classes of transaction which will be covered by the Bill. For example, the present programme will not identify hire-purchase cases up to £5,000, and it will not identify loan cases, hiring cases or restricted use cases. Nor are debtor-creditor-supplier agreements identifiable, and even the total charge for credit is not available under the present programme.
  We must not underestimate the magnitude of the problem which will face the suppliers of credit with whom we are here concerned. They have on their books at present 3½ million separate agreements, and they are adding to these at the rate of 7,000 a day. These 7,000 a day, moreover, as I have said, may take any one of as many as 100 different forms of credit transaction.
  What, then, does the industry ask for? In its submission it says:
  "Because of the interdependence of so many of the detailed provisions of the new Act and its supplementary regulations, it will be greatly to the benefit of financial institutions if the regulations can be published as soon as possible after the Bill is enacted."
  As an aside, I assume that that is what the Government intend to do. The submission goes on:
  "But, at least, one full year should then be allowed for preparation before the main provisions of the Act come into force."
  I admit that it came as a surprise to me to have it suggested that the time lag may have to be as long as 12 months between the issuing of regulations and their full implementation. It will mean that implementation will come four years after Crowther reported—four years' delay largely because the Government delayed in order to hold this Bill back as a piece of election year window-dressing. We shall want to hear about that when the Minister winds up.
  In passing, may I say that I regret that the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery), is confined to a sedentary and silent rôle today, though I notice that he kept himself awake earlier by interspersing the quiet "Hear, hear" at intervals of about four minutes 20 seconds during his right hon. and learned Friend's speech. I am sorry that he has not extended the same courtesy to me, but I am sure that we shall hear rather more from the hon. Gentleman in Committee.
  524
  Appropriately enough, the Minister for Aerospace and Shipping is to wind up today's debate, and we expect to hear from him when the regulations will be introduced and when it is envisaged that full implementation will take place. Moreover, if there is to be a year's delay between the enactment of the Bill and its implementation, we want to know what will happen to the 7,000 new agreements a day which will be entered into during these 12 months. Will they have protection under the law, or will they operate on an out-of-date legal basis? Also, what about the 3½ million existing contracts? We assume that the Government intend to do something for the people here concerned—or do they say that nothing will be done to help them? Have they even discussed this question with the industry to establish whether any practical assistance can be given?
  We want Crowther in force at the earliest practicable date. The Opposition pledge that they will do everything reasonable to ease the passage of this 169-clause Bill through Committee. But we want to know when the new law will start to bite.
  The need for the Bill is clear. I should be surprised to hear anyone suggest today that it is not necessary. There are, as I have said, so many different forms of credit and, as is implicit in the Bill itself, so many concealed charges that one virtually needs to be a chartered accountant to make a meaningful choice between the various forms offered.
  Even on credit cards, for example, I was surprised to see the details worked out by the Consumers Association showing that if one had a credit card offering 1½ per cent. interest per month on the outstanding balance, then, depending on the way that 1½ per cent. was applied, one could pay as much as five times more under one credit card system than under the other, although nominally they appear to be charging the same. I am sure that many of those who are now undertaking their Christmas purchases through Access will be disturbed to hear that they are probably paying more than they would pay if they were making their purchases through Barclaycard, although both nominally charge the same interest rate.
  While abuses are to be found in all levels of the industry, the important consideration here is that those who pay most

  525
  and those who are exploited most harshly are those who are least able to protect themselves and most need our protection. The Daily Mirror and the Consumers Association undertook an investigation of moneylenders, and the results were published on 19th June this year. On the basis of computations worked out according to the prescriptions of the Moneylenders Act 1927, the investigation showed a range of interest between 48 per cent. and 325 per cent. I am sure that the House will regard those figures as unacceptable. However, using the more up-to-date formula which would apply under the Bill and assessing the true rate of interest on that basis, one finds that the range is not between 48 per cent. and 325 per cent.—all of which rates were illegal under the Moneylenders Act anyhow—but between 57 per cent. and an incredible 1,706 per cent.
  One recognises that these figures have to be treated with a certain reserve because of loan charges and so forth on very short-term loans. I am not trying melodramatically to put matters out of proportion. What I am trying to demonstrate, however, is the degree of exploitation which may take place, and, unfortunately, as we know, that exploitation is often to be found in the activities of those in the money industry who cater for people with the lowest incomes and the least ability to defend themselves.
  Similarly, the Consumers Association, which has been commendably active in these matters, undertook a survey with BBC local radio stations in Derby, Nottingham and Stoke. This survey found that some finance houses were charging a true rate of interest of 111 per cent., and that over half the moneylenders were charging more than 48 per cent.; that is, more than the permitted limit under the Moneylenders Act.
  All too often, the terms are made to sound attractive, and the more attractive they sound the more expensive they may in fact be. For example, 1p in the £ per month may not sound much, but it works out at interest at 22·3 per cent. Moreover, the Consumers Association and the BBC local radio stations found clearly that in all cases it was the poor who paid most.
  The need for action, therefore, is not in dispute. The industry is playing an increasingly important part in the lives
  526
  of individuals, and no one denies its importance within the national economy. I was surprised yesterday to hear the broadcast of an interview with the Chancellor of the Exchequer—repeated several times on radio and television—in which the right hon. Gentleman argued, explaining the day's events, that there was too much credit, that too much credit is inflationary, and that most people accept that.
  I assume that the Government have found a new scapegoat for inflation. In 1970–71 it was the Labour Party. In 1971–72 it was the trade unions. In 1973 it is world prices. For 1973–74, apparently, it is to be the credit industry. It never seems to be the Government's fault.
  We all know that too much credit is inflationary, but it was the Chancellor of the Exchequer, after all, who aimed to buy a boom on tick. He even printed money—if the House will forgive the marital parallel today—like confetti. He aimed to get consumer growth while he held down incomes, and to make it happen on credit. To ensure that it happened with credit he even gave income tax relief on the interest paid on credit to encourage people to indulge more frivolously and extensively in credit. It is a little ungracious of the Government to attack the industry which gave them what they wanted—their bubble boom.
  The Government's activities and policies during the last two years have made it more difficult for the industry to be fair to the consumer, because constantly varying rates of interest, soaring to a 13 per cent. lending rate, have made it more difficult for the industry to determine what is a fair and reasonable long-term lending rate. The rate which today may be reasonable in the light of prevailing rates of interest might in two years' time, when there is a Labour Government, appear to the consumer to be unduly harsh. The finance houses are finding it difficult to know where the rate of interest should be pitched.
  We want to help the Bill through the Committee stage. I am sure that hon. Members from both sides who are appointed to the Committee will want to improve the Bill, if possible. I noticed that the Minister, in his succinct and clear

  527
  introduction, expressed an unusual ministerial enthusiam that there should be detailed scrutiny of the Bill in Committee. I deduce that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has no intention of being there himself. However, while we have his attention and services it may be helpful if certain points could be clarified today. Able as he no doubt is, the Minister for Aerospace and Shipping does not have quite the same experience of immersion in consumer affairs as does the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
  We made clear in Committee on the Fair Trading Bill that we felt that the Consumer Credit Commissioner need not necessarily be separated in office from the Director-General of Fair Trading. I do not see why the two should be treated as separate, for consumer credit is as much a matter of fair trading as are monopolies or restrictive practices. There is bound to be overlapping and inter-relationship. These points can be discussed in more detail in Committee. The Minister has not indicated why he feels that this separation is necessary, but I hope that the Minister who winds up the debate will be able to explain.
  We welcome the decision to use the weights and measures inspectors, the trading standards officers, to implement the Bill. There must be local contact, local information and local initiative. It is a correct decision, but there is a point on which I am not yet satisfied. The Minister will appreciate the difficulties if he bears in mind the imposition of the extra work load at the time of the introduction of VAT, when the weights and measures inspectorate had to neglect other work in the months of special scrutiny of VAT.
  I am not satisfied that the weights and measures inspectorate has enough staff to carry the large extra work load which the Bill will create. I would like an assurance that extra specialised training will be given to weights and measures inspectors. I am sure that as a group of officials they will do all in their power to implement the Bill, but they must be given the necessary numbers and the necessary training. How do the Government intend to provide the numbers and training?
  I also wish to have clarification of what is now considered to be "an extortionate
  528
  rate of interest." In Clause 120 "extortionate" is defined as
  "grossly exorbitant".
  Now we need a definition of "grossly exorbitant".
  The guidelines in Clause 120 (2) offer little help, certainly to the individual. The individual is reluctant to go to court, even when he thinks he has a case, and when there are no clear guidelines he will be more reluctant to take to court a case of exorbitant or extortionate interest.
  Nor are the guidelines of much help to the court or the industry. Most of the people operating in the industry will want to operate fairly and within the law. Yet we are told in the Bill that in deciding what is extortionate the court will take account of a person's age, experience, business capacity and the state of health and the financial pressure he was under, not necessarily from those giving the loan at the time.
  How are the hire-purchase companies and finance houses to know what conforms to those guidelines? Will there be a greater loss of privacy for the individual? Will there have to be more prying into private affairs, even for quite small loans, because the companies will want to be sure that they are within those vague guidelines? As there is no ceiling, since the Act removes the existing ceiling of 48 per cent.—I am not saying that that is a reasonable rate of interest—is it conceivable that there could be rates of interest above the Moneylenders Act ceiling of 48 per cent.?
  I do not underestimate the difficulties of presentation, even for a Government, in setting a specific rate of interest. I am sure that many Conservative Members regret the enthusiasm with which they berated 8½ per cent. as an extortionate rate of mortgage interest under a Labour Government. The Prime Minister now offers that same 8½ per cent. as the concessionary rate for young marrieds. That is his "gift". It is not quite a gift, because he does not spend a penny towards it. All that happens is that any interest that the couple do not pay in the early years they pay in the later years, in addition to the then due interest.
  Therefore, I understand the Government's being rather sensitive about rates of interest and what constitutes a fair or unfair rate. But I have deep misgivings

  529
  about their decision to depart from the Crowther recommendation that there should be a ceiling. I appreciate that it can be difficult to set a ceiling that is fair for both secure and unsecured loans, for example. What is fair for an unsecured loan might be extortionate for a loan with security. But I have grave doubts about the advisability of disposing of the previous ceiling.
  The Government also introduce a £30 lower limit for protection under the Bill. That is too high. The Consumers Association and the finance houses agree that it is wrong. The finance houses take the view that all credit should be treated on the same basis, and the Consumers Association says:
  "It is precisely in relation to the smaller transactions that the greatest need for protection arises. People with smaller incomes embarking on credit transactions for smaller sums need protection even more than those entering larger transactions. The only case for exemption is in relation to small oral transactions, in CA's view."
  It suggests that £10 should be the limit. Why was the £30 figure chosen? Why was it not £20 or £10? There has been no attempt to explain the matter in detail. People borrowing sums below £30 lose the important protection of the cooling-off period, pre-entry disclosure and the regulations on form and content of agreement.
  Crowther made a major point of wanting hire purchase abolished. I am told that every speaker on both sides of the House in the Second Reading debate on the 1964 Act also wanted hire purchase abolished. The finance houses would like to see that form of lending abolished, as would the Consumers Association, I understand.
  In paragraph 8 of the White Paper the Government state that there are social disadvantages which offset any benefits from abolishing hire purchase. Will they spell them out? They are not immediately apparent. There may well be a good case, but, in view of the importance that the Crowther Committee and various other bodies have placed on the recommendation, the Government should explain in great detail why they reached their decision.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman rightly said that there were worries about the effect on hire agreements of Clause 94
  530
  which provides for an 18-month cut-off period, when individuals, but not bodies corporate, can terminate agreements. I welcome the intent, which is good, legitimate and commendable. Nobody criticises the intention, but there is a side effect that I am sure was not intended. I gather from the right hon. and learned Gentleman's introduction that he is willing to try to deal with it.
  Sole traders and partnerships are treated as individuals under the Bill. Such businesses rely considerably upon leasing agreements for cash registers and office equipment. Even Ansafone or mini-computers are often covered by leasing agreements. Such agreements involve a predictability in the write-off time of the equipment. A normal period is seven years. The rental will be based on the assumption that the renter will keep the equipment for at least that time. If the Bill were implemented in its present form, sole traders and partnerships would be able to cancel the agreement at the end of 18 months, and therefore, the rental would cease to be viable. Alternatively, the rent would have to be so exorbitant that it would be unacceptable to the small firm or would put it at a competitive disadvantage vis-à-vis its larger incorporated neighbours.
  The business use definition in the Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act may provide a way out of this predicament, which has occurred inadvertently. I am sure there is good will to resolve it. I hope that the Minister can assure us that the provision will be modified after discussion in Committee.
  The Consumers Association is worried about the rebate for early settlement. It believes that under the formula envisaged in the document, by the time the rule of 78, which can be postponed for three months, is added to the three months' notice the lender requires, the equivalent of six months' interest will be payable upon the termination of an agreement. It believes that three months' interest would be adequate. Why was the six-month period decided upon? At first sight it seems to be an arbitrary figure. There may be good reason, and clarification would ease the Committee stage.
  I agree that the true cost of borrowing should be seen by the consumer. I shall be interested to see how the Government

  531
  apply the fair rate of borrowing to the spurious scheme for mortgages which the Prime Minister produced just two days, fortuitously, before his party's annual conference. It is a scheme whereby, after repaying for five years, the young family will owe more than the debt they originally contracted for.
  We understand the Government's sense of desperation in relation to mortgages. After all, it was only last weekend that they had to announce that they were setting up a committee of Ministers and building societies not to provide an extra pound in mortgage money but solely to ration existing mortgage money. It would seem that the Government are now committed to mortgage rationing as a policy rather than the readier availability of mortgages, which is the real solution to the problem.
  We shall want to consider many further points in Committee—for example, unfair billing practices, which are becoming widespread in the United States, and billing systems. These are Committee points and they can be appropriately dealt with at that stage.
  I regret the lower limit of £30. We shall try to change it in Committee. I am worried about the definition of "extortionate" and the fact that there is no ceiling in the Bill.
  I regret that only half the Crowther Report is being implemented, because the suggested lending and security Act recommended by Crowther is not part of the Bill. However, I recognise that probably it would have had to be a separate Bill, because it would be more complex than this Bill.
  What astonishes me is that in paragraph 14 of the White Paper the Government state that they intend to institute consultations about the lending and security Act after the passage of a Consumer Credit Bill. In other words, three years after receiving the Crowther Report the Government are to start the consultations which may eventually lead to an Act. That suggests that on present form we are talking of at least six years between the report and the lending and security Act reaching the statute book.
  Similarly, I deplore the fact that it may be four years from the receipt of
  532
  the Crowther Report to the Bill becoming fully effective.
  The Bill is being used as window dressing for an election, and the consumers' interests have had to take a back seat to the Government's political advantage.
  I should like an assurance—though I suspect that I shall not get it—that the Minister himself, as this is the leading consumer protection measure of this Session of Parliament, will deal with the Committee stage. I mean no disrespect to the Minister for Aerospace and Shipping. However, there is a close relationship between this Bill and the Fair Trading Act. The right hon. and learned Gentleman sat through and guided the Standing Committee on the Fair Trading Bill. It would be appropriate that he should deal with this Bill in Committee. I regard it as an affront to hon. Members on both sides who have been devoting the time to the detailed study of the Bill which the Minister apparently wants prior to the Committee stage that he is now considering that the Minister for Aerospace and Shipping should deal with the Bill.
  We are dealing with a Bill that requires full disclosure and which aims to reduce the ugliness of the ugly face of capitalism, to protect the consumer from business. I am struck by the duality of moral standards that we find here. While business is to be made to disclose more, the Government are in the process of concealing more. For reasons of political embarrassment, only last week the Government announced that they are to conceal price increases authorised by the Price Commission. It seems that disclosure is all right but not if it is in danger of revealing the ugly face of Conservatism. The Bill makes for more open business, but it is small compensation for last week's announcement when the Government finally buried open government at a stroke.
  4.45 p.m.
  Mr. Fergus Montgomery: The hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams) said at the beginning of his speech that this was a measure on which there would be a good deal of agreement between both sides and, therefore, it would be fairly non-partisan. He then became rather partisan and tried to make political points throughout his speech.

  533
  At the outset I declare an interest. I am a director of a consumer credit company.
  I welcome the Bill. I believe that it will be welcomed by all responsible members of the credit industry. I agree with the hon. Member for Swansea, West that this is the outcome of the report of the Crowther Committee, a committee which was set up in September 1968 and reported in March 1971. It seems to have taken a long time for the committee to report and even longer for the Bill to come before the House. The hon. Gentleman was right to point out the dangers that exist, because it is essential that this legislation is got through as quickly as possible.
  The Bill largely implements the findings of the Crowther Committee and is another step forward by this Government in ensuring a more comprehensive set of safeguards than ever before for the consumer. It is a sign of the Government's recognition of the importance of consumer affairs that we have the appointment to the Cabinet of my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs.
  There are certain aspects of the Bill that I particularly welcome. First, I welcome the appointment of a Consumer Credit Commissioner who will have wide powers to supervise the operation of consumer credit and will work closely with the Director-General of Fair Trading. I am anxious to know whether these two appointees would have the power to act in a difficult constituency case which I am dealing with at present. I have had a good deal of correspondence on this case, and my right hon. and learned Friend has been very helpful when I have written to him.
  I should like to acquaint the House of details which are set out in a letter I received from my constituent. He tells me that he bought a freezer on 24th August 1972. He bought the freezer through a representative from Inter-City Shoppers Frozen Food Suppliers, Manchester, who called at his home. The representative tempted my constituent to have a freezer on a 14-day trial. My constituent signed the forms, and then, to his amazement, discovered later that he had signed an agreement with KHR Financing Limited, London, but at that time the representative from Inter-City
  534
  Shoppers Frozen Food Suppliers did not explain this clearly to my constituent.
  Two days after receiving the freezer my constituent decided that he did not like it and that he was not satisfied with it. He therefore contacted Inter-City Shoppers and asked that firm to collect the freezer. This the firm did after some trouble. The mistake my constituent made was that he did not ask for a receipt for collection of the freezer. Some time afterwards he received a payment book from KHR Financing to pay instalments on the freezer. Immediately my constituent sent back the payment book and explained that he had had the freezer only on trial and that, in fact, it had gone back to the firm.
  A few weeks later my constituent received a letter from KHR Financing warning him that he was behind on his payments. My constituent replied several times but received no reply from KHR Financing. KHR Financing has now taken my constituent to court.
  My constituent contacted Inter-City Shoppers, which is now saying that it did not collect the freezer, which is untrue. Inter-City Shoppers has now gone into liquidation. My constituent has been in contact with a solicitor who told him that he should offer to pay £1 per week. My constituent felt that this was all wrong, because by doing this he would be admitting liability.
  I feel strongly about this, because this man has now been asked to pay for something that he does not even possess because he was unfortunate enough to buy something from a firm that has gone into liquidation.
  My right hon. and learned Friend has been helpful with this case. He wrote to me on 19th October stating that he thought that my constituent
  "should be put in touch with Jacobs Kroll and Co. Ltd., the company which originally financed the transaction. This company undertook to discuss the matter with their former customers, who now hold the promissory note covering this transaction.
  The latter Company KHR Financings Ltd., have now written to us about the transaction. They point out that your constituent signed a note on 18th August stating that he had received the deep freezer and that on his instructions they paid the supplier. They heard nothing from your constituent until 18th October 1973 and were not aware until then that the freezer had been returned. Nevertheless, the firm have indicated that in the

  535
  circumstances, purely on an ex gratia basis, they would be prepared to discuss the matter with your constituent."
  That was on 19th October. My constituent has informed me this week that he has written to both firms—Jacobs Kroll and KHR Financings—but neither has written in reply. I hope that as a result of this piece of legislation unfortunate cases such as that will not recur.
  Secondly, I welcome the provision in the Bill which will require consumer credit agreements to show the true rate of interest. I am sure that there will be no objection to this provision from any of the reputable consumer credit firms in this country. The only people who have anything at all to fear are the "sharks" in this business, who bleed dry unsuspecting and naïve members of the general public. Thirdly, I welcome the acceptance of the recommendation of the Younger Committee on privacy. By this, individuals will have a legally enforceable right of access to information held about them by credit rating agencies, and the Consumer Credit Commissioner will have power to see that incorrect entries are rectified.
  Having said that, there are a number of matters in relation to the detailed operation of the Bill which may require further attention during the Committee stage. I think specifically of the question of borrowers' rights on cancellation. I agree that the interests of the borrower must be protected, but we must also bear in mind that the costs of abortive transactions will ultimately be passed on to the customer who carries out his bargain. The cancellation of a contract can be expensive to the grantor of credit.
  I have admitted that there are unscrupulous providers of finance but we also have to accept the other side of the coin, that there are unscrupulous debtors, so that during the Committee stage we must ensure that this piece of legislation is fair to all parties. Any provisions which encourage an irresponsible approach to credit by a sector of the public will result in an increase in the cost of credit. The people who are particularly vulnerable in these new conditions are the connected lenders, who could quite conceivably be the innocent victims of disputes between a customer and a retailer on questions of merchandise I
  536
  hope that some thought will be given to this point during the Committee stage.
  I trust that the points I have made, which are all Committee points, will be considered at the appropriate time.
  I should again like to welcome the Bill, which I believe is also generally welcomed both by the Consumers Association and by the Finance Houses Association. It sweeps away many of the artificial distinctions between different types of credit granting, thereby making it easier for the general public to distinguish between them, and when it has been enacted this Bill will be of great value to the consumers of this country.
  4.53 p.m.
  Mr. George Darling: As I had some slight responsibility for the appointment of the Crowther Committee, I should like to join the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs and my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams) in paying tribute to the work of that committee and particularly to the guiding hand of the late Lord Crowther. His death was a tremendous loss to the public life of this country. But the committee has carried on its work and has produced a report which, in scope, in the quality of its survey of the law and of the practices governing credit trading in this country, and particularly in its recommendations, is a model for committees and commissions of this type.
  I join in the general welcome to the Bill. The great expansion of hire-purchase and credit trading in this country in the post-war years has been remarkable not only for the vast amount of money and the millions of transactions involved, but for the fact that all of this trade has been conducted within a completely inadequate legal framework. The case which the hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Montgomery) spoke about will be familiar to many hon. Members. I do not say that it can be copied in every constituency, but I am sure that many hon. Members have received complaints about similar cases which point to the inadequacy of the legal system under which the transactions take place and which allows unscrupulous traders to come into business. They could, and

  537
  should, have been prevented from coming into business from the start.
  This inadequacy in the law of contract was recognised by the Molony Committee more than 10 years ago. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West complained about the delay during the last three or four years. The Molony Committee's recommendations were not thoroughly carried out by the previous Government when in 1963 they introduced what is now the Hire-Purchase Act 1964. I welcome this Bill because it at last very largely, though not completely, provides a modern and comprehensive body of law to govern fairly all the transactions to which reference has been made. But I also welcome it for a slightly personal reason. The Bill contains provisions which some of my hon. Friends and I put forward as amendments to the 1964 Act when it was going through its Committee stage, which were rejected by the previous Government. I refer to such provisions as the obligatory rebate on payment ahead of time in hire-purchase transactions—
  Mr. Alan Williams: For the record, may I be clear that my right hon. Friend is referring to a previous Conservative Government and not to a Labour Government?
  Mr. Darling: Yes, I meant the previous Conservative Government. Therefore, I am pleased to welcome those amendments into this new legislation.
  But in defence of the previous Conservative Government and of the present one, I must say that we recognised that it was difficult, and in some cases undesirable, to go on amending laws which were basically inadequate and often unworkable. The dangers in continuing to tinker with this legislation were brought home to me when I had some responsibility for trying to amend the law when the Labour Government were in office. We were unable to do so, because the view that then prevailed—which, on reflection, was right—was that we should not try to tinker any more with the legislation, but should try to get a new comprehensive law which would be far better than a patchwork of legislation that needed to be either amended or repealed. It was in order to achieve this that we set up the Crowther Committee.
  538
  I must confess that three years ago I was apprehensive when it was said in the first Queen's Speech of the present Government that a consumer credit Bill would be introduced. I felt that more amendments to out-of-date legislation would be coming forward and that the Crowther Report would be ditched because there had not been sufficient time properly to digest it. But after consideration of the report, the Government have now taken the right line. First, the Government have produced the main recommendations in one Bill, rather than in two Bills as the Crowther Committee proposed. Secondly, they have added further measures for consumer protection which were not recommended in the Crowther Report.
  In my view, the Government are right to postpone the introduction of a proper legal concept of chattel mortgage. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West, I should like to see the development of personal loans secured by and connected with the goods being purchased. I should like to see the hire-purchase arrangement of credit trading, which has developed practically only in this country, abolished, with a system of chattel mortgage taking its place. It is a very difficult legal provision to work out, but I hope that the proposal will not be abandoned despite the statement on this matter in the White Paper.
  There are some parts of the Bill which will require detailed consideration and amendment. But it would be inappropriate to go into detail at this stage. To do so would involve a far too lengthy speech. Apart from that, as the hon. Member for Brierley Hill said, most of the comments that one would wish to make are Committee points with which those among us who may be called to serve on the Standing Committee will be able to deal. But I do not want it thought that my rather restricted observations cover all the suggested amendments that I could now put forward.
  I support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West about the delay in making the legislation operative and in introducing the regulations which will flow from it when it is on the statute book. Clause 169, dealing with this point, gives the Secretary of State powers to make different

  539
  sections of the legislation operative on different dates. We want to know how long we shall have to wait. I hope that we shall be given some idea of the dates that the Government have in mind, assuming that this legislation is on the statute book early next year, as we all hope. Obviously some time will be needed for the finance houses and other credit operators to reorganise their administrative arrangements. However, some of the consumer protection provisions which do not involve any further administrative work ought to be introduced immediately. I have in mind such matters as truth in advertising, and so on. I hope that we shall be given assurances about this.
  I was surprised that the Minister skated over a provision at the very beginning of the Bill which gives the Secretary of State authority to appoint a spare-time commissioner. If all this work is to be governed and administered properly, it will not be done by a spare-time commissioner. I hope that we shall be assured that if this is how it is to be administered we shall have a commissioner who is not only full time but someone who is fully qualified to do the job and determined to do it. This is definitely not a spare-time job.
  I welcome the proposals for licensing everyone who provides credit to consumers. This is tremendously important. I remember the trouble that we had when we had to deal with the case of the United Dominions Trust v. Kirkwood. It was a peculiar legal case where the UDT was at risk merely because legally it could not call itself a bank or a moneylender. As a result, anyone owing it money did not have to repay it. We spatchcocked a curious little piece of legislation into the Companies Act to give some finance houses the legal benefits of being banks. But they are still not registered. For all of them, from the richest finance house to the smallest trader, it is very important that they should be licensed to carry on their work so that their licences may be revoked in the event of their misbehaving themselves. I am not altogether happy about the appeals procedure where the commissioner revokes a licence. I hope that this provision will be looked at again.
  540
  It is a Committee point more than anything else, of course.
  I am glad to see, as hon. Members would expect, that the weights and measures authorities will be responsible for enforcement. However, in my view, it is time to change their title and to put into legislation the title which they themselves prefer. They would wish to be called trading standards officers.
  There is an important point in this connection in that the officers are responsible already for licensing moneylenders and pawnbrokers. In view of that, they have the machinery to extend the licensing system to consumer credit. But they will need to extend their activities, and this was a point about which the Crowther Committee was rather doubtful. Of course, the committee could not be aware of the provisions of Local Government Acts which were passed subsequently. Those provisions have reduced the number of relevant authorities from about 250 to 75 or 80. Each of them will be large enough and have sufficient resources to carry on the multifarious activities which now come under the umbrella of consumer protection. They will be in a far better position to extend their activities, and they will have the necessary resources. In practice, to cover licensing, this will probably mean the addition of three or four officers in a county authority.
  If this legislation is to come into operation at about the time that the Local Government Act comes into force, with the change in the scope of duties of county authorities, and assuming that the licensing provisions are to be introduced quickly, there is very little time left to recruit officers and give them the training that they require. I do not think that the training part of it will be difficult, provided that its organisation is started now. The legal departments of several universities are active in this connection, and they are perfectly capable of providing not only the courses and curricula but the lecturers, the examinations and everything else required to ensure that the officers are properly trained. I hope that the Government will take this matter seriously.
  My next point concerns computer errors, of which the Consumers Association made a great deal in its

  541
  memorandum. The local trading standards authorities have a part to play here. We all know of cases of harassed customers threatened with court action because it is alleged that they have not paid bills when all the time computer errors have been made and the bills have been paid. In such cases, I do not believe that customers should be left on their own. They need help. If this can be provided for in the Bill, it is the local trading standards officer who is the person to whom he should appeal. That officer should have the right to begin, as it were, counter-proceedings against the firm operating the computer which has misled the customer. I hope that these matters will be specifically included in the work of trading standards offices.
  The Government are wise to leave some of these decisions to regulations, not only because we cannot work them out clearly in the Bill but because circumstances keep on changing and we do not want a new Act of Parliament every time some new kind of credit trading comes along to bring it within the scope of the law. It is better to have regulations rather than embody everything into what will be the basic law for many years to come. For example, the £5,000 upper limit if inflation continues at its present rate would need to be considered again and changed by regulation. I agree also that we should re-examine the £30 lower limit for small credit arrangements.
  My next point relates to the true cost of credit, which I believe should be laid down by order. This provision should be introduced immediately after the Bill reaches the statute book. As the Consumers Association says, standard charges for credit charge transactions should also be included. In other words, instead of having a range of charges as at present, the standard charge should be laid down by law by bringing it forward in regulations.
  The Government should look again at the provision for rebates on payments ahead of time. It is wrong to allow an extra three months' interest to be taken by the creditor where settlement is made ahead of time.
  I note with pleasure that an obligation will be placed on the Consumer Credit Commissioner to publish information and advice. This is greatly needed, and I am pleased to see it included in
  542
  the Bill's provisions. Incidentally, I want to pay a tribute to the draftsmanship of the Bill, which is almost as good as that of the Trade Descriptions Act. I am pleased with the innovation in the Bill by which examples are given of different forms of credit. I hope that this innovation will be extended to other complicated legislation.
  I believe that the obligation on the commissioner to explain all these things in simple language to the customer should be mandatory and not permissive. The commissioner should be compelled to do this by the terms of the Bill. When a customer goes into a shop intending to undertake any kind of credit trading or hire-purchase transaction the customer's liability and the whole system of credit payments involved should be clearly stated on a piece of paper. That document should be part of the transaction and written in language that everybody can understand. This suggestion is not new, for there is a precedent in the hire-purchase forms, in a box which must be printed in different coloured ink from the rest of the document. This addition to the document asks the customer whether he realises that the goods are not his until he pays the final amount. This was one of the improving amendments we tabled to the 1963 Bill which was accepted. It is a pity that not all our amendments were accepted.
  Finally on the subject of licensing, I believe that we should look at the power given to the commissioner to allow for group licensing. What we have in mind are the mutuality club collectors of co-operative societies. We ask whether it is reasonable to expect each of the collectors to be individually licensed. We hope that this will be provided for in the group arrangements in the Bill.
  I welcome the provisions which mean that the Consumer Credit Commissioner and the Director-General of Fair Trading will have to work together in this extended field of consumer protection. I am sure that in practice it will be impossible to separate the legal financial rules of hire-purchase and credit trading from the other legislation that covers the description and fitness for the purpose of the goods people are buying.
  Truth in lending and truth in advertising seem to me to be the twin defences against misleading practices, and they

  543
  cannot be separated. It is essential that they should be jointly administered wherever necessary. It is also essential that both areas of legislation, truth in lending and truth in advertising, should be commonly enforced by a single local administration.
  Just to illustrate how carefully we have all examined the Bill, I wish to draw the Minister's attention to a missprint in Clause 152 on page 71. Subsection (2) should be numbered subsection (3), and that, of course, affects the following subsections.
  We welcome the Bill. It is a comprehensive measure bringing in new law to supersede the old patchwork of out-of-date legislation which we have had with us for so long, and this reform has been greatly needed for a long time. Indeed, many hon. Members on both sides of the House have to some degree contributed to this reform. I know that the Minister will understand my concern when I say that he would have been in serious trouble if after the publication of the Crowther Report he had introduced anything less than this very satisfactory Bill.
  5.18 p.m.
  Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: Following the passage of this legislation, the need to heed Polonius's admonition "Neither a borrower nor a lender be" should be greatly diminished.
  As my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs said, the use of credit has become increasingly important in our society, and the rules governing its use must be reasonable and fair. This is why I believe the whole House will support the Bill. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Montgomery) was not so familiar as are some of us on the Conservative Benches with the curious interpretation of a "nonpartisan" speech often adopted by the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams).
  The Bill is all the more welcome because it has been so long awaited. It is a considerable time since the Crowther Committee reported, and in many ways the problems and practices in the realms of consumer credit have multiplied, intensified and become more diverse. Therefore, one would not expect the Bill
  544
  to be an exact transcription of those recommendations. Indeed, in some respects it goes a good deal further in the protection which it offers to credit users. It maintains a faithful interpretation of the Crowther recommendations and at the same time strikes a felicitous balance between users and lenders of credit which is fair to both as well as dealing with the whole problem comprehensively. One of the more welcome aspects of the Bill is that it should provide an ideal complement to the Fair Trading Act.
  Whereas there is a great deal in the Bill that is worthy of special note and acclaim, time will not permit me to deal with every aspect that I particularly welcome. I will try not to weary the House with too many illustrations of points by examples from personal experience, although inevitably there will be some because, like all hon. Members, I have had considerable experience of the need for this legislation through constituency cases.
  The House may recall that, following an Adjournment debate that I had last February, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State announced a voluntary credit code as an interim measure which had value in its own right and in alerting the credit world to what would be expected of it following the passage of this legislation. It is interesting that the subject of that debate was not harsh rates of interest but unfair billing practices. Therefore, I was particularly pleased to see attention drawn to this matter in the memorandum sent out by the Consumers Association. I, too, share the view that Clauses 134 and 135 will provide valuable protection to consumers in this instance.
  I particularly commend the provisions in Clauses 88 and 91, which should put an end to the imposition of onerous conditions in respect of the early repayment of loans. In July 1971 one of my constituents borrowed £733 from our friendly neighbourhood finance house, Julian Hodge and Co. During the year he wanted to sell his home, on which the second mortgage was secured. It finally cost him over £204 to borrow £733 for a little under 10 months. I am satisfied that Clause 91 gives fair protection against that kind of extortion.
  Although it is not strictly relevant, I am disappointed that the same kind of protection in reverse is not given in cases

  545
  of early redemption of life insurance policies where the consumers are, as it were, the lenders, and have to pay a very high price to redeem what turns out to be only a very small proportion of their savings.
  I hope that the regulations which will stem from Clause 88 will not have the effect, to which the Consumers Association and several hon. Members have drawn attention, of imposing a notice period of six months. This is unreasonable. It could result in consumers in certain circumstances being no better off in respect of earlier repayment than they are at present.
  I accord a qualified welcome to Clause 5. I am an optimist. I gathered from the White Paper that a statutory duty would be imposed on the Consumer Credit Commissioner to educate consumers in the use of credit, whereas he is merely to be permitted to do so. I hope that he will educate. I shall be interested to see by what means he proposes to do that and whether he will deem it desirable to start in secondary education. If so, and if this is successful, perhaps the Director-General of Fair Trading will emulate his example in general consumer education.
  I welcome the imaginative inclusion of Clause 71, which, for the first time, as my right hon. and learned Friend said, will make the lender jointly liable where the quality of goods is in dispute if he has a direct link with the seller. This directly answers the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Brierley Hill and closes the final gap in the protection offered under the Supply of Goods Act concerning goods.
  Naturally, I welcome the provisions dealing with the mass mailing of unsolicited credit cards and the banning of doorstep canvassing of credit, except by reputable firms, which, for the first time, will have to be licensed.
  Having referred to a number of matters that I welcome, I must deal with others on which I think some clarification is necessary, also perhaps a little more emphasis, and possibly some improvement.
  It is important to recognise that the effectiveness of the Bill will to a great extent depend on the regulation which will ensue from the appropriate clauses. Therefore, we are to some extent whistling in the dark in discussing the
  546
  Bill. My right hon. and learned Friend said that there is great value in this method of legislation in that new practices, when they arise, can be dealt with quickly. I agree, but I think that in Committee we shall need to deal thoroughly with every aspect of the aims behind these regulations so that when the time comes to make them those aims will be clearly understood.
  I think, too, that the House will accept that the fundamental principle underlying Crowther and the Bill is truth in lending. I believe that the most significant manifestation of this will come in initial credit advertising. This is where I part company from the Consumers Association, which takes the view that this will take place during the negotiation period. It is crucial that the information which will have to be supplied under the disclosure requirements, for which regulations will be made, is as effective as possible in informing consumers about the cost of credit and the terms and conditions to be imposed in advertisements. There are far too many misleading credit advertisements at present. One that immediately springs to mind which appeared in the Radio Times, and which subsequently a national newspaper, to its great credit, refused to print, in banner headlines proclaimed:
  "A thousand pounds for only £2·30 a week."
  Then in very tiny print below it went on to say that the repayments would rise to £17·37 a month after two years. The House will note the confusion between monthly and weekly repayments. It then said that repayments would be continued over a further 156 months. It is also common in credit advertising to make it appear advantageous to repay debts over a longer period than is beneficial to consumers. Therefore, again, I hope that the content of the statutory declaration of information will have the effect of making this and other points clear.
  The Bill is faithful to the high priority that Crowther gave to the creation of standard consistent formulae for use in advertising, in agreements and in negotiations for early repayment. The formulae put forward in the White Paper appear, in theory, to go some way to meeting these needs. But I fear that, in practice, they may prove a little too complicated for the average consumer

  547
  and, indeed, for me, and may undermine the usefulness of the Bill.
  I suspect that, however much information we try to give to consumers, it will be the cost in cash terms of instalments and of the total repayment that will be of the greatest importance to them, because this will be more readily understood. This is what they want, and need, to know. Therefore, I hope that some prominence can be given to this aspect of the information which will have to be provided in advertisements and other documents.
  After all, when Mr. and Mrs. Jones go to buy a television set on what is often genteelly, and sometimes misleadingly, described as "deferred terms", they want to know, in a way that they can readily assimilate so that they can compare credit values, how much more it will cost to buy the set on deferred terms than to pay cash for it over the counter. They will want to know the cash amount of each instalment, the number of instalments, the period over which the instalments must be made and the total capital cost of the repayments. This is equally true in many second mortgage and other credit transactions. Whereas I do not in any way underrate the importance of the other information which will have to be provided, I maintain that the cash cost will mean more to consumers than percentage rates of interest.
  Still on the subject of advertisements, I was pleased to see in Clause 42 that what appeared to be a tremendous loophole in the White Paper had been closed. In the White Paper there appeared to be no requirement for a consistent standard applying to all aspects of the presentation of the information that will have to be provided in advertisements and notices other than that it should be in a prominent position. In other words, it would not be required to be prominent in relation to the rest of the advertisement.
  Whereas appendix 2 of the White Paper was specific about the form and content of agreements, appendix 1 was extremely vague and in theory left the way open for the disclosures to be made in minute print in pale grey on white in the centre of the advertisement in a prominent position. One would not want
  548
  to make regulations as to the size and colour and print proportions, but the size of the disclosure is relation to the rest of the advertisements is absolutely for ensuring that information is presented with adequate clarity in a manner calculated to attract the immediate attention of consumers. I was delighted to see Clause 42—a model of drafting—specifying a very clear intention to this effect so I do not think that, even with the worst will in the world, regulations could be drawn other than to deal with these points I have particularly raised. It is an admirably drafted clause.
  The other points I raise are ones which I also think possibly need some clarification If the Bill is to be as beneficial to the consumers as most of us want, the means of enforcement of the statutory conditions in it and of redress will be very important. Whereas I accept and uphold the view in the White Paper that the two strands of criminal and civil redress should be kept separate, I think that there is possibly likely to be some confusion, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will be able to clear it up.
  For example, the Bill creates a number of new criminal offences, such as noncompliance with advertising disclosure, misleading advertisements, the operation of a credit business unlicensed, and new civil offences such as harsh and unreasonable rates of interest and harsh and unreasonable agreements.
  My point is that in the case of a successful criminal prosecution the consumers will get automatic compensation in most cases, but this will not always be the case in a successful civil prosecution. Equally, the point was raised in paragraph 137 of the White Paper that in some cases it would be desirable for consumers to pursue their own cases at local level in the county court or the criminal court, and that other cases should be pursued by trading standards officers. I hope, if this is the intention, that it will not prove either too costly or too complicated for consumers. Would it not be initially better for all such cases at local level to be pursued by trading standards officers?
  Also, although in principle I approve of the idea that the Consumer Credit Commissioner and the Director General

  549
  of Fair Trading should observe the run of local cases so that they may be immediately aware of any new pattern of malpractice which may arise, the idea that the director should prosecute in the Restrictive Practices Court on the advice of the commissioner if, for example—I give the exact example from the White Paper—a misleading advertisement appears in a national newspaper would appear in some ways a little anomalous, because misleading advertisements are one of the new criminal offences created in the Bill. If it were pursued in the Restrictive Practices Court, I believe I am right in saying that it would not bring about the same compensation for the consumers. It would be very incongruous if the consumers were to be denied compensation because they were misled by an advertisement in a national paper but allowed compensation because they had been misled by advertisements in local newspapers. While accepting the need for flexibility in the means and methods of enforcement, I believe it will be necessary to lay down some very clear guidelines so that consumers do not end up with two classes of justice.
  It would be churlish to make any further criticisms of this excellent piece of legislation. It has been widely and warmly welcomed by the consumer organisations, by the Press and by the House, and I think that, indeed, it is a very valuable measure for consumers. It should do a great deal towards banishing the image of the usurious moneylender which has all too often justifiably applied to some purveyors of credit, and, like all good consumer legislation, it should have the effect of raising standards on both sides of credit transactions.
  I take this opportunity—I am sorry that he is not present—of paying tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend at the end of his first year as Britain's first Minister for Consumer Affairs. He has brought his own expertise and stature to consumer affairs. He has won the respect and admiration of the consumer organisations throughout the country, and, perhaps most important of all, he has proved the point I made in debate on the Fair Trading Act—that a diligent, constructive and patient approach can very often achieve a great deal more than any strident campaign.
  5.35 p.m.
  Mr. W. T. Williams: The hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Sally Oppenheim) and the hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Montgomery) appear to be a little hurt that my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams) made a number of party political points on what they assert to be a wholly non-partisan Bill.
  Mr. Montgomery: Non-contentious.
  Mr. Williams: I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will not share that hurt, because he will be hurt a good deal in the debate if he thinks that this is an unfair thing to do.
  I welcome the Bill as far as it goes. There are many splendid things in it, and the Government are to be congratulated on making some attempt to clear out the Augean stable which has been the province of those who have been engaged in our credit and money markets during the past century or so.
  But it would be asking too much of human nature to deny the right to remind the Government and the country that there is something not a little ironical in the presentation of the Bill at this of all times. After all, the Government were elected on a programme of criticism of the Labour Government—a criticism of a time in Britain which, by comparison with now, appears almost like paradise lost.
  There is a lot to be said for the Bill itself, and it would be churlish to deny that life will be a good deal easier and less complicated and the whole system of consumer credit more justly and more fairly conducted as a result of it. So far as it is the primary duty of the Government to ensure the welfare of the people, the Bill deserves the good cheer and congratulations I unreservedly give it.
  But the fact remains that the value of the Bill has been made smaller by the activities of the Government themselves. Their debasement of our coinage and of their own integrity have resulted in a situation when the protections afforded by the Bill have been eroded by the Government's own profligacy. We are a land divided. We are a land rent with industrial discord. Prices and interest and mortgage rates stand at a level never before seen in this country—not in time of peace, and not even in time of war.

  551
  So, although the Bill deserves praise—and I am glad that the Opposition will assist its passage through the House—it has to be considered against the background of the situation of the country when it is introduced. In that context, it is fair to point out that the Government might well have had regard to many other matters in dealing with the needs and welfare of our people at this time, as it inevitably will be rubbed into the Government that many of the burdens which now affect our people are the result of the Government's own actions.
  It is the general philosophy underlying the Bill that creates the dissatisfaction I feel about it. There are significant aspects of the Bill which reduce its value in my eyes even at first glance. My first criticism arises from the philosophy that chooses to preclude those whose borrowings are small from the protection afforded to other sections of the community. There is no section of the community that more needs protection than those who have to borrow small sums of money, often of less than £30. There is something unpleasantly patronising about the suggestion that appears first in the White Paper and then as part of the Bill, that small borrowings of that nature, even if the interest rates are excessive, are not worth bothering about.
  The people who borrow small sums of money—£10, £20, £30—are often those who stand at the lowest levels of our society. They are the poorest among us, and they borrow small amounts because they need the money as a lifeline when they are in parlous need to which people who are financially better off are not subjected. They, more than anyone else, need protection against excessive interest charges. I invite the Government to reconsider this reduction of the protection that is allowed to borrowers when the amounts borrowed are small. I speak from some experience in my constituency and elsewhere when I say that people who borrow a small sum of money—and who will continue to be unprotected by the Bill—may find themselves when they have repaid the capital owing as much money as they originally borrowed, and sometimes even more. That is a most oppressive situation for people who are already poor.
  552
  Another major matter that requires attention is the delay in the implementation of parts of the Bill until ministerial orders are laid. I understand the problems involved in licensing and the creation of a new system of credit, but I nevertheless ask the Government in that interim period—which I hope will be short—to introduce transitional measures to prevent the present abuses of the credit system. During this period—especially if it is a long one—those in the credit business who have shown themselves to be so unscrupulous in their greed that the Bill has become necessary will suck the greatest advantage to themselves and create the greatest disadvantage to those who are unfortunate enough to borrow from them unless the Government introduce transitional measures to anticipate what is contained in the Bill.
  Mr. Ted Leadbitter: My hon. and learned Friend has referred to the limited protection afforded by the Bill to people who borrow £30 or less. He might add a few words about the trading-checks system, whereby thousands of poor people are paying extortionate interest rates so that they are in a permanent state of indebtedness, which sometimes leads to families being broken up.
  Mr. Williams: I agree with what my hon. Friend says.
  In the wider context there is another matter about which I am greatly concerned. It is basic to the Bill, and it is not a Committee point, although it will perhaps have to be dealt with in Committee. The Government have persistently and rigidly refused to state what they regard as the level at which interest rates become oppressive. I can understand their sensitiveness about that, bearing in mind that by their own acts interest rates have now been established at a level which 20 years ago many county court judges would have refused to implement on the grounds that they were oppressive and extortionate. Mortgage and overdraft interest rates are so high that they make a mockery of the hopes of many people to own their own house.
  Nevertheless, the Government should take this bull by the horns and declare what they regard as an extortionate rate of interest. It should not be left to the courts to determine in the light of the

  553
  many factors set out in the Bill and the White Paper, some of which are private, personal and intimate.
  The Government should not leave it to the courts to make that kind of inquiry for two reasons. First, in any event it is an improper approach. It is wrong that people who are faced with what they regard as an extortionate interest rate and which they cannot pay should be obliged to go through this public undressing of their affairs.
  Secondly, there is a large section of the community—the under-privileged, the ill-educated and those who are illiterate—about whom the Government should be more concerned. These people will continue to pay interest rates which would be regarded by the courts as extortionate partly because they do not understand and partly because they are afraid of the cost and the inquiries that would be made. Because no level has been laid down, they are afraid that if, after this public exhibition of their affairs, it was held that they had to pay the interest rates, they would also have to bear the increased burden of the court costs and possibly the costs of the lender.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Peter Emery): I always listen with interest to the hon. and learned Gentleman's arguments, but will he consider the situation in which a person wishes to borrow £20 or £25 for a week? If someone wishes to borrow £25 for a week, it would not normally be thought terrifying if he had to pay perhaps 25p for the loan. However, at an annual rate of interest it works out at a minimum of 52 per cent. If the sum borrowed were £20, the interest would work out at over 60 per cent. The moment we take the type of action which the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests we may well cut away people's ability to borrow small sums for short periods.
  Mr. Williams: This is the classic argument of the widow and orphan. Credit clubs, clothing clubs, and so on, often issue vouchers on the repayment of interest which run for considerable periods, sometimes 24 or 48 months, and the borrower who perhaps pays £10 for a pair of trousers or a couple of bed sheets will pay for them over and over again. We cannot compare the position of a person such as the person the Under-Secretary
  554
  of State has mentioned with the sort of manifest abuse which is rampant and which will continue unless the Government do something about it. If they want to separate the two, let them separate them in the legislation and not use such special pleading as a reason for not doing anything about what can be and often is a disgraceful abuse.
  There is a way—but it is one on which the Government have turned their backs—by which the situation of the widow and orphan who need, say, £20 for a week can be dealt with without recourse to an oppressive, usurious charge. That is by the development, improvement and extension of consumer credit societies. This is a very effective instrument in communities where there are large numbers of very poor people. There are consumer credit societies in Jamaica and southern America in which people are able to borrow considerable sums. The Government have consistently set their face against the development and extension of such societies, but it is an answer to the hypothetical situation posed by the Under-Secretary of State.
  My judgment—it may be a minority judgment, but it is perhaps worth giving—is that one of the faults which have given rise to the harsh and unconscionable system of interest rates, and the Government's failure to do something about it, possibly arises from our departure from the basic concept of the religious faith upon which this country is supposed to stand. The scriptural prohibition of usury may arguably result in the grinding to a halt of the wheels of the economy, but the greediness of moneylenders who throughout our history have demanded harsh and unconscionable interest rates should be curbed. The Government can, and should, take their courage in both hands and say at what level an "unconscionable rate of interest" should begin.
  Another matter which is worth considering when dealing with a Bill of this kind arises from the total failure in the Bill to make provision for any other way of enforcing the rights of, in particular, those who are not well endowed with financial resources. I refer to the failure to provide protection against harassment.
  The Minister for Aerospace and Shipping (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman has

  555
  lost sight of the fact that people giving credit will have to be licensed and in all their behaviour the renewal of their licence is a matter for consideration.
  Mr. Williams: I accept that. I welcome the proposed licensing system and admit that it represents a tremendous improvement on anything which has gone before. Although I have criticisms of the Government, as one would expect, and of the Bill, arising from its omissions, I am glad that a Bill of this sort has been introduced. I admit that the licensing system will in the long term be a great improvement. But what I have in mind is different.
  If lenders abuse their position they may forfeit their licence. But suppose that somebody claims to have paid a bill which the lender denies has been paid, or a demand is made which the borrower believes is unjustified because of the conditions of the lending or perhaps the interest charged. The only right which that person has to remedy what he regards as an injustice is to take the matter to court and face what for him might be a terrifying experience and which for anybody might be a costly experience. The Government have set up machinery by which the enforcement officers under the Fair Trading Act—the weights and measures inspectors—can deal with particular aspects of injustice, but they cannot deal with this matter.
  Would not a simple and practical way of dealing with the danger of harassment by people who are making, and who will continue to make, unwarrantable demands and challenging those who deny them to go to the expense and difficulty of taking the matter to court be this: to enlarge the powers of the enforcement inspectors so that those who feel that they are being harassed and that they have no remedy can ask the inspectors to look into the matter and deal with their complaint? It would be cheaper, more effective, more private and, in the end, more satisfactory.
  I fear that I have outrun my time, but I hope that I shall be forgiven, because I have been interrupted quite often. I have made some criticisms of the Bill in the context of the time at which it has been introduced, but I welcome the measure for its own sake and hope that
  556
  it is only the forerunner of much more significant and far-reaching consumer credit legislation.
  Over the country as a whole a vast load of debt has arisen as a result of the hire-purchase system. My last word is to express the hope that the Government will not long delay their inquiry into the alternative to the hire-purchase system—the chattel mortgage system. Hire purchase has become an incubus, a vast expense administratively, too complicated, and too full of holes.
  I speak with some feeling on this matter, becaue not long ago I introduced a hire-purchase Bill a great part of which was taken over by the then Government and is now embodied in legislation. I therefore have a little private, if anonymous, pride in the fact that the Bill reached the statute book. But the Government abandoned one of the things in my, as I believe, better Bill, and that was the opportunity to be afforded to all those who engage in hire-purchase transactions to change them into chattel mortgages. I hope that the Government, having introduced the Bill and having started, however belatedly and in however difficult circumstances, on the path of virtue, will now proceed to ensure that what they have begun well they will finish even more successfully—the task of protecting those who have borrowed, perhaps not wisely but too much.
  6.3 p.m.
  Miss Janet Fookes: I hope not to be too protracted in my remarks on the Bill. I join in the welcome that it has been given by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I am particularly pleased with the general approach of laying down clearly general principles and leaving to regulations their detailed application, thus allowing flexibility as new situations arise. That is right, and I thought that in making the point this afternoon my right hon. and learned Friend was unduly defensive.
  There are various points with which I should like to deal, but perhaps I may refer first to enforcement by weights and measures inspectors. I make no apology for raising the matter again because I am concerned about the increasing load being put on these excellent men—and, I should hope, a few women as well, but I fear not.

  557
  I raised this issue when the Fair Trading Bill was being considered, and I received the usual suave ministerial assurances. I shall need more than suave ministerial assurances tonight to convince me, I should like some facts and figures about the increase in the number of inspectors that will be required and the kind of training that is envisaged to enable them to carry out these provisions. One cannot make these inspectors into beasts of burden. They occupy a crucial position, and they should be treated with consideration and respect in the onerous tasks which they are expected to undertake.
  I give an unreserved welcome to the tightening up of methods of canvassing, and I am glad that telephone calls for this purpose are to be prohibited. I have found from my experience with constituents, that they are often more worried by telephone calls than by the doorstep approach, perhaps because the telephone call is impersonal and they cannot get at the caller as they can a person at the door.
  I am pleased that the mass mailings of credit cards is to be prohibited. I was the unwilling recipient of one such card. I sent it back with a letter of great indignation to my bank manager, and I am glad that this practice will not be permitted in future.
  I should, however, like to inquire further into the relationship between the Director General of Fair Trading and the Consumer Credit Commissioner. I have not read the Bill with that minute attention to detail which some Opposition Members appear to have done, but it does not seem to spell that out and I should have thought that some indication of it would have been helpful.
  I have read with interest the memorandum submitted by the Finance Houses Association. I note that the association objects to the inclusion of small businessmen and sole traders in the provisions protecting those seeking credit. I do not agree with the association, because I feel that small businessmen can be just as vulnerable as other individuals in this matter. I note the association's view that certain benefits which are now available to the small businessman will dry up—that is not the phrase used but that is what it comes to—if these protection provisions are extended to him, and I hope
  558
  that my hon. Friend will deal with that when he replies to the debate.
  My most serious reservation about the Bill was dealt with at some length by the hon. and learned Member for Warrington (Mr. W. T. Williams). It is about the decision in the Bill to exclude transactions below the sum of £30. Cogent reasons will have to be presented to me before I can swallow this. I entirely agree with the view that the people undertaking small transactions are the very people who need the most protection. That clause shows a lack of sympathy for and understanding of the point of view of those in a modest position in society. From their point of view a sum may appear large, however small it may appear to us in our capacity as Members of Parliament. It depends very much on one's point of view, and I think that these protective measures should apply to such sums. The Consumers Association rightly suggests that only oral transactions should be excluded from the provision, and with that I wholeheartedly agree.
  The Consumers Association dealt at some length in its memorandum with the billing system. I feel particularly incensed about certain billing systems. A relative of mine who has a credit account with a department store found that an account which she had would be outstanding after she had left for an extended holiday abroad. She therefore asked the store—it was Debenhams—whether it would be possible for her to settle the account before she left. The company replied that the system would not permit that to be done. As a result, the account was overdue by the time she arrived back from her holiday and to it had been added the l½ per cent. rate of interest. That does not seem good enough. It was only a small matter, but the principle is important, and it can apply in all kinds of billing systems involving the use of credit cards, such as Access. I cannot tell from reading the Bill whether they are included, but I believe that the commissioner should be able to scrutinise billing systems and set his seal of approval or disapproval on them.
  I welcome the Bill, especially as consumer credit is such an integral part of modern life. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Sally Oppenheim) quoted Polonius on being neither a lender nor a borrower.

  559
  That prompts me to suppose that had this Bill been in force when Shakespeare was writing his plays, he would have had no plot whatsoever for "The Merchant of Venice."
  6.10 p.m.
  Mrs. Joyce Butler: I have been amazed this afternoon at the ease and familiarity with which right hon. and hon. Members have carried the House through the clauses of what I confess to finding a rather daunting Bill. By the time that one has studied, however briefly, the 169 clauses and five schedules, one begins to wonder why anyone in Britain ever enters into a credit transaction. But that they do, and in ever-increasing numbers, we have been reminded by a number of hon. Members.
  I welcome the Bill. However, I want to draw attention to one point that has not yet been made. That is the very short time that has elapsed between publication of the White Paper and the introduction of the Bill. Just because of the complexity of the subject, this is unfortunate. The Minister will know that the Association of Municipal Corporations has drawn attention to this matter in particular and to its inability to arrange any discussions with the Minister since publication of the White Paper although it made representations immediately the White Paper was published because it felt that a number of points should be incorporated in the Bill.
  Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Allan Williams)—although I agree with him in chiding the Government for having waited for two and a half years to introduce the Bill—I do not want the Government to rush ahead with the Bill too quickly, because some of these points should be taken into consideration. Although it is too late to put them into the Bill, I hope that it will be possible to do something about them in Committee.
  Unfortunately, too, local authorities which will be affected have not had time to consider the White Paper. My own authority, Haringey, has been in the forefront of consumer protection and has recently opened a very successful consumer advice centre in my constituency. It had a meeting on 23rd October but
  560
  was quite unable then to give any attention to the problems of staffing which might arise, as they will with other authorities, in the implementation of the Bill. The authority which I represent took on additional staff when it opened its consumer protection shop. It will now have to consider whether to take on more staff to implement the Bill or to leave the work to its existing staff, with the consequent danger of over-work.
  This is a very serious problem, to which other hon. Members have referred. I feel very strongly about the question of overwork of weights and measures inspectors. It so happens that my brother-in-law was a chief county inspector of weights and measures. He died at a comparatively early age of a heart attack, which was largely brought on by over-work. Unfortunately, this coincided with the early days of the enforcement of the Trade Descriptions Act, when weights and measures authorities were under very heavy pressure of work. Since then, we have had the Fair Trading Act and responsibility for policing, as it were, price increases due to value added tax, and there will be all the additional work, which will create a very heavy burden on inspectors, when metrication comes into effect.
  I share the anxiety expressed about this matter. I am glad that it has been expressed by so many hon. Members, because I hope that this consensus will persuade the Minister to look again at the question of putting the sole responsibility for enforcement on the weights and measures authorities. The Association of Municipal Corporations has urged that with the reorganisation of local government this point should be looked at and that the possibility of spreading the work over local authorities generally should be examined. I hope that the Minister will do this, because it is of major importance.
  The Minister has already been asked for his estimate of the increase in the number of weights and measures inspectors which may be needed to implement enforcement of the Bill. Is any financial provision to be made to assist the existing weights and measures authority in this work, which will be additional to the burden which they carry already? Emphasis has been laid upon the need for training officers in the financial and legal complexities which are brought

  561
  about by the Bill. I believe that Schedule 2 contains 31 penal provisions. These will tax the knowledge and understanding of inspectors who have to implement the Bill.
  The Minister has not given any indication about where these additional inspectors are to come from or how we are to get them. I understand that in the whole of the London area, while there is in theory an establishment of 160 weights and measures inspectors, in practice there are only 125. It has been impossible to recruit any more; so in London alone there is a shortfall at present of 35.
  I welcome very much the provision for giving consumers access to their credit records. That is tremendously important. I hope that it will be widely used. Like other hon. Members, however, I regret very much that the small agreements of under £30 are to be exempt from some of the protection which the larger agreements are to have. I hope that in Committee the Minister will be willing to accept amendments to reduce the amount of £30 to £10.
  Time is short and so many of the points in which we are all interested have already been covered. I want, in conclusion, to refer only to Clause 24, which gives the commissioner power to refuse a licence to anyone who practices discrimination in matters of sex, race, religion, colour and so on. When the Gracious Speech was being debated in the House the Minister of State, Home Office indicated that the Bill would deal with the problem of discrimination against women in credit transactions. But I cannot see how Clause 24 does that. The Minister will know that the main complaint of women about credit transactions is that so many firms will not give them credit facilities and hire-purchase facilities unless they can produce a male guarantor. This is very much resented by women. Unless we have some indication from the Minister of what regulations are likely to be introduced to implement the clause, I cannot see how it will be effective in preventing that discrimination.
  I dislike hire purchase, as do many people. I have only twice tried out a hire-purchase transaction. On the first occasion, I was so disgusted at having to produce a male guarantor although
  562
  my credit-worthiness was not in doubt that I vowed never to try again. But so many women have contacted me about this problem that I decided to try out a test case. In this case I had no difficulty in making the agreement. I did it with a shop at which I was well known. I had made many purchases from it. I signed the agreement, and it was sent to the head office. It came back addressed not to me but to my husband, with a space for his signature as my guarantor. I returned it to the firm without my husband's signature but with my banker's reference. Back it came with an insistence that my husband should sign as my male guarantor because that was the rule of the firm regarding transactions with women. There was considerable correspondence, and finally I said that I would not proceed with the transaction if a male guarantor was demanded, because it was a matter of principle with me. Grudgingly the firm accepted my terms because of what they called my "prejudices".
  I won that case and have since advised women who feel aggrieved about the male guarantor question to fight until they get what they want. But it is extremely unsatisfactory that they should have to fight and be treated as non persons in this way.
  Mr. Michael Heseitine: I share the hon. Lady's prejudices. Much the same situation confronted my wife during the last fortnight.
  Mrs. Butler: I am glad to know that women have a friend in court in this respect. I should be grateful if the Minister would also bear in mind that widowed, single, separated and divorced women are in even greater difficulty since they virtually cannot make any credit transaction or hire-purchase agreement because of the trouble they experience in trying to find a male relative or friend to act as guarantor.
  I should like to have seen in the Bill a provision making it an offence not to accept the creditworthiness of the person applying, so that he or she would be eligible for a credit transaction. I regret the absence of such a provision and should be grateful if the Minister in replying could find time to say how he sees the provision in Clause 24 working to end such an anomalous situation. I

  563
  cannot see how it could do so at the moment. Can the hon. Gentleman say whether it will be made illegal to demand a male guarantor, or is the procedure to be worked out by trial and error? Is the commissioner eventually to count up the number of complaints against a particular firm and then decide to revoke its licence? It is unbelievable that that should have to happen, but exactly how it will work we do not know.
  I conclude as I began by regretting that more time has not been given for comments and consultations between publication of the White Paper and publication of the Bill. I hope, therefore, that the Committee stage will not be taken next week or the week after but that a few weeks will be allowed so that the relevant amendments may be put forward by the Association of Municipal Corporations and other bodies with a direct interest concerning the Bill's enforcement so that it can be amended to meet those points of view.
  6.23 p.m.
  Mr. John Roper: Like previous speakers, I too welcome the Bill. In general terms I believe that it is a significant step forward in consumer protection. We have all known, and knew before the Crowther Committee made its report, that one of the areas in which consumers were most exploited was that of consumer credit. Last year, during the passage of the Fair Trading Bill, many hon. Members tried to make appropriate amendments for consumer protection. We were unable to proceed, however, because we were assured by the Government that there would be appropriate legislation this Session. I am glad that it has now come.
  We will all have seen the horrendous figures in the Crowther Report about the cost of consumer credit. The figures for hire purchase showed that in some furniture shops in 1969, when Bank Rate was only 7 per cent., one had to pay as much as 110 per cent. interest on a hire-purchase transaction. If interest rates were 110 per cent. in 1969, when Bank Rate was 7 per cent., they must be approaching 200 per cent. now, when the minimum lending rate has risen to 13 per cent.
  564
  In company with other hon. Members, I regret certain omissions from the Bill and the failure to implement other parts of the Crowther Committee's important recommendations. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) has already spoken about the failure to introduce the concept of chattel mortgages, and I hope that the Minister will tell us more about the reasons for that decision. It is regrettable that there was not at least some provision made for their more general use. Again, the continuation in the law of the concept of hire purchase, against which Crowther recommended, is to be regretted.
  I hope that the Minister will tell us about the intended relationship of the Consumer Credit Commissioner to the House of Commons. We learn in Clause 6 of the Bill that he will make an annual report to the Secretary of State and that that report will be laid before the House. What opportunities will there be to question the Secretary of State on the commissioner's activities? Will he be at arm's length so that we are not able to raise matters on the Floor? We should like to know at this stage, and it may well be necessary to return to the question in Committee.
  My principal regret is that the Government have not taken up the Crowther Committee's suggestions regarding credit unions. Crowther recognised that the law affecting mutual savings and loan societies was fragmented and unsatisfactory, and in paragraphs 1.1.16 and 1.1.17 it expressed the view that some rationalisation was needed. We should work out what the legal form of organisation for such societies should be. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington (Mr. W. T. Williams) has already referred to the importance of consumer credit societies and credit unions elsewhere in the world. It is extremely unfortunate that the Government have failed to take up the Crowther recommendations and introduce in this country legislation which would permit their full development.
  I scanned the Bill with interest in the hope that I should find a satisfactory legislative structure for credit unions, but I searched in vain, save that I found a fleeting reference to credit unions on page 96, where Part II of Schedule 5

  565
  makes certain repeals in Northern Ireland enactments. We read there that Section 96 of the Industrial and Provident Societies Act (Northern Ireland) 1969 is repealed. The Minister will know that that section declares that the Moneylenders Act does not apply to credit unions. But that is the only reference to credit unions in the whole Bill.
  It is noteworthy that one part of the United Kingdom has for the past four years had the legislation for which Crowther asked. Since the passage of the Industrial and Provident Societies Act (Northern Ireland), there has been legislation in the Province permitting the development of credit unions as a form of industrial and provident society.
  No one would imagine that the last four years have been propitious years for any sort of development in Northern Ireland, but the striking fact is that since 1969, when legislation permitted the creation and development of credit unions, there has been a substantial development. The membership of credit unions has doubled, so that about 5 per cent. of the adult population of Northern Ireland are now members of credit unions, and savings in these co-operative credit societies or credit unions have increased fourfold, amounting now to £6 million.
  It seems to me that the developments which have occurred in Northern Ireland during the past four years strongly argue the case for the inclusion of similar provision in this Bill for the rest of the United Kingdom. It is sometimes said that there is no demand for such legislation. However, in view of the stunted growth of credit unions in Great Britain without legislation, in comparison with the rapid growth in Northern Ireland since legislation, that cannot be a sound argument.
  The two bodies in this country, the Credit Union League of Great Britain and the National Federation of Credit Unions, have both told me of their deep disappointment at the Government's failure to implement this part of the Crowther recommendations. We have here, I suppose, a prime example of the chicken-and-egg argument. In spite of Crowther, the Government say that we cannot have legislation because there is no demand. On the other hand, the credit union organisation says that one of the
  566
  reasons for the lack of growth of credit unions is the absence of a satisfactory legislative framework as suggested by Crowther.
  The reluctance to see credit unions develop is particularly unfortunate in the case of industrial credit unions. Several firms in this country that have credit unions serving their employees in other countries are anxious to establish them in Britain but have been unable to do so because of the lack of a satisfactory legislative framework.
  The Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs spoke of likely changes in the pattern of consumer credit in this country during the next 20 years. I hope that one of the changes in that pattern will be the development of credit unions and consumer credit societies as an alternative consumer credit service for the community. I do not suggest that the creation of the necessary framework would transform the consumer credit situation overnight or that there would be a rapid development of credit unions. However, at a time when banks and finance houses are making indecent profits the development of non-profit-making credit co-operatives could be of considerable advantage to the consumer.
  I invite the Minister, therefore, to look carefully at the credit unions operating in almost every other Commonwealth country, in all of which they are successfully established, and then consider amending his Bill to make suitable provision in this country as well. In Australia, for example, the development of credit unions, both in the trade union movement and on a community basis, has been quite remarkable over the past 15 years. From virtually nothing in the mid-1950s, credit unions now have £120 million of assets in Australia and over 500,000 members. Credit unions have been organised almost everywhere in Australia. I was fascinated to read that one of the most successful is the one organised for the employees of the Australian Central Bank who have set up a credit union for themselves.
  The principle of mutual organisation and co-operation is an old principle in this country and it is sad, therefore, when consumers have such need for good advice and assistance, that the Government have not seen their way to accept the Crowther recommendations and have not taken

  567
  steps in the Bill actively to encourage the development of credit unions.
  6.35 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Davidson: I was interested to see that the Bill replaces various enactments, including the Pawnbrokers Acts 1872 and 1960, the Moneylenders Acts 1900 to 1927, the Hire-Purchase Act 1965, the Hire-Purchase (Scotland) Act 1965, the Advertisements (Hire-Purchase) Act 1967 and equivalent Northern Ireland enactments. It is a sad commentary on the state of the hire-purchase and credit laws that they have been built up piecemeal in an area which touches so many people. Therefore, I welcome the Bill because it at least unifies the law to some extent, but I would like to have seen the whole credit law unified and simplified even further, as was recommended by the Crowther Report.
  Many people find it almost impossible to understand the difference between hire purchase, credit sales, personal loans and the various other transactions into which they enter. It is difficult enough for them to understand the details of the financial arrangements into which they are entering without having to compare one type of credit transaction with another. The time has long since passed when legislation should have been introduced to make all credit transactions simpler by getting rid of the distinction between the various types of existing credit transactions.
  Mr. Alan Williams: In view of what my hon. Friend said—and I am sure that every Member on the Opposition side will agree with him—is he not amazed that the Government have not even started negotiations or consultations on this part of the Crowther recommendations? Although it is two and a half years since the Crowther Report was published, there have been no negotiations and, according to the Government, none will start until the Bill is passed.
  Mr. Davidson: I am surprised and disappointed because this is a matter which is so obviously in need of reform that, two and a half years after Crowther reported and made such strong recommendations, legislation, or perhaps a White Paper, ought to have been introduced.
  568
  I do not intend to be churlish, because there is much which I welcome in the Bill and which, I am sure, will be welcomed by anyone who has had anything to do with consumer matters. I wish, however, that the Bill could have spelt out in more specific terms that it was a "truth in lending" Bill and that it was designed to ensure that the true interest rate was stated. I know that that is the intention of the Bill, and that it will be effective, by regulations, in ensuring this, but the public would have been happier if this objective had been defined, or even mentioned, in the Bill. Perhaps the matter can be dealt with in Committee.
  Reference has been made by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Sally Oppenheim) to the problem of billing errors. One of the problems which people face—and which they will face more and more with the increase of credit card facilities—is the nightmare of arguing with a computer. People receive bills and dispute the amount. They telephone someone and say that the amount is wrong, yet a month later the same error is repeated on the bill, with interest being charged on the disputed amount. These people complain again, to another department, and probably someone using a fictitious or assumed name replies that the matter is being looked into. Yet the bill is sent out again the next month, with more interest being charged, and the error is still there. It goes on and on, and legal proceedings are threatened. Most people are not prepared to face this sort of situation and so reluctantly throw up their hands and pay up. Arguing with a computer is even more difficult than arguing with Government Ministers, which in turn is even more difficult than arguing with civil servants.
  I should like to have seen in the Bill a clause which laid down, first, that the credit firm, the creditor, was obliged within a set number of days to acknowledge receipt of a complaint about an error. There should be a further provision making it obligatory for the firm after that to take action to deal with the error. Failure to do so should be a criminal offence. I should like to think that the Government have in mind legislation, perhaps through a clause in the Bill, making it a penal offence to persecute people in the way I have described.

  569
  Like every other hon. Member who has spoken, I regret that the Government have spoiled an otherwise very good Bill by not extending its full protection to transactions of less than £30. That seems a little petty and unnecessary. I shall not repeat the arguments. Those who borrow small sums are unused to dealing in money transactions, and are even more unused to dealing with credit transactions, finding them very confusing and complex, even under the protection that the Bill would give them and that I would like to give them. They will find it difficult to understand why they are not protected sufficiently by the Bill.
  The Consumers Association has welcomed the Bill. As a council member of the association I am happy to repeat that welcome. The field covered by the Bill affects people more and more, although in the present climate of astonishingly high interest rates it may well affect them less and less. The Minister may say that that is a political point, but I deny that.
  I welcome the Bill, subject to the defects I have pointed out.
  6.42 p.m.
  Mr. Ted Leadbitter: I shall continue on the note with which my hon. Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson) ended his speech. The £30 limit and the virtual removal of the restrictions that really matter are subjects of paramount importance. I tried to point out in an intervention that thousands of families were affected by that area of borrowing, sometimes in exceptionally vexing ways, by the establishments that make such sums available.
  I should like to describe the practice of "snowballing". A person carrying out door-to-door canvassing may approach a housewife who has an urgent need for a small sum of money to meet an immediate domestic requirement. She will be offered £20-worth of checks, £21 to be repaid in 20 weeks. That is interest of 5 per cent., or 12½ per cent. a year.
  The checks are expected to be used to buy goods from a number of shops. The check trading undertaking has an arrangement with the retailers concerned, usually receiving as much as 15 per cent. of the face value of all checks going into their establishments. Therefore, the £1 going in check form to the person who buys the checks returns from the retailer to the
  570
  check trading company a further 15 per cent. over each 20 weeks. Multiplying that by 2½, we obtain an annual figure of 37½ per cent. The total return to the check company is therefore 50 per cent.
  That would be interesting if it merely remained there, but it does not. Many of those who are known to be in urgent need of money are then asked "Would you like, say, £15 in notes for your £20-worth of checks?" The housewife, because we are dealing with a field in which people cannot benefit from the more normal, reputable credit facilities, is likely to accept the offer. The checks are immediately passed back to the agent of the check company, and she receives £15 without losing her commitment.
  At that moment her worries seem to have been relieved, but that is merely the beginning. The agent returns later, and because that form of credit looks attractive she makes an arrangement for another £20, and in some cases another, and yet another. There have been reports of housewives, finding themselves unable to meet their increasing commitments, having large numbers of debts to pay. Not very long ago there were reports of debts as big as £1,500 in families with no incomes. When it is brought face to face with a calamity that proper advice might have prevented, if it had been available at the beginning, the family suffers not just debt but increasing domestic strain. Many families have been broken up as a result.
  I will write to the Minister giving more precise detail so that the Department can consider it. I take it for granted that in the preparation of the Bill the Minister's objectives are not to be questioned. I am sure he wants this area to be regularised to a point where the consequences which I have described can be avoided.
  I am disturbed that there is not sufficient clarity in the Bill about debt collecting agencies which function under names which do not accurately describe them. These people gather together, in ways which I regard as questionable, information about millions of people—personal, intimate information—on the most meagre of evidence but which, taken with other spicy pieces of history, represents for the citizen, who is not aware of this collection, a dossier which is used

  571
  to limit, restrict or end his creditworthiness. Even today some debt-collecting agencies masquerade openly and unashamedly under more neutral names and constitute a source of threat and harassment for far too many citizens.
  Not long ago I had a case which arose from a debt which a consumer of energy contracted with a gas board. The Northern Gas Board had used, and is still using, I believe, a debt-collecting agency which sent to a constituent of mine a letter threatening him with public exposure and court action. I said to my constituent "Do nothing. I will deal with this." My constituent was not pestered any more. The consequent publicity brought to light other interesting examples of the use of debt-collecting agencies.
  Some nationalised industries, which are supported by large amounts of public money, would do well to examine the principle of establishing within their own organisation machinery able to deal with their own consumers so that injustices are avoided "incompletely". I use that word after much thought. At present women in particular, and certainly old people, receive from gas boards, and in some cases from electricity boards, notices that their debts are cleared, but the debt-collecting agency, which has not been informed, continues to pressurise these people who are not in a state of debt. On the other hand, consumers are being asked to pay bills which they paid as much as 18 months before or, as in one case I can recall, two years before.
  There should be a better organisation established within undertakings which supply credit or services, rather than the building up of machinery outside their organisations to act as agents. Under the latter system it is impossible to keep in close contact and play the game with consumers who have cleared debts or with consumers who may be in debt but who, for good reason, cannot clear the debt and need special advice and help from the more commendable agencies that exist, more particularly agencies within the social services.
  I hope that under Clause 131 of the Bill the Minister will consider that it is not satisfactory at this stage to have merely a general reference to regulations.
  572
  There should be a more specific examination of this serious problem.
  Where debt-collecting agencies collect confidential and private information about an individual without his knowledge, information which becomes known to him only when credit facilities are denied him, and sometimes not even then, is it reasonable that such a person should be allowed to look at information about himself on payment of a fee to the debt-collecting agency? Is not that stark raving nonsense? I thought that there was still an area of freedom in this country in which a man's private life and business affairs were his own affair, so to speak, and in which he should certainly not be subjected to the embarrassment of having to pay to look at information about such matters if it is in the hands of somebody else. I hope that the Minister will give serious consideration to this point with a view to its being dealt with in the Bill.
  Reference has been made to the time lag between the publication of the Crowther Report and the introduction of the Bill. The Crowther Committee was set up by the Labour Government. Therefore, we on this side have a major stake in the Bill and its objectives. That is why there will be no Division on the Bill tonight and why there is on both sides a commitment to examine the Bill in detail in Committee with a view to making it the best Bill possible.
  I come now to an aspect which I hope the House will accept needs immediate attention. We might consider with care the following words from paragraph 33 on page 13 of Cmnd. 5427, which was published last September:
  "The doorstep canvassing of loans of money will be banned, but not the promotion of the sale of goods and services on credit terms, including, for example, check trade business."
  If the Minister is satisfied that money is involved in this kind of business, will he seek to exclude it? Once money intrudes into the check trade business, it gives rise to the need for a serious examination.
  I have dealt with two major items, and in order to maintain the high standard of this debate I shall enter into no further detail. I hope, however, that the Minister will agree that we require an exceptionally long session in Standing Committee, such as the Minister and I have enjoyed in the past, but not

  573
  so long as the Committee stages of the Transport Bill or the Housing Finance Bill, because that would be too much of an embarrassment. The Housing Finance Bill was an incisive and cruel Bill.
  It has been said that there should not be too much haste. There is already too much strain and stress in our departments dealing with social services and weights and measures. So I believe that, in addition to having consultations, we should closely examine the manpower of the weights and measures department and the other departments which will be working to meet the requirements of the Bill. It is not sufficient merely to pass an Act of Parliament. It is far more important to do the preparatory work properly, so that when a Bill becomes an Act it can work and will not become pigeon-holed, as so many Acts of Parliament do. This Bill is important to the consumer, and on every front we should be attacking with vigilance.
  7.4 p.m.
  Mr. Caerwyn E. Roderick: It is very pleasant to see the Minister for Aerospace concerning himself with consumer affairs. The only danger is that before the debate is concluded we shall be calling him the Minister for Aerosols. I hope that he can come down to our level and answer some of the questions that have been asked.
  I do not possess the eloquence of my hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter), so my contribution will be a brief one. I have not studied the Bill in the depth in which some of my hon. Friends have studied it, neither have I the legal training or the capacity to do so. I should like some assurances before the Bill goes to Committee, because the getting of them—or not—will guide us in putting forward amendments.
  In June the Minister answered a Question of mine about the case of a person who had been written to by the Central Register of Defaulters in these terms:
  "Dear Sir, We have been advised by the above that despite applications by them you have defaulted in payment of your account. Therefore take notice that failure by you to make a payment direct to this creditor within the next seven days may result in your name being registered as a defaulter, both locally and nationally. This registration will stop you obtaining any further credit in future. If you
  574
  dispute this amount, then in your interest you should contact the above creditor immediately."
  The person concerned had merely withheld payment on a job that was being done by a small builder, until he was satisfied that the work was complete, but this register was being used as blackmail to get the payments earlier. I hope that before the end of the debate the Minister will assure us that debt collecting firms will be regarded in the same way as credit firms, and will need to be licensed.
  I have also heard of a person who paid a deposit of as much as £87 hoping to get a job done in a couple of months. He signed a contract; when nothing was done within two months he started writing to the firm; 18 months went by; letters were repeatedly written. The person concerned approached me and I wrote to the firm, but had no reply to my letter, which is a little unusual because people usually reply to Members of Parliament. Eventually, I telephoned the firm, but no action was taken for a fortnight, so I had no alternative but to give the story to the Press. A newspaper contacted the firm and the person had the £87 returned within a week. The situation was ludicrous and should never have reached that stage.
  A person in that position is entitled to some interest. Firms claim interest from individuals, but after 18 months the person concerned had no extra money on top of his £87. If he now has to go to another firm to get the job done he will have to pay a great deal more and he will, therefore, have suffered a considerable financial loss. Perhaps we can introduce a provision to cover the payment of interest when a deposit is in a firm's hands for a considerable period.
  A solicitor can arrange a private loan for a person to buy a house. Some years ago an acquaintance of mine was warned to look in a contract for a clause stating that a loan could not be recalled at very short notice. There was no such clause, so he went ahead quite happily, but he had overlooked the fact that there should have been a clause in reverse to safeguard him, not to safeguard the lender, because the money was recalled and he was required to repay it within three months. It is difficult to borrow money quickly from building societies when they are not very ready to lend money. He went to 15 building societies trying to get the

  575
  money before finding one which was willing to lend what it termed a second mortgage. It was nothing of the kind, of course. He was trying to redeem this debt. It is part and parcel of consumer credit, and I believe that we should be looking at the conditions under which solicitors draw up agreements for private lending.
  When dealing with Part X the Minister said that the commission would be able to receive complaints about credit reference agencies. From my short examination of the Bill I do not see much detail about the consumer complaints service. We have talked about the commissioner looking after licensing and so on, but I am not too happy about the detail of the scheme for the consumer to be able to complain about a service he has received.
  I understand that the weights and measures departments will be used. Is the Minister satisfied that they are the appropriate set-up and that they have sufficient staff? What about areas where weights and measures departments may be as far away as 50 miles from some of the people whom they serve? There are a number of counties in which this will be the case. Will that be adequate for an individual wishing to make a complaint?
  What facilities does the Minister propose to use to service residents in rural areas who may live a very long way from their nearest offices? Has he considered the possibility of using citizens advice bureaux which could be brought in as a first step? If they could not at once give the right advice, they could seek it.
  We have the Parliamentary Commissioner and the Local Government Commissioner. Now we want a Consumer Credit Commissioner with sufficient funds at his disposal to advertise his services properly. I am not satisfied that we have this clear in our minds, and I should like some assurances about it.
  7.12 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Meacher: There is a great deal in the Bill that is obviously welcome and uncontroversial. Like other hon. Member, I shall concentrate deliberately on the remaining problematic areas, of which there are a number.
  576
  The main weakness surely must be the Government's refusal to accept the Crowther Committee's very strong recommendation about a major reformulation of credit and security legislation in general. This means that the new rules have been prepared for application to the whole range of existing legal forms, from pawnbroking and check trading to hire purchase, leasing and credit cards. Worst of all perhaps, the highly confusing Bills of Sale Acts are retained under the Bill.
  The main danger is the complexity in the rules which becomes necessary. The appendices to the White Paper which define in detail a new range of legal categories bear that out. A White Paper more than half of which has had to be devoted to appendices—which itself must be a record—to set out all the intricacies of definition clearly will provide the lawyers with a field day. Obviously this freedom of action invites the industry to devise new forms to take maximum advantage of the consumer, and the Consumer Credit Commissioner can look forward to a fairly active career of stable-door shutting.
  The Government defend themselves for rejecting the Crowther Committee's plea which would require a comprehensive register of security interests on the grounds given in paragraph 14 of the White Paper:
  "There are aspects of the existing law in this field which cause difficulty, but they do not have sufficient evidence either of a need for such major recasting of existing law on new principles or of general support for the particular solution proposed by the Committee."
  Surely it is manifestly essential that the law should provide a set of rules which fairly balances the interests of a secured creditor on one side and those of an innocent purchaser on the other. The Government seem surprisingly unaware of the fact that the need for such registers is strong enough for there to be already at least six in existence, most of them widely used. What is more, last year the Government themselves set up a seventh register—for aircraft mortgages—and that was only a short time after the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry had said that he did not think we wanted a situation in which registration of security interests was done in several different places.

  577
  As a result of the rejection of a single comprehensive register, the Government have now done what is universally agreed should be avoided, namely to graft on still further excrescences to what is a largely unsifted and unintelligible medley of existing laws.
  Nor is it plausible for the Government to argue, as they have done, that the reason for the omission of a new legal framework for consumer credit law is the technical complexity of drafting such legislation when that argument has not deterred them from drafting the Industrial Relations Act, the Housing Finance Act and the new Bill dealing with company law reform.
  Another fundamental point which seems to have been missed in the Bill is that the credit consumer still cannot be expected properly to look after his interests in a morass of legal jargon, even if he is equipped with the necessary information as a result of much fuller disclosure. This was the basic attraction of the Crowther proposal to force as much of the business as possible into a simplified mould. In the absence of that, there must be a danger that so much information will be disclosed in so arid a form that the relatively unsophisticated borrower will still not be clear whether he is getting a fair deal. Although it will be an advance for him to know the true rate of a loan, he also needs to know whether that is a reasonable cost for the amount of money he is borrowing and for the period of time for repayment. Otherwise it is difficult to see how consumers can be prepared to put up with the wide range of interest charges that are known to exist—with a rate of 10 per cent. for electrical showrooms, up to 30 per cent. for furniture shops and anything from 50 per cent. to 1,000 per cent. for money lenders.
  In terms of social equity it is noticeable that the Bill omits two of the Crowther recommendations. One was that the Government should not enforce the system of down payments or repayment terms on hire-purchase sales since
  "it penalises the poor relatively to the more affluent and the young relatively to the old."
  Though they are not enforced at present, the power to reimpose them is retained partly because they form a very quick-acting economic regulator and partly no
  578
  doubt because of memories of the highly damaging free-for-all between 1958 and 1960 when statutory hire-purchase controls were also removed. Nevertheless their reintroduction would be inequitable, and that is still possible.
  The other and more reprehensible omission from the Bill is the Crowther proposal that users of consumer credit in any form should be treated identically for tax relief purposes. The committee recommended that, if tax relief were allowed on loan interest charges, it should also be allowed on hire-purchase charges. That is an irresistible argument. How in all honesty can the Government offer tax relief on loan interest over £35 a year, which is a major windfall concession to higher-rate taxpayers, when they deny tax relief on hire-purchase charges which would mainly benefit poorer families? There is an unacceptable inconsistency here and I hope that the Government will be prepared to reconsider the matter in Committee.
  There are other omissions which are more likely to harm lower-income purchasers. I refer especially to the application of the £30 lower limit in the case of credit sale agreements, revolving credit arrangements and, above all, many finance company agreements, especially in regard to the cooling-off period and finance company responsibility for faulty goods. I do not believe that there is any real reason why the lower limit should not be dropped in these important cases to at least half or preferably one-third of the £30 level.
  Yet another omission, concerning which I have had constituency experience regarding gas and electricity bills, is the correction of false billing. The Consumers Association research which was recently carried out in the United States indicated that the American Truth in Lending Act has had to be amended to prevent unfair billing practices, largely because computers cannot adjust to errors on accounts later reported by consumers. A survey in Minneaoplis showed that one consumer in three had been involved in at least one billing error problem. It can be predicted, therefore, that this trouble will also arise unless it is prevented now. Moreover, the problem in this country will be made worse by the otherwise desirable amendment in Clause 71 that the credit card issuer is to be responsible

  579
  for defects in goods bought with a credit card. It is a fair question to ask what redress is open to the consumer who, when he returns defective goods, finds that his statement is not credited because the system cannot respond to the idea of credits. Is it not necessary that the onus for taking definite action to resolve the error should lie with the creditor both to acknowledge receipt of the claim from the consumer and to act upon it within a definite period of time? I hope that the Government genuinely will try to meet this point in Committee.
  My last point is that if as a result of the Bill consumers shop around for the quickest and easiest method of obtaining credit—a highly laudable object of the Bill—they may well increasingly reject the more cumbersome arrangements like hire purchase and seek unsecured loans. If so, this will bring the necessity for comprehensive records of the credit rating of individuals as happens in America. This may become a major issue in this country too. We may be still some years away from point-of-sale computer terminals for credit checking, but that would seem to be the direction in which we may be moving in the near future. Clearly this involves an important issue in respect of privacy, and so far the Government have not revealed their hand in terms of their reaction to this prospect. This obviously affects the civil liberties of individuals.
  With those reservations, some of which relate to serious omissions, I recognise that this is a valuable Bill. I sincerely hope that the urgent passage of these consumer protection provisions will not be used as an excuse for postponing the closing of what seems to be a glaring gap in the Bill, namely the introduction of a uniform legal framework for consumer credit.
  7.25 p.m.
  Mrs. Lena Jeger: I shall not complain about the small attendance in the House because at this moment of time, rising as I do from the Opposition Front Bench, nothing gives me greater pleasure. I feel that the attention of the House and the public should be drawn to the fact that there has not been one Liberal contribution to this debate. Indeed, we have not even the pleasure of seeing one Liberal Member
  580
  present in the Chamber. This surely indicates the hollowness of people who try to get votes on a prospectus of care—a party which says its cares for the individual, for the little man and the harassed little woman. These are the people who are supposed to put everything right, but they cannot give their time to a measure that is of great importance to the consumer.
  In my virginal Front Bench experience I hope I shall not be guilty of any misconception. But I want to make clear that, although we are not opposed to the Bill, we are not by any means accepting a society in which an ever-increasing part is played by expensive credit, in which living "on tick" has been given a special status as a way of life—a status which it did not enjoy in earlier days. I am not sure that the present situation will be to the long-term benefit of our people.
  We welcome the Bill because it tries to deal properly with certain hazards and practices which are endemic in modern society. Some of us happen to be in politics because we want to change society. We accept the necessity for this Bill as an "ambulance" measure that is essential for the protection of the public, but we shall continue to challenge the basic philosophy of economics that has created this situation.
  The Bill may be non-partisan, but certainly the circumstances of its introduction and the timing of today's debate are far from non-partisan. There is a special irony for all of us in that consumers can never have felt more battered by the Government or less protected by authority than they do today. I call the attention of the House to Clause 44, which makes it an offence to put out false or misleading information in an advertisement. I suggest that the first prosecution under Clause 44 should be brought against the Prime Minister, because certainly in Tory advertisements in 1970 the public was never told that the pound in people's pockets would be worth only 77p by September 1973, and it is probably worth infinitely less now.
  Clause 120 makes it an offence for "grossly exorbitant" interest charges to be made. What will the courts make of this phrase "grossly exorbitant"? Some of us regard 13 per cent. as grossly exorbitant. If we accept 13 per cent. as

  581
  the official rate, this will give great impetus to escalating rates of interest in all spheres—housing, shopping, investment, and so on, and especially in terms of borrowing that is so essential to local authorities in carrying out their important work.
  I feel a little half-hearted about the Bill bearing in mind this week's news and the Government's policies which have imposed ever higher prices. The consumer is also worried about these matters. To allow a situation in which all the essentials of life get more expensive and at the same time to talk about protecting the consumer is not keeping faith with the public.
  I make no apology for being a little philosophical about some of these problems, because this is a Second Reading debate. We have had many informed and useful speeches which I think will be carefully studied in Committee. But I repeat my concern that we are slipping into a situation where we are glorifying credit, living on tick, and where it is counted a winning advertisement to publish the slogan
  "Take the waiting out of wanting",
  as if there is anything wrong with waiting. Some of us have experienced the pleasure, perhaps the extra enjoyment of waiting.
  This creates a climate of easy acquisition which is not healthy in the long term. I do not blame the public. The Government are increasingly living on a deficit, and this is bound to be reflected in people's personal standards. After all, in what many of us thought was the dreadful year of the Labour Government's devaluation, during the whole of that year the deficit was £316 million, whereas last month alone it was £298 million. [HON. MEMBERS: "£335 million."] I thank my hon. Friends for that correction.
  Mr. Charles Loughlin: My hon. Friend slipped £37 million out.
  Mrs. Jeger: I am glad to have that assistance. To talk about protecting consumers in a situation where the country's debt is running at a faster rate per month now than it was per year under the Labour Government is incredible.
  582
  I join in the tributes that have been paid to Geoffrey Crowther, one of the most distinguished public servants in this country, who gave so much of his time and ability to matters of public interest. The tributes from the benches opposite might have been a little more realistic had the Government found time for one debate on the Crowther Report. Despite repeated pressure from the Opposition, this House has not been given a single opportunity to discuss that report.
  It has not been possible to go deeply into many of the recommendations made in the Crowther Report. That is a great pity. The House should have had an opportunity of considering the Crowther Report before the Bill was drafted so that hon. Members might express their views on the recommendations that were then made.
  Looking at this problem in the long perspective, it is interesting to recall that in 1552 this House passed an Act prohibiting all taking of interest as
  "a vice most odious and detestable."
  True, that Act was repealed in 1572, when a ceiling of 10 per cent. was then placed on interest rates. Parliament laid down that the taking of interest not exceeding 10 per cent. should cease to be criminal. It would not be a bad idea to have a revision of that legislation of 400 years ago. Then in 1713 we got down to 5 per cent., and so it stayed until all legislation on usury was repealed in 1854. I mention these facts because they are not irrelevant to the debate.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington (Mr. W. T. Williams) spoke most convincingly about the possibility of a legally fixed interest rate. I realise that in the volatile hothouse economics of the present day this might seem impossible. But I remind the House that the greatest period of expansion in our history—the classic expansion of the Industrial Revolution, with its vast commercial and manufacturing developments—was founded on a legal maximum interest rate of 5 per cent. I should not like to say that there were no evasions.
  The Crowther Report certainly dealt with fixed rates, and, though it concluded, on page 276,
  "that the fixing of an inflexible ceiling rate is not the answer to the problem".

  583
  it suggested that the subject was worthy of some consideration. The report, on page 275, states:
  "In our view, there is a level of cost above which it becomes socially harmful to make loans available at all."
  I hope that the Government will look at that aspect of the matter.
  It is relevant that interest charges on small loans are restricted by legislation in both Canada and the United States of America. The American Uniform Consumer Credit Code sets a ceiling of 18 per cent. for consumer loans, other than supervised loans made under licence. The Canadian Small Loans Act regulates loans up to 1,500 dollars. It allows licensed lenders to charge a maxim um of 2 per cent. per month on the first 300 dollars, 1 per cent. per month on the next 700 dollars and ½ per cent. per month on the remaining 500 dollars. That, too, is evidence which is worthy of consideration.
  My hon. Friends and I very much regret that Part Five of the Crowther Report, which called for an entirely new legal framework for the law dealing with consumer credit, has not been taken up. The unification of the whole legal structure is surely overdue. The Government cannot say that they have not had time. They have had the Crowther Report since March 1971. My hon. Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson), who has great experience in these matters, stressed that it was a matter of regret to him that this recommendation had been set aside.
  I think I am right in saying that no hon. Member who has taken part in the debate today has supported the idea of limiting the provisions to sums exceeding £30. I hope that the Government will look at this matter again, because the people involved in the smaller range of purchases who are often the most vulnerable and sometimes the most ignorant, get into the worst muddles. Moreover, the very people whom we are trying to help could find themselves in grave difficulties, because, if they have a series of £30 credits from different sources, they would be totally unprotected and vulnerable to all the problems that the Bill seeks to put right.
  Another objection to the Bill is that it has to rely largely on regulations. Surely
  584
  the principle at the heart of it—truth in lending—ought to be written into the body of the Bill as part of the law. Clause 42 should not only empower the making of regulations but make clear that those regulations require that the true cost of credit is made public. Therefore, that ought to be written into the clause, not left to regulations.
  I pay special tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling). For many years he has worked hard as a pioneer, using his expertise and persistence to make some progress in these matters, and was glad to welcome the Bill. But he agreed, from his experience, that the mandatory disclosure should not be a matter of regulation but should be included in Clause 42 and given the full status of the law.
  I agree very much with my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler), particularly about the position of women. It is a total insult in this day and age for women to be asked to find a male guarantor. He might be more of a shark than she is. In any case, in many families it is the woman who manages all the finances and keeps the family on an even keel, whereas the husband might well spend his wages elsewhere.
  Moreover, there is a serious difficulty experienced by women who are widowed, divorced, separated or on their own. I ask the House to take it from me that it is not easy to go and ask some chap to be one's male guarantor. One big difficulty I find is that the male guarantor's wife usually does not like it. I know that one can appear to be flippant about this, but it really is a very serious problem, and I can find nothing in the Bill which will deal with it.
  The Minister may say that it will be taken care of in the new blanket legislation about discrimination against women, but many of us want to see something written into this Bill which will end the practice and also the practice whereby so many creditors apply a standard for men totally different from that which they apply for women. Apart from looking for a male guarantor, a woman often has to be more creditworthy than a man—she has to be a professional woman or in a much stronger position in order to get the credit she wants.

  585
  I hope, too, that in Clause 2 the use of the masculine pronoun throughout in relation to the commissioner is merely the traditional economy of language and that we shall be assured that in this context "he" embraces "she" and that no discrimination is intended in the use of the pronoun.
  Sir G. Howe: I can reassure the hon. Lady at once. At least since 1882 "he" has been embracing "she" by statute. That has happened in all statutes since then. The hon. Lady has referred to the discrimination aspect. Clause 24 sets out clearly that one of the grounds which the commissioner has to take into account in deciding whether to grant a licence to anyone in the credit business, or whether to withdraw one, is whether that organisation practises discrimination on the ground of sex, amongst other things. Discrimination of the kind the hon. Lady has talked about—less advantageous terms to the female and indeed, in any of the respects she has referred to in dealing with discrimination on the ground of sex—is one of the grounds on which a licence can be withdrawn or refused. The Bill makes a direct attack on discrimination in this area.
  Mrs. Jeger: I am glad of that assurance from the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and I hope that it will be widely noted, because, as the clause is drafted, while it is true that the objective is set down, I think it needs to be much more clearly spelled out.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green and the hon. Member for Merton and Morden (Miss Fookes) drew special attention to the problem of staffing. We all share their anxiety. Hardly one aspect of local government services in many parts of the country, certainly in London, is not suffering from severe staff difficulties. By this Bill we are to place heavy responsibilities on men and women who will need to have great experience and integrity. I hope that the Government will look at the whole staffing situation. Without adequate staff, there can be no realistic implementation of the Bill.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper) made a very important contribution, which I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will take into account, in calling for more attention to be paid to credit unions. We
  586
  on this side cannot, I think, indefinitely accept a situation where the need for credit must always inevitably mean profit for somebody else. Daniel Defoe wrote in 1727 in "The Complete English Trader",
  "Unless the profit answered it, the tradesmen could not afford to be so long without their money."
  The history of credit is very much the history of its profitability. I would like to see the Government encouraging more development of fair credit through community-based credit unions. This has been done in many other countries and would make a genuine contribution to keeping down the cost of living and taking some of the inflationary element out of the present credit system.
  I think that the Opposition—I would not expect it from the Government—should give attention to some form of nationalised finance house which would seek to do a job which is needed to a certain extent in modern society but which I feel is not being well done at present. Again, we are suffering from lack of consideration in the House of the Crowther Report, which said on page 8:
  "Although in total the amount of consumer credit made available by small savings and loan societies … is very small … it is possible that it could be increased …"
  I see no reason, except prejudice, against that. But, as my hon Friend the Member for Farnworth said, until we get better legislation we are not going to have the expansion of this form of credit which would obviously be to the public good.
  While we welcome the Bill as far as it goes, we shall in Committee try to put right what we regard as some of its exclusions and to improve a great deal of the detail. It would not be useful now for me to reiterate all the points which have been made by very experienced hon. Members who have studied this long Bill very closely. These points are all of great value, and I am sure will be taken further in Committee. We shall await with interest some assurances from the Government on the main points of our anxiety.
  7.48 p.m.
  The Minister for Aerospace and Shipping (Mr. Michael Heseltine): The House will join me in welcoming the hon. Lady the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Lena Jeger) to

  587
  the Opposition Front Bench for the first time. Whilst I welcome warmly the general acceptance which she and other hon. Members opposite have given the Bill, I cannot be expected to go along totally with some of her observations about the Government's record. I find my agreement with her on the Bill in direct contradiction with my disagreement with her judgment on virtually every other matter which she raised outside the narrow scope of the Bill. She will not be surprised at my saying that. Indeed, I expect she would have been disappointed if I had come to any other conclusion.
  But perhaps as a gesture, in the spirit in which we all wish to see the Bill dealt with, and of the warm welcome which it has been given, I can say to the hon. Lady at once that the points she has raised about the clause dealing with the making of regulations, to ensure that there is truth in lending, is one with which we have sympathy, and we will certainly look at it in Committee to see whether the drafting can be altered to make a more forceful declaration of the purpose which we all have in mind.
  The hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams) and several other hon. Members asked about the time within which we saw the implementation and introduction of regulations under the Bill and the amount of consultation that has been, and will be, possible in working out the details. That is bound to involve time. In the White Paper and the Bill, in a number of areas where regulations have to be introduced, we have tried to spell out clearly the basis of our thoughts upon the way in which the regulations will be made. Therefore, people involved in the industry, who will be affected by our proposals have had a considerable amount of time in which to think about the adjustments they will need to make to their forms and methods of conducting business—advertisements and so on—and they now have a wide appreciation of the sort of things we shall want to do.
  We shall be able to introduce certain parts of the Bill faster than others. We shall want to move rapidly on the "truth in lending" provisions, and there is no reason why we should not. We hope to see those regulations coming
  588
  within weeks of the Bill receiving Royal Assent. We believe that there is a wide degree of awareness of what we have in mind. We are appraised of the urgency, and we shall move as fast as we reasonably can, taking into account the many problems.
  Mr. Alan Williams: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the changing of computer programmes is an expensive and lengthy business. No one can be 100 per cent. certain of the final form of the legislation until it has been to the other place and has returned here. Therefore, the time lag on the part of the finance houses is a problem that must be considered. How does the hon. Gentleman intend to shorten the period?
  Mr. Heseltine: There is a period of time below which we cannot reasonably go, because the finance houses have to do a thorough job. We can evolve the programme only in consultation with them to be sure that a mess is not made of it, which would be disastrous from everyone's point of view.
  The hon. Member for Swansea, West spoke of the number of agreements currently in existence and the rate at which new agreements are coming into effect. These cannot be affected by the Bill, because it is not yet law. The Bill will affect new agreements after a certain date, and we must get as rapidly as possible to the stage where these are covered by the regulations.
  Mr. Williams: I said that there were 7,000 new agreements a day. The hon. Gentleman is saying that even after the passage of the Bill those 7,000 new agreements every subsequent day will still not be covered until eventually all the procedures in the finance houses have been implemented. It will probably be a year after the Bill becomes an Act before there will be protection.
  Mr. Heseltine: Until the regulations under the Bill are laid and come into force there is no legal reason why the documentation in each area of the Bill should be changed. We can move very quickly on areas such a "truth in lending", and this we shall want to do. Organisations which are satisfied about the way in which the regulations will move could start adjusting their paper work, where practicable, to give form to

  589
  the spirit of what we are working towards, in advance of the regulations; but there will be no statutory backing for the changes until the regulations have been introduced.
  The hon. Member for Swansea, West, and my hon. Friend the Member for Merton and Morden (Miss Fookes) asked whether the positions of the Director General of Fair Trading and the Consumer Credit Commissioner should be combined. We considered this as a possibility. It is not an issue on which one takes a totally black or white view, because there are arguments why it might have been a possibility. On balance we came to the conclusion that it was right to separate the two.
  There were several reasons for this. First, the Director General of Fair Trading has a much wider remit than has the Consumer Credit Commissioner. Secondly, it will be necessary for the Consumer Credit Commissioner to become deeply immersed and specialised in particular problems of the trade with which he has to be associated. Thirdly, the Consumer Credit Commissioner will be an adjudicator, whereas the Director General of Fair Trading is not. It seemed to us that there might be incompatibility between the adjudicating responsibilities of the Consumer Credit Commissioner and the wide functions of the Director General. We accent at once that the two will have to work closely together, but we take the view that it would be better for them to be identified independently.
  Several hon. Members followed the hon. Member for Swansea, West in questioning the £30 limit and asking whether it will leave untouched one of the major areas of hardship. When the Labour Government considered this in the context of the Hire-Purchase Act 1965 they decided that the limit was justified. Without wishing to make a party point, the 1965 £30 is not the 1973 £30. I doubt whether any Opposition Member wishes me to produce the figures dealing with the value of the £ sterling between 1965 and 1970. I resist the temptation for the sake of concord between both sides on this important issue. The £30 limit of 1965 is now effectively a lower limit than it was when the matter was considered by the Labour Government, which decided to maintain that limit.
  590
  It will be possible to change by order the level of £30 if experience shows that it allows an area of hardship to continue. It is crucially important to recognise that in all the areas of anxiety expressed by hon. Members there is this overall licensing system, and the need for the regular renewal of licences. Anyone who indulges in unsavoury practices on a large scale is at risk of losing his licence, so there is a powerful sanction. If it works out that the £30 limit is wrong, we have power to deal with it by order.
  The "unrestricted-use" credit of under £30—the cash loan to the person most often hard pressed—will be subject to all the rigours of the Bill. In the £20 trading-checks situation raised by the hon. Member for the Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) there is exemption in respect of the documentation and the cooling-off procedures in the Bill. There were two reasons for that which commended themselves to us. The tally man example given by the hon. Member for the Hartlepools, and the making available of a service within the community whereby people get trading-checks which they can cash at local stores, are considerable and helpful practices.
  Under the general exclusions of the Bill, because these practices involve a personal visit, and a visit off trade premises there would have to be a cooling-off period and documentation, which would prejudice the business. In those circumstances, we should have to ask whether we might be doing a greater social ill by destroying that form of business, which is accepted wherever it is well practised, in order to achieve a benefit which undoubtedly would help a very small number of people but which at the moment is not an area about which we in the Department have had evidence of widespread hardship. If there was evidence, we would want to consider it. But we shall have the fallback position of the overall licensing system.
  Mr. Roper: Will the Minister confirm that it will be possible by regulation to vary the sum of £30 either upwards or downwards?
  Mr. Heseltine: My understanding is that it will be capable of variation up or down. If I find on examination that

  591
  that is not so, I shall let hon. Members know.
  Mr. Leadbitter: On the question of check trading I note the Minister's point, which is valid. It should be made clear that reputable trading firms are: not anxious to have pursued in their name the practices which I have described. Nevertheless I hope that the Minister will agree that some of these matters should be examined to see whether they can be brought within the Bill's protective provisions.
  Mr. Heseltine: They will come within the most important protective provision of the Bill, that is, the overall licensing system. That will probably be sufficient.
  The next important matter is the Crowther Committee's recommendation that hire purchase should be abolished. However, sufficient emphasis has perhaps not been given in the debate to the Crowther Committee's view, that, in order to abolish hire purchase, we need to make the taking of chattel mortgages enormously more simple than it is.
  I was asked whether I would give the Government's view about whether chattel mortgages are a less desirable form of social credit raising than hire purchase. It has been consistently the view of Governments over a long time that the extensive and easy use of chattel mortgages has an undesirable social menace in it, because people would be able to give, and under pressure will give, mortgages on their furniture or items of household value, in order to raise money. This seems to the Government to be a less desirable way of encouraging people to go about the business of obtaining credit than by proceeding through a hire purchase agreement.
  Mr. Alan Williams: The hon. Gentleman is not talking about the same thing. He is talking of a second mortgage on existing furniture and the purchase of existing furniture through hire purchase. We are talking about the purchase and ownership of the product. None of us on this side of the House would want the situation to which he is alluding.
  Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Member could say that what his proposal would amount to is that in abolishing hire purchase it would be possible to take chattel
  592
  mortgages on the goods which would be the subject of hire purchase. That is a valid point as long as we can amend the law to restrict the granting of chattel mortgages to the items bought at the time. Our concern is that if we so simplified the law in respect of chattel mortgages for that item of acquisition, the whole system of chattel mortgages would be simplified and that would have undesirable social implications. That was why we decided, in the general context of the law as we see it evolving, that it was better to retain hire-purchase agreements, subject to the changes which the Bill proposes.
  I come to the question of six months' interest on termination. I know that the Consumers Association has raised this matter—"the rule of 78" plus three months. I draw attention to the White Paper on the subject and to paragraph 18 of Appendix 3. We believe that it is a three months' period, not six months, which is involved. It is a matter of detailed interpretation of documents, and we will want to consider the point.
  The question of grossly exorbitant rates of interest and how they work out was raised. The 48 per cent. which is now provided in legislation in respect of moneylenders is not a limit above which the rates of interest become exorbitant. It is the point at which the onus of proof shifts from the borrower to the lender; he must prove that the rate of interest is reasonable. Our concern about the general question of fixing rates of interest which are a hard and fast barrier is that, in order to deal with extreme cases, we have to pitch the rate of interest relatively high. In the Moneylenders Acts it was pitched at 48 per cent., which in virtually every circumstance is a very high rate of interest. But if 45 per cent. is charged it is arguable that that is getting more reasonable, simply by working back from the high ceiling introduced in the legislation.
  It therefore seemed to us better not to fix a firm ceiling which would tend to draw people up to it but to have a set of guidelines which the courts would be able to interpret in order to deal more flexibly with all the systems and problems that will arise.
  I can with pleasure assure my hon. Friend the Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Montgomery) that when the Bill is

  593
  enacted, difficult and hard cases of the sort to which he referred will be covered in a number of ways. For example, the finance company in the case which he mentioned would be liable, jointly with the suppliers, for any defects and failures. This connected lender concept is introduced in the Bill.
  The right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) raised the question of whether the commissioner should work part time or full time. We have left the drafting of the Bill on this matter flexible. However, our intention is that the first appointment should be full-time. It is our view that the commissioner will need a staff of about 90. It is conceivable that, when the question of consumer credit has been brought within the new regulatory framework, the commissioner's job will be less than a full-time job. This is not a commitment that it will be, but it seems sensible to allow flexibility should it prove possible to use it in future. Our intentions are clear. We know how we intend to use the Bill, but we felt it reasonable to draft it flexibly.
  The right hon. Member for Hillsborough referred to the problem of obtaining information from a computer. It will not be a sufficient defence under the Bill to say that the computer cannot or will not do what is required. The computer must be made to bend to the requirements of the law. The only issue of which we must take cognisance is the time required to introduce any necessary programme change. The Bill lays down in Clause 72 the rights of debtors and hirers to get information. The public have a clearly outlined right, and it will be no answer to say that the computer does not recognise it.
  Mr. Darling: The Minister is suggesting that computers cannot make mistakes. Mistakes are not made deliberately, but they do occur. Dunning letters are sent to somebody who has paid his bills, the computer having said that he has not done so. I suggest that authority should be given to local enforcement officers to enable them to take action on behalf of harassed customers.
  Mr. Heseltine: I appreciate that, but I think the right hon. Gentleman will accept that, in the vast majority of cases, the kind of trading in which the computer
  594
  sends out statements about bills which have already been settled is not covered by the Bill. It is important that citizens should know their rights when dealing with a computer or an accounting machine which sends them bills which have already been paid. The receipt of a bill does not automatically make it due.
  The right hon. Gentleman asked about group licences for mutual clubs. The position here is that a group licence exempts a certain group of people, for example solicitors acting in the procurement of loans for their clients. A group licence would not be given to mutual clubs, but each mutual club could apply for a licence and on receipt of it the employees of a club would be embraced within the terms of the licence.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Sally Oppenheim) asked a number of questions about disclosures in advertisements. Two types of advertisement will be permitted. First there will be the unspecific advertisement, such as "Bloggs for loans". That makes no specific claim. It merely advertises the type of business in which Bloggs is indulging. Next there will be the specific advertisement which says "Bloggs for £1,000 loans". In those circumstances there must be disclosure of other information, such as the cost in pounds, the percentage per annum, the number and amount of instalments and the total cash payable.
  There is also the matter of the prominence of certain information in advertisements. One cannot lay down for visualisers and copywriters the precise form of every advertisement, but one can lay down a general set of rules. That is what we shall do, and it will be for the courts to determine whether an offence has been committed in the way in which advertisements are published.
  The hon. and learned Member for Warrington (Mr. W. T. Williams) asked about the use of enforcement inspectors in investigating complaints of harassment. This social problem is dealt with under the Administration of Justice Act 1970 and anybody, including weights and measures inspectors, can prosecute for that offence. In addition the Bill requires weights and measures authorities to investigate breaches, first in order to prosecute

  595
  on their own behalf, and secondly to give information to the commissioner in connection with his licensing powers. I believe that the power is as wide as is necessary.
  The number of people who will be required within the various weights and measures departments to implement the Bill is a matter for discussion with the appropriate associations. My hon. Friend the Member for Merton and Modern was right in pushing me to tell the House what effect the Bill is likely to have on inspectors. I am the first to say that these inspectors are carrying an increasing burden of the ever-growing desire of Parliament to improve the general quality of life in many ways. This is an expert group of men, and it is right to increase their numbers to cope with the problem rather than create a new force to do work which they are able to do. Discussions have been held with the institutes of weights and measures inspectors about training, and this process will continue until we reach a satisfactory agreement on numbers and the kind of training required.
  The hon. Lady the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler) asked about consultation. I thought that the hon. Lady was a little less than fair in suggesting that there had not been consultation about the Bill. I am sure no one would say that consultations start when a Bill is published. The best argument I can put forward is the enormous width of agreement about the provisions of the Bill, not only among hon. Members but among all the associations which have been consulted. It is a tribute to those who prepared the legislation that such a wide measure of agreement has been reached. Not all the matters have been resolved, but it was possible to reach so much agreement only because of the massive consultation that took place, starting with the Crowther Commission and continuing with the White Paper and the departmental consultations.
  Mrs. Joyce Butler: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to correct an impression which I may have created. I said that there was regret that the consultation had been asked for on the White Paper after its publication. The consultation would have been welcomed had it taken place
  596
  before the Bill was published. It was the undue speed with which the Bill was introduced which prevented that.
  Mr. Heseltine: I have a list of the organisations which were consulted before publication of the White Paper.
  Mrs. Butler: After publication.
  Mr. Heseltine: No, before. The list runs to several pages. The views of various organisations were canvassed, and since the publication of the White Paper and the Bill there has been a tremendous response from a number of bodies. I do not believe that the various associations, industries and other organisations can say that there are many areas in which their views have not been taken into account.
  Reference was made to discrimination against women, and I think that my right hon. and learned Friend dealt with that. I have no doubt that under Clause 24 the commissioner would feel fully entitled to withhold a licence if it were shown that there was such discrimination.
  Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: Can my hon. Friend confirm that it is still the law that a husband is responsible for his wife's debts?
  Mr. Heseltine: It may be out of order to say so, but my wife is listening. In those circumstances, I am prepared to answer that question in Committee, but not on the Floor of the House.
  Mr. Loughlin: Part III, Clause 20, on page 10, deals with the licence to be issued, and subsection (3) contains a reference to
  "A body corporate empowered by a public general Act".
  Can the Minister confirm that that is for different purposes, and does it mean that the electricity and gas boards are precluded from the provisions of the Bill? They indulge in extensive hire-purchase trading.
  Mr. Heseltine: It would be a question of interpretation of the statute which established any particular body corporate. One would have to see whether the terms of the law dealing with it excluded it. This is a general provision, and one would have to look at the particular statute that one was dealing with to find an answer.
  Mr. Loughlin: I am grateful to the Minister, who is doing his best to help the House. Will he assure the House that he will examine this issue and that, if he finds that bodies of this kind which are doing extensive hire-purchase business are excluded, he will bring forward an amendment in Committee?
  Mr. Heseltine: On the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, the nub is whether statutory undertakings such as gas and electricity authorities are excluded. They are excluded in the matter of licences, but they are still included in the other terms of the Bill, such as "truth in lending" and so on.
  Mr. Loughlin: But are they excluded from the licensing provisions on discrimination, for example?
  Mr. Heseltine: They do not need to have a licence. On the issues in the rest of the Bill, they need a licence.
  I was asked about the relationship of the Secretary of State, and thus of the House of Commons, with the Consumer Credit Commissioner. This matter is dealt with in Clause 3, which sets out clearly what that relationship amounts to. It is exactly the normal situation that one has with other statutorily independent organisations. The matters that are subject to the purview of the Secretary of State are subject to the Secretary of State being questioned in the House. But it would not be a matter of the day-to-day administration, which is excluded from the sort of questions which would be raised in this place. That is the normal situation which applies widely in regard to such organisations.
  Dr. John A. Cunningham: If the commissioner were, instead, someone who was operating in the Department of Trade and Industry—perhaps an under-secretary who was given this responsibility—presumably the Secretary of State would be answerable to Questions in the House.
  Mr. Heseltine: Yes, he would, but it would be a very different concept from the one we are following in this case. The Secretary of State is obviously answerable for direct employees of the Department of Trade and Industry, in any circumstances of which I have ever been aware.
  598
  The question of mutual loan societies was raised. Their numbers are very small in Britain. At present the Government do not see any problems associated with them which would merit changes in legislation that could be justified by the pressure which is on all of us in terms of the amount of work that the House has to do.
  The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick) raised the question of retrospective charge of interest where deposits had not been refunded quickly enough. This is not a matter which would be appropriate for this Bill. That is the only answer I can give. The hon. Member also asked whether solicitors should be investigated. That would be a job for the Law Society, which has statutory power to deal with situations of that sort. The hon. Member's third question was whether the commissioner could advertise his services. The commissioner would have such powers, but he will not be offering a complaints service. The weights and measures authorities are responsible for investigations of that sort. The citizens advice bureaux, which are supported by the Government, would also have an important part to play.
  One thing that has been most gratifying about the debate has been the enthusiasm with which the Bill has been accepted by hon. Members on all sides of the House. There are areas in which certain matters will have to be explored in Committee. I shall certainly want to take as helpful a view as possible, within the framework of decisions which the Government have asked the House to accept. I thank hon. Members for the courtesy with which they have greeted the Bill. It is an important step forward in improving the social fabric of this country. I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  Mr. Leadbitter: Before the Minister sits down—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): I think that the Minister has sat down.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

  CONSUMER CREDIT [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the appointment of a Consumer Credit Commissioner, and establish for the protection of consumers a new system, administered by that Commissioner, of licensing and other control of traders concerned with the provision of credit, or the supply of goods on hire or hire-purchase, and their transactions, in place of the present enactments regulating moneylenders, pawnbrokers and hire-purchase traders and their transactions, it is expedient to authorise:
  (1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of:

  (a) all expenses incurred by the Secretary of State:

  (i) in paying remuneration, allowances or other sums payable under that Act to or in respect of persons who hold or have held the office of Consumer Credit Commissioner, and

  (ii)in defraying all expenses duly incurred by the Commissioner in the payment of remuneration or allowances payable under that Act to the staff of the Commissioner and, to such amount as the Secretary of State, with the approval of the Treasury or the Minister for the Civil Service, may determine, all other expenses duly incurred by the Commissioner; and

  (b) any other expenses incurred by the Secretary of State or by any other Minister of the Crown or Government department in consequence of the provisions of that Act; and

  (c) any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of money provided by Parliament under the Superannuation Act 1972; and

  (2) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of:

  (a) any fees received by the Commissioner under that Act; and

  (b) any money appropriated from the Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland under that Act to make good such sums paid out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom in connection with the execution of that Act as may be determined by the Treasury to be properly payable by the Government of Northern Ireland.—[Mr. Michael Heseltine.]

  DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF
  8.25 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. John Nott): I beg to move,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Belize) Order 1973,
  600
  be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 16th October, in the last Session of Parliament.
  I think it would be for the convenience of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if we were to take at the same time the orders dealing with Brunei, Sweden and Barbados.
  I should open my remarks, perhaps, by saying that of the four double taxation orders before the House this evening, three, those relating to Barbados, Brunei and Sweden, amend existing agreements simply to take account of the change in our system of company taxation. The order relating to Belize also includes a provision granting double taxation relief for tax which would have been payable in Belize but for relief given under certain provisions of Belize law in order to encourage development.
  It might be convenient, therefore, if I dealt first with the provisions in all four orders relating to dividends. The treatment proposed for dividends flowing from the United Kingdom is basically the same in each case. It follows that provided in the double taxation agreement with Denmark, which came before the Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments in June.
  The hon. Member for Dudley (Dr. Gilbert) will remember that we debated the United Kingdom-Denmark order at some length in the Standing Committee. We have debated similar orders for Cyprus, France, Finland, Jamaica and Malaysia, and these also were approved by the Standing Committee in July. The same points of principle arise on the present orders as arose on those to which I have just referred.
  Under the new dividend articles, the tax credit in respect of dividends paid by a United Kingdom company will be given to portfolio investors in these countries—in other words, to all individuals resident there and all companies resident there which control less than 10 per cent. of the voting power in the United Kingdom company paying the dividend. Where the tax credit is given, the United Kingdom tax will be limited to 15 per cent. of the aggregate of the dividend plus the tax credit.
  The provisions in the dividend articles in respect of dividends flowing to the United Kingdom reflect the differences in the tax systems of the four countries.

  601
  The dividend articles in the case of Barbados, Belize and Brunei, which have broadly the same systems as the United Kingdom had before 1965, exempt the dividends from any tax other than that paid by the company on its profits. This is in line with what was done in the past.
  Under the terms of the protocol with Sweden, however, the withholding tax levied on portfolio dividends flowing to the United Kingdom will be 10 per cent. instead of the 15 per cent. currently allowed by the agreement. The rate levied on direct dividends will remain at 5 per cent., but the qualifying shareholding will be reduced from 25 per cent. to 10 per cent.
  I refer now to the remaining provisions of the Belize agreement, which gives matching credit in the United Kingdom for tax spared under certain provisions of Belize law. Relief of this nature is a feature of a number of our existing double taxation agreements, and we are here, in the double taxation order relating to Belize, merely following a pattern which has been established for some time.
  We regard these four agreements as fair and properly balanced, and I commend them to the House, but I think that I should now say a few words to answer in advance a few of the questions which may naturally arise in the mind of the hon. Member for Dudley.
  In the past, there has been considerable debate on the question of the retrospection of these double taxation agreements. We should like to see as many agreements as possible take effect from 6th April 1973, the date on which the new corporation tax system started to apply to dividends. Where negotiations are already in progress, we are offering to make the new agreements retrospective to 6th April, and we are prepared to make the same offer in future so long as there seems to be a reasonable chance that an agreement will be ratified before the end of the current income tax year; that is, before 6th April 1974.
  In other cases we shall have to consider the extent to which we should be prepared to allow retrospection. I mention that because I know that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) was concerned about this aspect of double taxation agreements
  602
  when he was Financial Secretary to the Treasury.
  It may help the House if I now outline the progress which we have made so far in negotiations with other partner countries over the revision of the dividend article. This article, as the hon. Gentleman recognises, has to be changed as a result of our going over to an imputation system of corporation tax. Revised dividend articles are now in force with Cyprus, Denmark, France and the Republic of Ireland, and revised dividend articles with Finland, Jamaica and Malaysia are only awaiting ratification in those countries. The United Kingdom has already completed its procedures in each of these cases.
  Negotiations are at present in train with other partner countries which have responded to our invitation to discuss the revision of the dividend articles in our conventions.
  Now, a word about the provisions relating to Belize and the whole question of pioneer relief. I think that the House may wish to know what is the estimate of cost to the United Kingdom of granting pioneer relief provisions in our double taxation agreements. It is not possible to give an exact estimate of the cost to the United Kingdom of the matching credit provisions which have been agreed with Belize.
  It would be short-sighted to seek to judge agreements of this kind, which include relief for pioneer arrangements in developing countries, purely in terms of what they might cost the United Kingdom. There are intangible advantages in the kind of arrangements we are seeking to agree with Belize, particularly in assisting international trade and helping with aid. I believe that such a provision is generally agreed by businessmen, and it has always been welcomed by the House.
  There are a number of other matters on which I shall be happy to help the hon. Member for Dudley. He may have one or two points to raise, and so I shall give him an opportunity now to put questions to me.
  8.35 p.m.
  Dr. John Gilbert: I am grateful to the Minister for the customary lucidity of his exposition. He has already

  603
  answered some of the points I had intended to raise.
  The first question in my mind, one that may well be in the minds of other hon. Members, is why the House is discussing these matters. I realise that it is not the hon. Gentleman's responsibility, but it seems a pity that we could not have delayed the introduction of the orders until the Standing Committee was set up, and therefore not have had to take up the time of the House discussing these relatively minor matters.
  I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving an indication of the progress of negotiations with other partner countries with which we have double taxation agreements. He stimulated my curiosity, perhaps a little unwisely, by implying that certain of our partner countries have not yet responded to suggestions from the Government that the dividend clauses in existing agreements be renegotiated. How many of our partner countries have failed to respond? When does the hon. Gentleman expect a response to be forthcoming? I take it that the Government do not propose to let the matter rest there. Can the hon. Gentleman outline some of the consequences of the provisions of the double taxation agreements not being renegotiated to take account of our new form of corporation tax, if no response is forthcoming in the near future?
  I was intrigued by a variation of wording in certain sub-paragraphs of the agreements, which one would have thought had been intended to stand on all fours one with another. I refer in particular to the first sentence of paragraph 1(4) of the schedules. In the schedule relating to Brunei paragraph 1(4) reads:
  "Dividends paid by a company resident in Brunei to a resident of the United Kingdom may be taxed in the United Kingdom."
  The first sentence of the similar subparagraph relating to Sweden reads:
  "Dividends paid by a company which is a resident of Sweden and which are beneficially owned by a resident of the United Kingdom may be taxed in the United Kingdom."
  There is a similar discrepancy in wording in the Barbados agreement, which says:
  "Dividends paid by a company which is a resident of Barbados to a resident of the United Kingdom who is subject to tax in the United Kingdom. …"
  604
  Neither that paragraph nor, as far as I can recall, sub-paragraph (4) of the Belize agreement includes the phrase found in the Brunei and Sweden agreements to the effect that dividends of that sort may be taxed in the United Kingdom. No doubt the omission is harmless, but I shall be grateful if the hon. Gentleman can satisfy my curiosity.
  I have a further point with respect to sub-paragraph (7) of the Swedish agreement and sub-paragraph (5) of the Brunei agreement, where there are some extensions of the term "dividends". The schedule to the Swedish order says in the new Article VII(7):
  "The term 'dividends' as used in this Article means income from shares, mining shares, founders' shares or other rights, not being debt-claims, participating in profits, as well as income from other corporate rights assimilated to income from shares by the taxation law of the territory of which the company making the distribution is a resident …".
  This next phrase does not appear in the other agreements:
  "… and, in the case of the United Kingdom, includes any item (other than interest exempt from United Kingdom tax under Article VIII of this Convention) which under the law of the United Kingdom is treated as a distribution of a company."
  These are probably minor discrepancies, but they attracted my attention when I read the four orders, and I should be grateful if the Minister of State would enlighten us as to any significance they may have.
  Mr. Nott: By leave of the House, I will reply to the points raised by the hon. Member for Dudley (Dr. Gilbert).
  I, too, would have welcomed it if the debate had taken place in the merits Committee upstairs. We are reverting temporarily to the traditional manner of considering double taxation agreements. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is rather more pleasant to consider a double taxation agreement at 10.30 in the morning than it is at 8.45 in the evening. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the House is considering these orders tonight because the merits Committee has not yet been set up for the current Session.
  We are making progress with all the other double taxation agreements. We are in touch with all our partners. There is obviously a variation in the speed with which many countries with which we

  605
  have agreements wish to move. Normally it is not of any great disadvantage not to renegotiate the dividend article. It depends very much on the taxation system of the other country. We are proceeding as best we can with what can be fairly detailed negotiations with a large number of other countries. I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that we have made substantial progress up to now. I hope that we shall be able to bring more of these orders before the House in due course.
  The hon. Gentleman pointed to discrepancies in the wording as between the four orders. Although I will carefully study what the hon. Gentleman said and write to him giving the detail on any point I am not able to answer immediately now, I think I can say to him now that all these negotiations are bilateral and it is only to be expected that the wording will be rather different and will not be precisely the same in every case. I do not think that there is any difference in substance between "beneficially owned" and "owned".
  Mr. Ted Leadbitter: It is all very well for the Minister of State to say that he regrets that these orders are being dealt with here rather than in the merits Committee. Bilateral agreements are being implemented in the form of double taxation relief orders. The House is asked to approve these orders at a time when only two hon. Members are taking part—the Minister of State and my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Dr. Gilbert). This does not constitute examination by the House of Commons. The Minister should inform his Department that this is not the way in which these orders should be dealt with. Nothing will go wrong on this occasion, because a promise has been given.
  Mr. Nott: With respect, this is more a matter for the House than for my Department, but, so far as I am aware, double taxation orders were taken in the House over many years in the manner in which we are now taking them. In a way, we are now reverting to the traditional way of dealing with double taxation orders. Although I much prefer to take them in the morning in the merits Committee upstairs, the hon. Member for the Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) was present
  606
  on one occasion and will admit that there were rather fewer people in the merits Committee than there are in the House tonight. We may have a minor disagreement on the numbers present, but certainly I have taken note of his view.
  Dr. Gilbert: To reinforce the point of my hon. Friend the Member for the Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter), although it is not for me to put words into his mouth, he might be gratified if the hon. Gentleman could give us an assurance that we shall not have any more of these orders brought forward until the Committee is set up.
  Mr. Nott: I cannot give that assurance, because it is a matter for the House when the merits Committee is set up in each Session. Much as I should like to help the hon. Gentleman, there may be circumstances in which the House is unable or unwilling to set up the merits Committee at the beginning of a Session, and in which we literally have to move ahead and deal with orders and get them out of the way as a matter of executive and administrative necessity. So, although I am quite happy to take these orders in the merits Committee, and prefer that course, I could not give that undertaking. But, to revert to what I was saying before I was interrupted, I will look into the technical points which the hon. Gentleman made and will get in touch with him if I have not already fully answered the points which concern him.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Belize) Order 1973, be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 16th October, in the last Session of Parliament.—[Mr. Nott.]
  Resolved,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Brunei) Order 1973, be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 16th October, in the last Session of Parliament.—[Mr. Nott]
  Resolved,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that, on the ratification by the Government of the Kingdom of Sweden of the Further Supplementary Protocol set out in the Schedule to the Order entitled the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Sweden) Order 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 16th October, in the last Session

  607
  of Parliament, an Order may be made in the form of that draft.—[Mr. Nott.]
  Resolved,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Barbados) Order 1973, be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 2nd November.—[Mr. Nott.]
  Addresses to be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

  DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF
    ADJOURNMENT
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jopling.]

  NORTH WEST WATER AUTHORITY
  8.47 p.m.
  Mr. Charles R. Morris: This debate takes place against a background of concern, anxiety and misgivings in the city of Manchester about the composition of the North West Water Authority.
  The exclusion of the Manchester District Council from direct representation on the North West Water Authority is a gratuitous snub to a great city and to distinguished elected representatives and ratepayers of all political persuasions in the city, who have contributed so much time, ability, experience and cash to creating the acknowledged impressive and efficient Manchester water undertaking which, as the Minister well knows, will be transferred to the North West Water Authority from 1st April 1974.
  It is perhaps worth while recalling that the Manchester water undertaking at present supplies water to a population of 1,240,000 in the areas of 27 local authorities, and that the city of Manchester has a population of 531,270 out of a total population of 7 million in the area of the North West Water Authority. Yet not one member of the 27-strong North West Water Authority now created is resident in the city of Manchester, or indeed in the detailed area to which the city currently supplies water. It is situations such as this which make people cynical of Ministers and Secretaries of State who talk glibly of community participation
  608
  in the democratic processes. Manchester's water and sewage works and installations, valued at more than £200 million, are to be handed over to the North West Water Authority without Mancunians having any say in their future use.
  The Chairman of the North West Water Authority, in what I felt, taking the most charitable view, was a smug, complacent and misleading letter to the editor of the Manchester Evening News on 18th October of this year, replied to the controversy now surrounding this issue in Manchester by conceding that Manchester would not be represented on the new authority. But he argued that neither would the cities of Carlisle and Liverpool and the county of Cumberland. He omitted to explain that he and a Mr. Fleming Smith, appointed by the Secretary of State, live in Carlisle, that a Mr. Jones, appointed by the Minister, and Sir William Sefton, quite properly elected by the Merseyside Metropolitan County Council, are resident in Liverpool, and that a number of members of the authority have their homes in the area of the Cumberland County Council; yet not one member of the new authority lives in Manchester.
  The Chairman, Mr. Liddell, ended his missive to the Manchester Evening News by making a veiled reference to what he termed "Mancunian parochialism". I submit that that is an unworthy charge to level against a city whose ratepayers have contributed so much financial support to the building of the Manchester water undertaking.
  I remind Mr. Liddell, the Minister and this House that it was not parochialism which built the series of impounding reservoirs at Longdendale in the Peak District National Park between 1847 and the end of the nineteenth century, or the building of the Thirlmere reservoir which was opened in 1894, or the Haweswater Aquaduct in 1940. It was not parochialism which prompted Manchester Corporation's waterworks department to create the tremendously attractive amenity and conservation areas in the Lake District and the afforestation schemes which it has created.
  Longdendale, Thirlmere, Haweswater, Swindale, Ullswater, and Windermere are names which have special significance for the Palace of Westminster. The parliamentary battles over Manchester's Acts of

  609
  Parliament designed to extend its water gathering grounds in the Lake District are almost legendary. But perhaps it is even more significant to remember some of the organisations which fought Manchester's plans for improving the North-West's water resources.
  In 1961 Manchester's opponents to its Ullswater and Bannersdale proposals included the Lancashire River Board, the Cumberland River Board, the Lake District Planning Board, the Country Landowners Association and the National Farmers Union. In 1965, in connection with the Ullswater-Windermere scheme, among Manchester's opponents were the Lake District Planning Board and the North Lonsdale Rural District Council. In 1973, in connection with the Shap Aquaduct legislation, Manchester was opposed again by the National Farmers Union and the Lake District Planning Board.
  If we carefully examine the background of the individuals now appointed and elected to the North West Water Authority, we find members associated with all these organisations on the new authority—a classic case of Manchester's water undertaking being delivered into the hands of its traditional enemies.
  One may well ask: how did this situation happen, and how can it be put right? The two seats on the North West Water Authority elected by the Manchester metropolitan district councils—the temporary Joint Co-ordinating Committee—were determined in the main by smaller authorities on the periphery of the city who manifested an understandable anti "big-brother" Manchester attitude, while the Minister and the Secretary of State made their nominations known before the elections took place.
  This evening the Minister has the opportunity to put this injustice right. He has the power under Clause 3(9) of the Water Act 1973 to vary the membership of any regional water authority. Let him use it and give Manchester at least one voice on the new authority.
  The present distinguished chairman of Manchester Corporation waterworks committee is not standing for election to the Manchester district councils and, therefore, I submit that the Minister might usefully consider him for nomination to the authority. Furthermore, the former Lord Mayor of Manchester, Alderman
  610
  Grant, who stood for election to the Manchester district council seat, is yet another able and distinguished representative. Equally, there are other politicians on the city council who have served the city's water undertaking and the North-West with distinction.
  I ask the Minister to consider the composition of the North West Water Authority and to give Manchester the justice which so far it has manifestly been denied. Water rates will no doubt inevitably arise under the new authority. I submit that it is not unreasonable for Manchester ratepayers to demand no further taxation without representation.
  8.59 p.m.
  Mr. Kenneth Marks: I shall be brief because my hon. Friend for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Charles R. Morris) has covered most of the points. An unfortunate situation has arisen, a situation which, I am sure, the Secretary of State did not anticipate when he made his nominations to the new water authority. What has happened is that there is not a single resident from the area involved, an area with a population of over 1 million, serving on the authority, and this is a great pity. I certainly do not think the Secretary of State anticipated that this would happen.
  Manchester waterworks at present supplies an area larger than the city itself. I am sure that the Secretary of State presumed that the district councils would elect one of the Manchester representatives with very long experience in handling a large water authority, but this has not happened. Inevitably at this stage in local government reorganisation there is some ganging up on what some of the smaller authorities regard as Big Brother. It is a pity, but it is so. I hope that it will die down. I accept that some of these authorities had their own water undertakings before and that others did not. Part of my constituency is situated in the city of Manchester and part outside, so I know the feelings of both sides on this matter. However, the situation remains that the largest water authority did not receive any representation.
  I am concerned about the great deal of valuable experience that has been lost to the water authority. Councillors who have been members not only of Manchester's waterworks committee, but of

  611
  its Rivers Committee, responsible for sewage disposal, have great experience—I say this with due modesty—of one of the world's great water authorities which has provided a good, cheap supply of water for many years. Its pioneering and imaginative projects, not only in water supply but in sewage disposal, have drawn the attention of people all over the world. Any one who has visited the Lakes, or the reservoirs in Derbyshire or Cheshire or within the city, has been tremendously impressed. Recently I met members of the Copenhagen city council who came specifically to see Manchester's water and sewage disposal plants. They were deeply impressed. Almost monthly Manchester has visitors from many parts of the world coming to see what it has done.
  To put those schemes in operation over the past 100 years has meant having not only good officers to devise the schemes but councillors prepared and not afraid to make decisions, without a vested interest in a particular aspect of water authority work, wanting only to ensure adequate water supplies and sewage disposal for this huge industrial area.
  This heavily populated area, with its record in water supply and sewage disposal, has no representative on this 27-strong water authority. The solution lies with the Secretary of State. He is able to make an additional nomination, or, at least, to assure us that he will seriously consider the points that have been put forward should a vacancy occur on the water authority. There is a geographical imbalance in the structure of the water authority. I hope that the Secretary of State will do something about it.
  9.3 p.m.
  Mr. Frank Hatton: My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Charles R. Morris) has outlined fairly fully the grave disquiet in Manchester about its not having a representative on the new water authority.
  As a former member of the Manchester City Council for 20 years and an elected member of the new Manchester district council I am gravely concerned about the effects of local government reorganisation, particularly in the North-West. We have here another example of democracy going out of the window.
  612
  The Manchester water undertaking, as my hon. Friends the Members for Openshaw and Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) have pointed out, has been built by the elected representatives of all parties who, when elections came along, could have been dismissed.
  Within local government Manchester has been responsible for much of the pace-making which has gone on in our big cities and major counties, and it can be proud of its record. If we were drawing up a list of first-rate municipal enterprises the Manchester water undertaking would rank highly.
  It was built by the elected representatives of the people, but after 1st April there will be a very different situation. Consumers in the area, when they take their queries to, or want to discuss some aspect of the undertaking with, those in authority will find themselves talking to appointees whose policy, even if they disagree with it, will be very much that of the Secretary of State. That is an undemocratic road.
  I have never served on the Manchester waterworks committee but I have a very good knowledge of the ability of those who have run it. They have made an outstanding contribution to local government in the North-West. As my hon. Friends have pointed out, the water undertaking has gone far beyond the boundaries of the city of Manchester. Indeed, it has really been a regional water supplier for south-west Lancashire and north Cheshire.
  It has been argued that Mr. Harrison, the engineer and manager of the Manchester waterworks undertaking and a very distinguished local government officer, will hold the chief appointment in the new authority, but, with all respect to him, that is not the answer. The new undertaking should be in the hands of the representatives of the people. Of the 27 members of the new authority 13 will have been appointed by the Secretary of State.
  The great Davyhulme sewage works in Manchester treats sewage for 12 other authorities in the area and disposes of sludge for 12 more within the conurbation. Both in water supply and in sewage disposal the Manchester undertaking has taken the initiative in many ways in exploring new methods of water supply and sludge disposal.

  613
  Manchester is handing over capital assets totalling about £100 million. It is my belief, as it is that of many of my fellow citizens, that Manchester has the right, in view of its record, to be represented on the new authority. I ask the Secretary of State to think again even at this late stage in view of the impressive record of the city of Manchester, and to make available to one of its representatives a place on the new authority.
  9.10 p.m.
  Mr. Ted Leadbitter: My interest in the subject arises from the other end of the wicket, namely, the Windermere, Ullswater and Thirlmere end, the area which supplies the schemes which the Manchester water authority has developed so well. I live in the North and use that area for my leisure as do many thousands of people. What strikes me most forcibly is that the Manchester water authority has managed to develop extensive schemes without marring the beauty of the Lake District. A traveller in that area can pass through it without noticing any of the buildings, such is the care that is taken in the landscaping so as not to mar the beauty of the countryside.
  I have another interest. I said in Committee on the Local Government Bill I had many reservations about the Secretary of State's pronouncements on the setting up of the new water authorities. Many of us were unhappy then and still are unhappy about that. Arising from the discontent with the manner in which water authorities were set up, there has been a continuing controversy in Manchester and elsewhere. My area is now described as the new Cleveland County, a non-metropolitan county—and I am unhappy about that. The chairman of the planning authority who has long service in connection with water schemes was not content with the representation on the new water authority for that area. If for such a huge area representation by only one member caused him to get upset, how much more cause has Manchester to get upset when it has no representation at all?
  Large sums of money have been involved in three water schemes which have come to my attention. As recently as May the Manchester authority was concerned with a large pumping station project at Windermere involving an estimated capital investment of £3,751,000. A few
  614
  months previously the authority was concerned with the Watergate treatment works. The tender price for contract No. 1 involving control room instrumentation, filter equipment, chemical handling and feed equipment, valves and penstocks, wash water pumps and disposal was £2,939,000. That work involves the use of men of considerable ability and a great deal of expertise.
  Only a few months before, in October 1971, we had the Ullswater scheme, involving not only pumping stocks and pumping mains but tunnelling work and complicated connecting equipment. A gauging station had to be built and other works had to be done. The total sum involved was about £2½ million.
  We should not be arguing with the Minister about who should be on the committee. It should be accepted that it is folly for the North West authority to deprive itself of the services of men who have been associated with the most recent and updated schemes.
  Mr. Robert Redmond: The hon. Gentleman is adducing a strong argument, but does he agree that the Manchester Corporation is far from democratic in its present attitude because it has decided to introduce fluoride into the water it supplies to people in Bolton who have decided strongly against fluoride? Therefore, councillors elected by and responsible only to the people of Manchester are taking decisions for people to whom they have no responsibility. Will the hon. Gentleman bear that in mind when he is talking about these great schemes?
  Mr. Leadbitter: That is a problem for the new water authority, and—
  Mr. Laurance Reed: Exactly.
  Mr. Leadbitter: Be patient. I know that the question of fluoride is sensitive, but in my part of the country it is already in the natural water. I understand that God is an exceptionally democratic person, and the Manchester Corporation is a darned sight more democratic than what happened yesterday when democracy was slapped in the face by the Government declaring a state of emergency. When talking about democracy, we should bear in mind that, if we cannot be consistent

  615
  about an argument, it is better for us to remain seated. That is a far more restful position.
  The debate having been made rather interesting as a result of the intervention of the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Redmond), who rose with the best of intentions and sat down disappointed, I come to the crux of the theme I was developing. It is not a question of who should serve on the water board. If it is accepted that the Manchester Water Board has incurred a capital cost in less than three years of nearly £7 million in providing updated equipment such as pumping stations, gauging stations and distribution systems, and accepting, as one must, that the work cannot continue without a great deal of expertise and experience, is it right to deprive the North West Water Authority of that knowledge and experience? Is it not right that the Minister should call in aid the provisions of the Act and solve the problem without an argument? It can be done without displacing anyone.
  Those who have considered the wider spectrum of the water boards throughout the country and the manner of their institution have seen, as it were, a kind of heart transplant operation carried out in local government reorganisation without much of a chance to debate it.
  We feel that there might have been a lapse in objective thinking, and I have tried to draw the Minister's attention to it. Some of the people on these boards do not appear to have any experience at all. They are there because their faces fit. They are there because they know someone. It is akin to a kind of honours list. Those who do the work are forgotten, while those who push their names forward the extroverts in the business—get the honours. It is simply a fact of life. I have no quarrel with that, because we live in a real world. After all, we have government by default.
  I repeat that we live in a real world, but let the Minister accept something to justify our having to tolerate it. Let him accept a good argument when it is put to him. He has a solution. He has the men in Manchester who are able to do the job. The Minister has the experience and the authority. He is the Minister in charge of sport. Let him
  616
  tonight be a sport instead of making all those difficult little calculations, even though his car broke down on the way here.
  9.22 p.m.
  Mr. Laurence Reed: I do not represent any part of Manchester, but I do represent part of Bolton, which lies on the outskirts of that city and into which it will be drawn under the local government changes. Bolton is to be represented on the new regional water authority.
  I have listened with some amazement—in fact, I have been almost dumbfounded—to the claims of hon. Gentlemen opposite that Manchester should be democratically represented on the new regional water authority. The essence of their case is that it is an important area with a lot of knowledge, and it has made such an important contribution to water development that it should be represented on that body.
  I have listened with amazement to the case put by hon. Gentlemen opposite, in the knowledge that Manchester City Council has acted towards my constituency in a wholly undemocratic manner. I suggest that such behaviour does not enhance the city's case for democratic representation on the new regional water authority.
  I am referring to the decision of the Manchester City Council to put fluoride in the water which it obtains from the Lake District and elsewhere. Hon. Gentlemen opposite may be unaware that five or six years ago a democratic process was gone through in my constituency. There was a referendum on this issue. Referenda are what hon. Gentlemen want to hold on other issues. The turnout was 85 per cent., rather more than at General Elections, and the vote went overwhelmingly against the introduction of fluoride.
  A decision has now been taken by Manchester City Council, on which Bolton is not represented, to force its decision upon us, yet when I received a petition signed by 22,000 of my constituents and wished to present it to the Lord Mayor of Manchester he rejected it. He will not even receive it. He will not even do me hearing my constituents' case. That is not the common, elementary courtesy of democratic behaviour.
  Mr. Charles R. Morris: Surely the hon. Gentleman is not seriously advancing the arguments about fluoridation against the background of the composition of the North-West Water Authority? Manchester's case for representation on the new authority stands on nearly 80 years of history of providing water resources for the population of virtually the whole of the North-West. Surely the hon. Gentleman is not seriously arguing that, merely because Manchester City Council has taken an attitude about fluoridation of water, it should be denied access to this new authority.
  Mr. Reed: No. I am not. I have listened to the case you have made. Many of us in the greater Manchester area would be prepared to support Manchester's case for representation on this authority, but what I am saying is that when you behave in this way you are not enhancing your case.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must address the Chair.
  Mr. Reed: It was the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) who said that democracy had been thrown out of the window in this case. That is one of the important strands of the argument, as I understand it. If I wished to support it, I should find it very difficult to do so.
  Mr. Marks: The point about fluoridation has been one of the problems of Manchester Corporation. The corporation has supplied a large number of districts, as well as the people who elected the members of the Manchester City Council. The part of my constituency in which I live is outside Manchester but takes Manchester's water. The council for that area wanted fluoridation. Thus, there was a problem for Manchester. Does the corporation have to wait till every council or every person in the area wants something?
  Mr. Reed: As we see it, the proper authority to decide this issue is the new regional water authority which comes into being in April. Many councillors in Manchester have supported that view, even though they were in favour of fluoridation. We support that view because we shall be democratically represented, whereas we are not represented in any way on the Manchester City Council.
  618
  If hon. Members would like to encourage the Lord Mayor of Manchester to change his mind, to be a little more reasonable and to show a little courtesy in receiving the petition of my constituents on this matter, they might find that they have much wider support than they have at present. I am bound to say to hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House that it is not for the shouter to complain of the echo.
  9.27 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Cocks: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Charles R. Morris) for initiating the debate. I am also grateful to him for allowing me some of his precious time in order that I may make a contribution.
  I was most interested to hear how Manchester has been slighted in this respect. I hope that the Minister, when he replies, will not try to make out that possibly there may have been an element of lack of natural justice here but that it is an unfortunate and an isolated example. The remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) were very much to the point. He said that one had a number of smaller district councils deliberately ganging up against a vast authority which they felt had assumed quite wrongly the rôle of big brother.
  My hon. Friend the Member for the Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter), who is always helpful in these matters, mentioned the question of appointments. Here again I hope that the Minister will not lightly gloss over that point. I do not wish to cast aspersions against those who are appointed. This morning, however, I was reading the bulletin of the South West Sports Council, in which I noticed that one of the prominent members of the Sports council was being congratulated on appointment to the water authority. With the best will in the world, in making these appointments there is a tendency to start raking over the same sort of list of people already in these jobs to find people to put into the new jobs. I hope that the Minister will examine this matter. This is a problem applying not to water authorities alone, as the Minister will know, but to other appointed bodies such as hospital boards.
  I have been interested to hear about Manchester because there is a similar

  619
  situation in my own area, and I hope that the Minister will make passing reference to it. It has already been drawn to his Department's attention. Bristol has no representative on the new water authority in the South West. Here also, referring again to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Gorton, there is the same feeling that the smaller district councils have ganged up against the large authority.
  I have reminded the House on other occasions that Bristol, with a population of 424,000, is by far the largest district council in the country. Indeed, its size is an embarrassment to the Government. It is such an obvious anomaly that I suspect that they would very much like to correct it in some way, but they have not got the courage. As I say, Bristol, like Manchester, is a very large district council—in fact, it embraces 47 per cent. of the population of Avon county—yet it has no representative on the water authority. This omission was denounced by our local paper, the Evening Post, which described it as extremely unfair and a very bad way to start reorganisation.
  The district council-elect complained to the Minister, and the reply from the Department said, in effect, "We note the situation which you have outlined. Although you may have no representative on the water authority, the thing has been done according to what the law requires, and that is really an end of the matter."
  It is absurd if areas of large population are to be penalised in this way. We must not forget that in our new local government system areas such as Manchester and Bristol will provide the bulk of the resources and the bulk of the expertise. Yet it seems that among the smaller district councils there are a number of pretty, narrow-minded and puffed-up men who seem determined to humiliate large authorities such as those of Manchester and Bristol.
  Mr. Cyril Smith: Rubbish.
  Mr. Cocks: It undermines confidence in the new structure.
  Mr. Laurence Reed: It is certainly not the intention of my constituency to humiliate Manchester, but, if Manchester
  620
  behaves in the way it has, inevitably it makes it much more difficult to build the effective partnership which we must have in local government in our part of the country. The surrounding areas resent the Big Brother concept. What is more, one has to recognise that the surrounding areas have always tried to keep Manchester at bay anyway, and now that they are drawn in there are supicions. If we want to build effective co-operation, that must be taken into account. The high-handed arrogant attitude of the city of Manchester has quite the reverse effect. What is more, as I say, it is detrimental to Manchester's own interests.
  Mr. Cocks: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention—I know that he has a great interest in water—and to some extent I take the point he makes, knowing how vexed is the fluoridation question. I admire him also for his independence of spirit, for only within the last 24 or 48 hours has he been given some sort of minor acolyte status on his side, yet here he is hardly off his feet since receiving the appointment. I had understood that it was usual in these matters to exhibit a certain reticence, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his active interest. I understand the point he makes, and I have some sympathy with it, but it is not germane to the issue we are discussing.
  I remind the Minister that in both the Manchester area and the Bristol area everything was going extremely well in the provision of services, and whatever reconstruction and reorganisation has been necessary has had to be done because there has been a proliferation of smaller authorities. Surely these large areas should not feel themselves to be deliberately penalised in the reorganisation whether of water authorities, local government or whatever it may be. I shall be grateful if the Minister widens his reply somewhat to cover the more general situation.
  9.34 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): The debate has been principally about Manchester, but it has been nice to have one or two away teams from the neighbouring community of Bolton, Hartlepools and Bristol.

  621
  The only thing with which I agreed in the interesting speech of the hon. Member for the Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) was that I could have been somewhere else. I think that the half-time score in the match between England and Italy was 0–0. I cannot give the House the latest score.
  In what was essentially a debate between Manchester City and the new Manchester United, which will be the body putting forward members to the regional water authority, it was interesting to have Bristol Rovers, Bolton Wanderers and Hartlepools United on the field.
  The object of the exercise is not to humiliate Manchester, Bristol or anyone else. The Water Act is concerned to enable the people of this country to have abundant supplies of clean water to drink, to have efficient bodies to manage their sewerage and rivers, and to have within each of the new important authorities a majority of locally-elected members to achieve a measure of democratic control.
  Having grown up in the area not far from Manchester, having spent some time along the reservoirs of the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Laurance Reed), and having not long ago visited the Manchester water authority, and seen some of its splendid works, both in sewerage and in water supply, I am the first to acknowledge warmly Manchester's undoubted achievement in the provision of water services not only for its own people but for the people of many communities in the conurbations.
  The corporation has been one of the leaders in developing major new sources of water supply and transmitting them along its long aqueduct from the Lake District. As well as supplying Manchester, its system has become an indispensable part of the whole water supply structure in South-East Lancashire. I warmly congratulate it on its achievements.
  Therefore, I well understand the concern of the hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Charles R. Morris), who initiated the debate, that the tradition of an outstanding service should be carried on. I can also understand that at a time when Manchester sees its water assets being transferred, quite properly, to the new regional water authority, people in Manchester could well find it
  622
  hard that no representative of the present Manchester county borough has found a place on the new authority.
  I should say in passing that I am gratified that the present engineer and manager of the Manchester Corporation's water undertaking has been appointed director of operations of the North West Water Authority. But I accept that the appointment of an official is not the same thing as the appointment of elected members.
  I should like to explain briefly the principles on which members are appointed to the new water authorities. The matter was discussed in great detail in the Standing Committee on the Water Bill. We were seeking a proper balance between democratic control—a majority of the members coming from the properly elected local authorities—and a relatively compact authority, so that executive decisions could be taken. To find that balance between democratic control, which would tend to spread the numbers, and the need for an executive body to be reasonably small and compact is not easy.
  We devised a somewhat complex formula, which applies nationally. Metropolitan counties have two members appointed to the relevant water authority by their county councils. In addition, they have a further two members appointed by the district councils within that county collectively. A non-metropolitan county with a quarter or more of its population in the area of a water authority will have one member appointed to the water authority by the county council and one appointed by the district councils in the county. And so it goes. It is easy to attack this formula, as it is easy to attack any formula.
  Mr. John Wells: This is a most important matter not only for Manchester but for all the regions. My hon. Friend used the phrase "And so it goes." It would be very helpful if for the record he would spell out what was in his mind when he used that phrase. There is anxiety outside the House amongst the public at large who do not understand how people are coming on to these new authorities.
  Mr. Griffiths: I shall be glad to explain, without detaining the House for too

  623
  long. In the case of the metropolitan counties, there are two members from the metropolitan county council and two members from the districts within that county. In the case of the non-metropolitan counties, there is one member from the county council and one member from the district. This is in the case of counties with one-quarter or more of their population in the area of the regional water authority. In the case of a county which has only a small proportion of its population covered by the regional water authority—that is, between a quarter and a sixth of its population—the county council puts on one member, and that is the whole representation.
  As I said, this formula is somewhat complex, but it was arrived at only after the most extensive consultations with the various authorities. It was most exhaustively scrutinised by both Houses, and I believe it has now come to be generally accepted as a formula within the country. On the basis of this formula, the water authorities have now been firmly set up with an almost complete complement of members.
  I come at once to the concern that the hon. Gentleman expressed in his speech. He went a little far when he suggested that Manchester's very great water assets were now being delivered into the hands of its traditional enemies. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to pause before suggesting that a new authority a majority of whose members are elected members of the many local authorities throughout the whole of the North West is somehow to be regarded as an enemy of Manchester. These are people who dedicate a great deal of their time and effort to the public service. So I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not say that. I thought that he was a little unkind when he—in my view, quite gratuitously—saw fit to insult the newly-appointed chairman of the regional water authority who, I should like to say here and now, is a most excellent person in whom the Government have the most complete confidence.
  Mr. Charles R. Morris: When I used the term "traditional enemies" I meant it in the context of parliamentary enemies and opponents. I meant it in the context of the individuals who over many years have been associated with organizations
  624
  which have opposed legislation seeking to expand Manchester's water gathering grounds in the Lake District. I identified the occasions on which these organisations had opposed Manchester's proposals over a very long period.
  Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman must make his own explanations. I hope that he does not persist in describing these people as Manchester's traditional enemies.
  The hon. Gentleman's complaint was that the Manchester district council, which covers an area of great population, is not directly represented on the North West authority. We considered many other formulae than the one which has been accepted. We wondered, for example, whether we could put greater emphasis on population and allow the representation to derive entirely from that. But the result of that, because of the uneven distribution of population over wide areas, would have been that most of the water authorities were completely swamped in their membership by the great metropolitan areas. To take just one example in the North West, it would have been quite impossible to give Westmorland, Cumberland and areas such as that any representation at all under a formula that was based solely on population.
  We also considered a formula whereby representation would derive from rateable values, but, again, we found that some water authorities would simply be swamped by the large industrial areas which, by definition, are the largest rate contributors.
  The third formula was to go for water consumption, and, in a way, this seemed the most sensible of all. But, because industry is the largest consumer of water, it would simply have made the water authorities the representatives, to a great extent, of industry, which is what industry wanted but which we had to resist in the interests of a proper measure of democratic representation. So we had to come to a formula which achieves a reasonable balance. All the county councils are represented, and the district councils are also represented, though indirectly, by their own choice.
  Coming specifically to the matter of Manchester, we wondered whether it would be wise to give local authorities

  625
  some guidance, or even direction, on the face of the Bill as to how they should set about choosing the members who would represent them on the regional water authority. We gave long and anxious thought to this idea, not least in committee, but we came to the conclusion that it really would be insulting to elected local authorities in this country for Parliament and the Government to tell them how they should set about the business of choosing who should represent them on the water authorities. So Parliament, in its wisdom, decided that it should be for the local authorities themselves, even in the new metropolitan or county areas, to determine how they should select those two district council members to go forward to the regional water authority.
  In the Manchester area, two were appointed by the new metropolitan county and two more were to be chosen freely by the districts acting together. The districts came together and chose. I understand, though I was not, of course, present, that they had a number of ballots and on a number of occasions they had ties. It has been said, although I have no confirmation, that they might have resolved one or more of those ties by that good old traditional method which has produced Members of Parliament from time to time—namely, the spin of the coin. All I can be sure of is that it was for the district councils themselves to decide how they would elect, and whom they would elect. Sure enough, they did it, and two names were sent forward to us.
  May I quote from the letter which was sent by Mr. Calderwood, the chief executive of the Manchester district council, who wrote to my Department on 26th July? He said:
  "I write to inform you that under the procedure agreed by the district councils in the Greater Manchester county area, the councils"—
  in the plural—
  "nominate the under-mentioned members for appointment by the Secretary of State to the North West Regional Water Authority."
  There followed the names of two members from the Wigan district council and the Rochdale district council. That was a letter from the chief executive, and the House will notice that he said it was the result of the procedure agreed by the district councils. He gave no indication
  626
  at all to us when he wrote that letter that there had been any difficulty among the district councils in arriving at that agreement and in making their free choice.
  Mr. Charles R. Morris: The Minister ought properly to be fair to the chief executive officer of the Manchester district council. Will he now read the subsequent correspondence which Mr. Calderwood has written to his Department about this subject?
  Mr. Griffiths: Of course I have read all the subsequent correspondence. But when the councils were asked collectively to give us two nominations, that was what they did, that was how they decided, and these were the names they forwarded. Since then, it appears that people in Manchester have started to disagree with the way in which their district councils put forward their nominations and to disagree with the choice because Manchester was not represented.
  This is a matter in which it is entirely open to hon. Members representing Manchester constituencies, or anyone else for that matter, to criticise the way in which the district councils went about making their choice or to object to that choice. I hope, however, that no one will lay it at the door of this House or of the Secretary of State that when, under the statute, those district councils exercised their proper function they arrived at the wrong conclusion. They arrived at the conclusion which seemed to them to be the right one. It was their duty and their opportunity to make that choice. For my part I must accept it.
  Water reorganisation will succeed only if there is the closest co-operation between the water authorities and the local authorities at all levels. The Act provides the necessary framework for such co-operation. It provides for the appointment of a majority of the members of each water authority by the local authorities. It provides for the retention, by each of the local authorities of a controlled function in sewerage. It provides that, in carrying out their duty to draw up long-term plans, the new water authorities will consult every local authority whose area is wholly or partly included within the area of the water authority.

  627
  I can assure the House that the new water authorities will also be required to have regard to local authorities' structure plans, local plans and development plans. There will also be agency arrangements between the water authorities and the local authorities. I believe that a close working relationship will develop among their respective officers.
  In the case of Manchester, the councils having exercised their choice in accordance with the Act, the Secretary of State is not prepared to grant the request for a further member to be appointed, for one very simple reason. If we were to accede to the request from Manchester we should have no choice but to accede to similar requests which have been made all over the country, and the size of the authorities which would arise would be wholly unwieldy to make the necessary executive decisions. Furthermore, it would produce a quite different membership from that which, after the most careful consideration, was finally agreed upon by Parliament and was enacted in the Water Act.
  Mr. John Wells: My hon. Friend has been good enough to point out that the majorities on these authorities, especially the one that we are discussing, comprise members appointed by democratically-elected organisations. But can my hon. Friend deal a little further specifically with the Manchester case, with people who may live in the Manchester area, who know about Manchester and its problems and who have been appointed to this authority for other reasons? After all, this is a typical water authority. My hon. Friend has made the point that he does not want the Manchester people to have an extra member since that would be a precedent. But what my hon. Friend says tonight will be watched very closely by other authorities. If he will not give Manchester a precedent by granting it an extra member, can he say what other Manchester residents or knowledgeable people will be represented on the authority?
  Mr. Marks: Will the Minister consider my point about future vacancies and take into consideration what has been said tonight? In filling the 13 nominations from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and from his own
  628
  Department, there was only one representative each from the two big cities of Liverpool and Manchester, and the one from Liverpool was a member of the National Farmers Union.
  Mr. Griffiths: It is a most remarkable coincidence that there should be such an extensive agricultural interest within the county borough of Liverpool. None of the members put on to the water authorities by the Secretary of State is there to grind a particular axe. Members serve on these bodies in their personal capacity and take a broad view of the interests of the area as a whole.
  There will be four members of the North West Water Authority from the Greater Manchester area. It is true that they are not within the narrow confines of the county borough. Four of them will come from the Greater Manchester area as incorporated in the new local government reorganisation legislation. This is not the end of the matter, and I hope that in future there will be further appointments. The hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) may have a point in what he said. We shall bear in mind all these points of view, but I must ask the House to accept that it would be wrong to put additional members on to the authority because of the long history of one particular area with a large population. We must have regard to a proper balance between democratic control and the relatively compact size of an executive body.

  SOUTH-EAST ASIA
  9.57 p.m.
  Sir Frederic Bennett: I must admit that I found the Adjournment debate to which we have just listened extremely educational on a very different subject from the one I am about to raise. The subject which I am raising relates to a rather wider canvas.
  The reason why I bring this subject to the attention of the House tonight is that it is only a short time ago that a part of the world, the Middle East, which then appeared apparently quiescent, suddenly burst out into a rather dramatic situation. It caught many of us and certainly many chancelleries throughout the world unawares. I have an uneasy suspicion that there is another part of

  629
  the world where there is also a smouldering fire which could come alight much more quickly than many of us could fairly appreciate today. I refer to South-East Asia.
  It is many years since John Foster Dulles initiated the domino theory. That theory was to the effect that, if South Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia and Thailand fell within a militant Communist grasp, what would follow would be a tumbling of all the remaining bastions of democracy in that part of the world, stretching even across the oceans to Australasia. The domino theory has since been discredited in debate over and again but I am not sure that it has yet been finally discredited in the event as opposed to what should happen in theory. There is not very much doubt today that there is a real fear in South Vietnam of massive new aggression by the Communists intended utterly to obliterate what has been accomplished in South Vietnam after the Americans have left.
  This fear involves a massive new onslaught which will take place in the context of an American withdrawal, and because of the American domestic political situation, apart from any other consideration, it involves the virtual certainty that America will not engage herself in salvaging any strategic position in South-East Asia in so far as this applies to Laos, Cambodia and South Vietnam. In these circumstances, since this could happen tonight or tomorrow, I would remind my hon. Friends who do not need reminding—and Labour Members who, by their absence tonight, clearly need reminding—that South Vietnam is now in extreme fear of being overwhelmed or at least attacked in great strength because of the present uncertainties within the Western Alliance and certainly within the United States which are interfering with the chance of any decisive policies emanating from that part of the world.
  It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Gray.]
  Sir F. Bennett: The point I was seeking to advance was that just as a few weeks ago we on these benches would
  630
  not have thought that within days, if not hours, we should be facing the biggest single crisis—in the Middle East—that has arisen since the Berlin blockade, so we could be faced with a new crisis which would call on all our resources and imaginative thinking to overcome it.
  South Vietnam regards this threat extremely seriously. Indeed, there are ominous proofs in the military sphere that such an attack is in the offing. In these circumstances we must consider what the rest of us can muster to meet the challenge. We need to look at a balance sheet. Since the days of John Foster Dulles certain events have taken place on the credit as well as on the debit side. We often make the mistake of imagining that all the cards are always in the Communists' hands when often, due either to their own folly or the intervention of God, the cards sometimes come into our hands. Of course, the most important card is that Indonesia is no longer the threat to the West that it was a number of years ago.
  Another fortuitous happening during the last few years is that China, although a Communist State, has realised the dangers of getting into an embrace with the Russian bear and is now showing every sign of wishing to be extricated from that embrace. This, too, is on the credit side. We have to deal no longer with a united Communist expansionist force in that part of the world but with two great Powers whose interests may not always coincide China's best interests certainly do not lie in allowing the Soviet Union to achieve a pre-eminent position throughout South-East Asia.
  I should like briefly to turn to what our contribution could continue to be towards security in that part of the world. Our influence, both direct and indirect, has been minimised by the economic and political events of the last 25 years. However, we still have a five-Power Commonwealth defence pact in that part of the world. Those who criticise and laugh at that should go to Malaysia and Singapore where they will find that the utmost value is attached to this arrangement on a far greater scale than we perhaps accord to it over here. Indeed, not only the Malaysian Government but the Prime Minister of Singapore is on record as saying how much importance he attaches to a continuing Commonwealth presence

  631
  with a leading British participation to maintain security in that part of the world.
  It is a tribute to both Singapore and Malaysia that they do not seem to suffer from the same sense of post-imperialist chips on their shoulders as do some other parts of the world. They do not feel any sense of inferiority because they have forces from friendly Powers on, or within easy reach of, their shores to present a secure front against aggression.
  No one suggests that this arrangement between the five Commonwealth Powers could be an effective answer to a massive Communist onslaught, but in an uneasy world it is a useful factor. In the same way, no one would suggest that a policeman on the beat could stop a massive riot in a city, but his presence is a useful factor in maintaining a degree of security.
  Mr. Patrick Cormack: It is a real deterrent.
  Sir F. Bennett: In many ways, yes, an effective and human deterrent.
  If we were able to penetrate the councils in Peking, I think we should find that the five-Power arrangement is not altogether unwelcome there at present—but I do not ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to State to comment on that. Nor, I imagine, is the arrangement unwelcome in Japan. Certainly it is not unwelcome in Indonesia.
  My hon. Friend has had talks with the heads of mission of all the States in that part of the world. I hope that without breaching diplomatic confidence he can tell us something of the impressions he gained. I hope he can tell us also of his recent conversations with one of our best friends out there, the Sultan of Brunei, a remarkable figure who has, under successive British Governments and in not always very popular circumstances, maintained close links with this country—not always understood or appreciated by Left-wing critics in the Opposition in this House.
  Recently there have been political changes in Australia and New Zealand. I recently visited both countries. My impression was that although New Zealand has changed from a National to a Labour Government this has not meant any weakening in her determination to continue to supply her contingent
  632
  to the five-Power pact. I am not so sure about Australia, but perhaps my hon. Friend will be able to tell us more about that because, although it cannot be our business to dictate to Australia how she should interpret her obligations towards security in that part of the world, as an Englishman I would say that it is not always easy to persuade one's constituents in this country that we have a remaining obligation to look after Australasian security by stationing our forces there when, apparently, the leading country in the area does not seem to appreciate this obligation. It is difficult to maintain the principle.
  Papua-New Guinea is shortly to get full independence. Naturally we wish it well. But no one who knows that part of the world imagines that it will be an easy prospect. Without wanting to interfere with the choice that Australia has made, I hope my hon. Friend will make it clear that we in Britain, because of our continuing sense of obligation to that part of the world, have the right to expect that those who benefit from our sharing of that responsibility also play their full part.
  10.8 p.m.
  Mr. Patrick Cormack: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Sir F. Bennett) on his sense of priorities and his initiative in obtaining this debate, seizing upon a rare half hour in the calendar of the House to bring before us with foresight and moderation some of the really important issues facing not only the nation but the world.
  So often we become preoccupied with parochial difficulties. Yesterday we got ourselves very involved in discussions on the state of emergency and tomorrow we shall pursue the subject. But the real state of emergency facing our way of life, our freedom and the things we truly believe in and cherish is not the state of emergency proclaimed yesterday and which will be debated tomorrow but the one to which my hon. Friend has referred. I congratulate him on his initiative and thank him for his generosity in allowing me to take up a few minutes of the debate. What a pity it is that the Chamber is nearly always empty when we debate these matters of crucial world importance.
  However important social security, industrial relations and so on may be, what really matters is the security and

  633
  the territorial integrity of our nation and the Western Alliance. In speaking, albeit briefly, about some of the problems of South-East Asia my hon. Friend was drawing our attention, on a day full of glad tidings, to some of the graver problems that remain in the world.
  I want to concentrate my few remarks upon the country to which my hon. Friend referred in his opening remarks, South Vietnam. I know the country, although not as well as I should like. It is a country that is beautiful, historic, tragic, troubled and war-torn. It has seen more stark tragedy and more searing trouble than has any country since the end of hostilities in 1945. South Vietnam, with American assistance, at which it is so fashionable to scoff but which we should applaud, has maintained against almost overwhelming aggression its integrity and its spirit to survive.
  Just over two years ago I went to Vietnam to observe the presidential elections. There was only one candidate, and that fact became a subject of derision, but there were what a former right hon. Member would have called little local difficulties which accounted for there being only one candidate. At least there was an impressive plebiscite in which people were enabled to register an opinion and to go about their business with a degree of freedom—not the degree of freedom which hundreds of years of problems and progress have enabled us to enjoy, but a certain degree of freedom.
  I was impressed, as was Lord Kennet, of the Labour Party, who accompanied me. We saw a nation that was trying to assert its nationhood and that had in the face of overwhelming difficulties managed to survive. We went at a time when the Americans were beginning to realise that they had to extricate themselves. It is not for this House to pass judgment upon the reasons which led our great ally to come to that conclusion. Some form of peace had to be achieved, and I rejoiced, as did every right hon. and hon. Member, when the peace formula was evolved and the signatures were flourished earlier this year. The danger is that that merely is a flourish and a hollow peace. As we speak tonight forces are massing which threaten the existence of that nation.
  Although it would be totally unrealistic and stupid to advocate that we have
  634
  either the responsibility or the ability by military presence to arrest what may threaten South Vietnam, we have a historic and residual responsibility in that part of the world to which my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay alluded which means that we cannot, to use hackneyed and oft-quoted words, stand idly by while a brave and small nation is threatened with annihilation.
  I therefore hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, who will speak for Her Majesty's Government, will assure us that we shall do everything in our power to put our country's position in as forthright and positive a way as we can and that the Government will assert tonight from the Front Bench and on every conceivable occasion that we believe in the territorial integrity of this small nation which, with all its shortcomings and bearing in mind that there is no perfect democracy in the world, least of all in Asia, deserves the right to survive. It deserves above all the right to enjoy the terms which were agreed in the peace negotiation—that candidates of all parties should be presented to the people of Vietnam and that they should have, without the thrust of the bayonet or the threat of the machine gun, the opportunity to register in the ballot box their verdict about the future of their country.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: It is rather different in the North.
  Mr. Cormack: Yes, but I am talking about the South and our residual responsibilities as co-chairman of the conference held nearly 20 years ago. I am also talking about our historic rêle in Asia and, in the context of the Common Market, of the French responsibility in Asia and the responsibility which we must share if all the talk of a European policy is not to be so much idle chatter and nonsense.
  I therefore hope that we shall have a positive and forceful declaration from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, because too often, and very recently, we have perhaps been content to neglect our friends and to shrug off the responsibilities which friendship places upon a nation.
  Mr. Winterton: Czechoslovakia, Hungary.
  Mr. Cormack: We shall never forget those matters, but let us tonight concentrate on the area which we are discussing. Let us not bring in questions of the Middle East and so on.
  In my eyes, this country stands for certain things. I sought to become a Member of Parliament for one reason before all others: I hoped that in the closing decades of the twentieth century Britain would deserve the name of Great Britain in the way it did in the opening decades and in those great and difficult years when the greatest of all Englishmen whose statue stands in the Lobby presided over the destinies of this nation.
  10.20 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Anthony Royle): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Sir F. Bennett) on bringing up this subject for debate this evening. As my hon. Friends who are present know—I see no hon. Gentleman on the benches opposite—my comments will be very much off the cuff, as it was ony recently that I heard we were to have this debate.
  My hon. Friend rightly took advantage of the opportunity to raise the subject of South-East Asia, a subject for which I have had responsibility in the Foreign Office under my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for three and a half years. I am, therefore, particularly glad to have this chance, even off the cuff, to reply to the debate.
  During the last three and a half years we have lived through a fascinating period in Asia. We have seen immense developments taking place and immense changes in the relations between nations in that area. My hon. Friend, in a skilful speech—because he covered a great deal of ground in a short time—mentioned the emergence of China. That has been the most important development of the last two or three years.
  This great nation of 750 million people is now a full permanent member of the Security Council at the United Nations. It has relations with many more countries than it did two or three years ago, and it is a country with which Britain has achieved relations which are on a better level than they have ever been during the
  636
  whole time that the Communist Government has been in power in Peking following the revolution after the last war.
  As my hon. Friend said, the emergence of China on the world stage to play a responsible rêle in world affairs has had a dramatic effect on the relationships between nations in the area. My hon. Friend mentioned in particular China's attitude towards affairs and events in Indo-China during the last few months, and in an important and impressive speech my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack) dealt with the affairs of South Vietnam and underlined the importance of Indo-China to events in that area as a whole.
  One of the encouraging aspects of the developments that have occurred in Indo-China over the last year or 18 months is the interest of the Soviet Union and China, and the fact that that interest developed into a rivalry which made it easier for Powers interested in the area—and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock rightly stressed, we have an interest as one of the co-chairmen of the 1954 Geneva Conference—to get together for the peace conference that was held in Paris in February of this year. I attended that conference as deputy to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, and it was at that conference that certain agreements were reached.
  The key to seeing whether those agreements are followed through and carried out now rests with Hanoi. It is Hanoi which, over the last few weeks, has tended—and here I confirm the concern expressed this evening by my hon. Friends—to increase and enlarge the number of her men and equipment in South Vietnam. That is a matter which the British Government view with some concern. It is a responsibility of all parties to the Paris Agreements to carry out those agreements.
  Last month I had the honour of visiting Laos, where I had a long talk with the Prime Minister, Souvanna Phouma. It is encouraging that the protocols which were agreed in September are now being implemented, and I think there is some hope of a solution—shall we call it a Laos solution?—for that unhappy war-torn country, which I believe will be a significant step towards peace in the area.

  637
  I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate a friend of many of my hon. Friends and, I hope, of hon. Gentlemen opposite—I am thinking of the South Vietnamese Ambassador in London, Mr. Bac—on his promotion to Foreign Minister of South Vietnam, something which all his friends here greatly appreciate.
  South Vietnam's relations with this country have always been extremely close. We maintain that the State of South Vietnam is an entity, and indeed, this was established at the peace conference in Paris earlier in the year. To my mind, if all the nations which signed those documents in Paris in February stick to those agreements in them, as I hope they will, there is a chance of achieving a permanent peaceful solution in the area. But again, I stress that Her Majesty's Government are concerned at the build-up of men and materials by North Vietnam in South Vietnam over recent weeks.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Torquay mentioned the heads of mission conference last month which I presided over at Chiang Mai in Thailand. That was an important conference. There were present our British Ambassadors to Saigon, Phnom Penh and Vientiane, our Chargé d'Affaires in Hanoi, our Ambassadors in Bangkok and Rangoon, the High Commissioners in Singapore, Kuala Lumpur and Brunei, and our Ambassadors in Djakarta and Manila. I was also accompanied by officials from the Foreign Office in London. We had a valuable exchange of views. These exchanges took place at a time of great change in the area as a whole.
  My hon. Friend mentioned the five-Power arrangements, which are a very important aspect of British policy for the maintenance of peace in the area. The five-Power arrangements, which are supported by Malaysia, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand and Great Britain, will remain in existence only as long as the people of the area wish. As my hon. Friend said, the arrangements provide an element of stability in the area.
  It is worth underlining at this point the British interest in the area in the context of our arrival in the European Economic Community. The Community has a very important economic rôle to
  638
  play in Asia. I was glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock mentioned that point, and particularly in the light of the French interest in Indo-China and the British interest in Malaysia and Singapore.
  It is important to realise that our joining the European Economic Community in no way undermines our responsibilities and desire to play a part in the Far East. We have at present more British forces in the area than any outside Power except the United States. We have over six major units in Hong Kong as well as a battalion and air force and naval elements helping in the five-Power arrangements. New Zealand continues also to have forces there. While we regret Australia's decision to withdraw her battalion from Singapore, we are glad that she is retaining her interest by keeping her aircraft at Butterworth. Those aircraft play a very important part in the five-Power arrangements.
  In addition, we have a Ghurka battalion in Brunei. My hon. Friend mentioned the talks that I have had recently in London with the Sultan of Brunei and the Sultan's father, Sir Omar. These were important talks. We had five or six meetings lasting many hours. Our discussions have been very successful. His Highness the Sultan returns to Brunei tomorrow. Relations between this country and Brunei are extremely close. In Britain we view with admiration the efforts that His Highness the Sultan has made to bring on the welfare of the people of Brunei, for whose internal affairs he has the sole responsibility. Our responsibility, following the signature of the 1959 agreement and the amending 1971 agreement, is for external affairs alone.
  I am afraid that I have had only 10 minutes or so to speak off the cuff. I have endeavoured to do that. I have tried to cover a lot of ground. It has been rather scratchy. However, I repeat how much I appreciate my hon. Friend's raising this important matter. I wish we could have more time to talk about our relations with, and our general policy towards, our friends in South-East Asia.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT
  Improvement Grants
  Improvement Grants
  Peterborough
  Peterborough
  Telford
  Telford
  Manchester Underground Railway Link
  Manchester Underground Railway Link
  Old Properties (Electrical Rewiring)
  Old Properties (Electrical Rewiring)
  House Prices
  House Prices
  Overspill Housing Estates
  Overspill Housing Estates
  Motor Cars (Size)
  Motor Cars (Size)
  Housing Land (London)
  Housing Land (London)
  Motorway Service Stations (Prices)
  Motorway Service Stations (Prices)
  Peak National Park
  Peak National Park
  Driving Tests
  Driving Tests
  Housing (Disabled Persons)
  Housing (Disabled Persons)
  Pedestrian Crossings (Schools)
  Pedestrian Crossings (Schools)
  Islington Borough Council
  Islington Borough Council
  Southampton University (Residential Accommodation)
  Southampton University (Residential Accommodation)
  Road Traffic (Speed Calculation)
  Road Traffic (Speed Calculation)
  Dunstable-Leighton Buzzard Railway
  Dunstable-Leighton Buzzard Railway
  Licensed Premises (Rents)
  Licensed Premises (Rents)
  Housing Land (Prices)
  Housing Land (Prices)
  Water Supply (Hull)
  Water Supply (Hull)
  Maplin
  Maplin
  House Building
  House Building
  Council Housing (Dorset)
  Council Housing (Dorset)
  Road Accidents (Stubble Burning)
  Road Accidents (Stubble Burning)
  Huntingdon and Godmanchester Bypass
  Huntingdon and Godmanchester Bypass
  Dover Radial Road
  Dover Radial Road
  Demolitions (Manchester)
  Demolitions (Manchester)
  South Orbital Road
  South Orbital Road
  Mersey Docks and Harbour Board
  Mersey Docks and Harbour Board
  Cavendish Chapel, Manchester
  Cavendish Chapel, Manchester
  Lambeth Housing (Appeal)
  Lambeth Housing (Appeal)
  Local Authority Borrowing (Trade Union Funds)
  Local Authority Borrowing (Trade Union Funds)
  British Railways Board
  British Railways Board
  Stevenage (Housing)
  Stevenage (Housing)
  Road Projects (Social Costing)
  Road Projects (Social Costing)
  Channel Tunnel
  Channel Tunnel
  Rents (Determination)
  Rents (Determination)
  Conservation Areas (Demolition Control)
  Conservation Areas (Demolition Control)
  Housing (Costs and Rent)
  Housing (Costs and Rent)
  Rent Allowance Applications
  Rent Allowance Applications
  Thermal Insulation (New Buildings)
  Thermal Insulation (New Buildings)
  "Sleeping Policemen"
  "Sleeping Policemen"
  Derelict Land Clearance (Sunderland)
  Derelict Land Clearance (Sunderland)
  Sewerage charges
  Sewerage charges
  Halogen Headlights
  Halogen Headlights
  Council Rents
  Council Rents
  Landlords' Service Charges
  Landlords' Service Charges
  Rateable Values
  Rateable Values
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Holland (Oil Supplies)
  Holland (Oil Supplies)
  Icelandic Fisheries
  Icelandic Fisheries
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Exceptional Needs Payments
  Exceptional Needs Payments
  Swine Vesicular Disease
  Swine Vesicular Disease
  Population (Buckinghamshire)
  Population (Buckinghamshire)
  Pensions and Benefits (Costing)
  Pensions and Benefits (Costing)
  Abortion
  Abortion
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Hotels (Classification)
  Hotels (Classification)
  Consumer Protection (Scotland)
  Consumer Protection (Scotland)
  Concorde
  Concorde
  Companies House
  Companies House
  Terotechnology
  Terotechnology
  Nuclear Power
  Nuclear Power
  Patents
  Patents
  Price Levels
  Price Levels
  Coal and Steel (Levies)
  Coal and Steel (Levies)
  Aircraft Noise
  Aircraft Noise
  Light Water Nuclear Reactors
  Light Water Nuclear Reactors
  Shipbuilding (Foreign Orders)
  Shipbuilding (Foreign Orders)
  United Kingdom—EEC Trade
  United Kingdom—EEC Trade
  Fishmeal Imports
  Fishmeal Imports
  Pergamon Press Ltd.
  Pergamon Press Ltd.
  EEC Budget
  EEC Budget
DEFENCE
  North Coates Airfield
  North Coates Airfield
  RAF Personnel (Boarding School Grants)
  RAF Personnel (Boarding School Grants)
  Low Flying Aircraft (Wales)
  Low Flying Aircraft (Wales)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Urban Commission Proposal
  Urban Commission Proposal
  Urban Capital Schemes (Manchester)
  Urban Capital Schemes (Manchester)
  Parking Offences (Fixed Penalties)
  Parking Offences (Fixed Penalties)
  Ugandan Asians
  Ugandan Asians
  Dangerous Driving Offences
  Dangerous Driving Offences
  Private Property (Powers of Entry)
  Private Property (Powers of Entry)
  Water Safety
  Water Safety
  RENTCHARGES
  RENTCHARGES
  HOUSE OF LORDS (APPELLATE POWER)
  HOUSE OF LORDS (APPELLATE POWER)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Farm and Horticulture Development Scheme
  Farm and Horticulture Development Scheme
  Milk Production
  Milk Production
  Butter
  Butter
  Diesel Oil Supplies
  Diesel Oil Supplies
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Horticulturists (Compensation)
  Horticulturists (Compensation)
  Apples and Pears
  Apples and Pears
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  St. Augustine's Primary School, Darlington
  St. Augustine's Primary School, Darlington
  Tower Ramparts School, Ipswich
  Tower Ramparts School, Ipswich
  Colleges of Education and Further Education Establishments
  Colleges of Education and Further Education Establishments
  Swine Vesicular Disease
  Swine Vesicular Disease
EMPLOYMENT
  Unfair Dismissal and Redundancy (Claims)
  Unfair Dismissal and Redundancy (Claims)
  Industrial Tribunals
  Industrial Tribunals
  EEC Regulations
  EEC Regulations
  Seamen
  Seamen
  Average Wages (Wales)
  Average Wages (Wales)
  Written Statements of Employment
  Written Statements of Employment
  Employees (Agency Inducements)
  Employees (Agency Inducements)
  Local Government Officers (London Weighting)
  Local Government Officers (London Weighting)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Personal Incomes
  Personal Incomes
  Tax Threshold
  Tax Threshold
  Public Debt
  Public Debt
  Investment and Incomes
  Investment and Incomes
  Terms of Trade
  Terms of Trade
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Teachers (Sick Leave)
  Teachers (Sick Leave)
  Education Authorities (Non-Teaching Staff Sick Leave)
  Education Authorities (Non-Teaching Staff Sick Leave)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Information Officers
  Information Officers
SCOTLAND
  Rents
  Rents
  House Building
  House Building
  Mortgage Rates
  Mortgage Rates
  Land and Property Transactions
  Land and Property Transactions
  Homeless Wives and Children
  Homeless Wives and Children
  Hospital Development Projects (East Fife)
  Hospital Development Projects (East Fife)
  Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy
  Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy
  Council Housing (Cost)
  Council Housing (Cost)
  Improvement Grants
  Improvement Grants
  House Prices
  House Prices
  Bellshill, Uddingston and Bothwell (Development)
  Bellshill, Uddingston and Bothwell (Development)
  Housing (Bathroom and Toilet Facilities)
  Housing (Bathroom and Toilet Facilities)
  School (Bellshill)
  School (Bellshill)
  Schools (Vandalism)
  Schools (Vandalism)

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

PROTECTION OF MINORITIES: SUB-COMMISSION'S REPORT
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government if they will take the initiative in proposing a new procedure for the consideration and publication of the Report of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities which may now be held secret for approximately two years before reference to the United Nations Economic and Social Council.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE): No, my Lords. The Report of the Sub-Commission is not held in secret but published by the United Nations Secretariat as soon as possible after its adoption by the Sub-Commission.
LORD BROCKWAY: But, my Lords, would the noble Baroness not agree that there is unacceptable delay? Is she aware that there are thousands of complaints—there were 27,000 last year—and that only once in the last five years has the Sub-Commission made any report on the violation of human rights by Governments?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BEL-HELVIE: My Lords, I understand that this year the Sub-Commission was unable to adopt its Report owing to the lack of a quorum.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, is that not the fault of the Governments which nominate the members of the Sub-Commission? Is it not the case that a Report is now being considered and will
636
not reach the United Nations Human Rights Commission until next spring, and that then, according to The Times, it will be two years before it reaches the United Nations Economic and Social Council and is published? By then, all the conditions may have changed. Indeed, complainants may be dead by then.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, the noble Lord has revealed to us that he has got his information from that organ, The Times; but the fact remains that the Sub-Commission is empowered to present to the Human Rights Commission its confidential findings on petitions sent to the Secretary-General. Therefore, as they are confidential, naturally I am unable to comment on them.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, on this occasion does not The Times appear to be right?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I do not know, my Lords.
LORD BROCKWAY: But is it not the case that the Report of the Sub-Commission has to go to the Human Rights Commission of the United Nations which will be next spring; that it then has to go to the United Nations Economic and Social Council; and that it will he two years before the complaints of the last few years will even be reported upon?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, the fact remains that the procedure for considering petitions and the work of the Sub-Commission is confidential, and the majority of members consider that it should remain so.

ELECTRICAL APPLIANCES: SAFETY REGULATIONS
2.39 p.m.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why, in spite of the urgency, regulations governing the safety of domestic electrical appliances have not yet been made and when, and in what form, such regulations may be expected.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS): My Lords, such regulations must be consistent with the E.E.C. directive on low-tension electrical equipment, which was formally notified to member Governments in February of this year for implementation by August, 1974. Draft regulations, to be made by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary under the Consumer Protection Act 1961, have been prepared in consultation with the Government Departments concerned, and have been circulated to interested bodies for comment. The draft regulations are in general terms, and deal with electrical and non-electrical hazards in the appliances concerned.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: My Lords, while thanking the noble Viscount for that reply, may I ask whether he can assure me that future stages of these regulations will be carried out with greater despatch than appears to have been the case up to date? Does he realise that the absence of firm regulations is very inhibiting in many areas?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I have been looking at the procedure and the documents that have to be taken into account in this matter, and they are fairly complicated. I do not think the noble Viscount will find that we have been slow in dealing with the E.E.C. directive, and turning it into domestic regulations. There are more to be dealt with; we have a deadline, and we shall meet that deadline. I very much hope that the noble Viscount and those who are equally interested will be satisfied with the progress that we make.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, can the noble Viscount say whether the draft regulations which have now been circulated among the industry are available to Members of both Houses of Parliament?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: No, my Lords, I do not think that the draft regulations will be automatically available, but if any noble Lord is interested in this matter I am perfectly prepared to show him the draft regulations which have been made. They have been widely circulated to interested bodies, the list of which is so enormous that I do not think T should burden the OFFICIAL REPORT with it. If other people
638
involved are interested, of course they can have copies of it.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Viscount will appreciate that in consequence of our joining the E.E.C. we are now obliged to adopt the directives of the Commission. On the other hand, of course, Parliament still has a responsibility. Will the noble Viscount consider whether, when one is circulating for information and comment to those who are directly responsible, it would not be advisable, in the present situation, for copies to be made available in the Libraries of both Houses? Perhaps the noble Viscount will consider that suggestion.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I will gladly consider that point, but the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, will remember that I said that we were circulating draft regulations under the Consumer Protection Act 1961, which is our own domestic legislation. Of course it fits in with what the E.E.C. directive says; but if there are procedural arrangements which could be improved I will certainly take advice upon them, and will bear in mind what the noble Lord says. If anybody wishes to know what we are circulating he can be told in detail.

HARRIER AIRCRAFT AND THE ROYAL NAVY
LORD ORR-EWING: 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 an early decision is likely on production orders of the Harrier for the Royal Navy, as such an order would greatly influence potential sales of this aircraft to other navies and would enable the production line and the design teams to be kept in being.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, the priority to be given to this project has yet to be determined in relation to the future defence programme as a whole. A Statement will be made as soon as a decision has been taken. Meanwhile, design work is continuing.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Is it not true that a number of nations are likely to buy this aircraft if Britain goes ahead with its development? In particular, is it not true that India is likely to want some for her aircraft carrier, the "Vikrant"?
LORD CARRINGTON: Yes, my Lords, a number of countries have expressed interest in this aircraft, including India. Of course, overseas sales potential is one of the factors that one would naturally take into account when reaching a decision on this project.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask the Minister of Defence whether—although it is desirable that at some stage the Royal Navy should have an opportunity of the use of the Harrier aircraft—he can indicate what is the total expense that would be involved? Is it possible to furnish an estimate at this stage? Also, is it not true that the United States Government has displayed an interest in the Harrier aircraft, and has anything resulted from that interest?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, we are talking about two different versions of the Harrier. The version which the United States Marine Corps has bought is, broadly speaking, the same version which is now in service in the Royal Air Force. They have bought a number of these aircraft. The maritime version to which my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing referred is a different aircraft with a different potential, and so far nobody has bought any because we have not yet decided to go ahead with it. I do not think it is usual to say exactly what the development cost would be. In so far as we are concerned it is an aircraft which would only be changed. It is not a new aircraft and the "buy" would be comparatively small. It would not be a very expensive project.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether any further engine development is necessary in the maritime version?
LORD CARRINGTON: No, my Lords.

DOCTORS' CAR PARKING
2.45 p.m.
LORD MAELOR: 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 arrangements can be made to allow medical doctors to park their cars in places disallowed to the ordinary public, when they are summoned to emergency cases.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, the British Medical Association operate a car badge scheme to identify vehicles on emergency visits. Parking concessions for badge holders depend on the discretion of police and traffic wardens, but I understand that the users are helped a great deal by the scheme.
LORD NIAELOR: My Lords, I wish to thank the Minister for his satisfactory Answer. Is he aware that I based my Question on a report in the Evening News last week that doctors, in those circumstances, were taken to the magistrates' courts and prosecuted?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord is pleased with my Answer. I think that our police exercise their discretion wisely and well.

PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD WINDLESHAM): My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Young, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to make further provision with respect to waste disposal, water pollution, atmospheric pollution, noise and injurious substances; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a. —(Lord Windlesham.)
On Question, Bill read 1a and to be printed.

PERSONAL BILLS
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee on Personal Bills be appointed, to which all Petitions for Personal Bills shall stand referred; and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

V. Bledisloe,

L. Cross of Chelsea,

L. Henley,

L. Mancroft,

L. Stow Hill,

L. Wilberforce.—(The Earl of Listowel.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

STANDING ORDERS (PRIVATE BILLS)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee on the Standing Orders be appointed, and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

Lord Chancellor (L. Hailsham of Saint Marylebone),

E. Lauderdale,

L. Airedale,

L. Alport,

B. Bacon,

L. Crawley,

L. Derwent,

L. Douglas of Barloch,

L. Terrington.—(The Earl of Listowel.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

WOMEN'S OPPORTUNITIES: GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS
2.48 p.m.
LORD ROYLE LORD ROYLE rose to call attention to the Government proposals for legislation contained in their publication, Equal Opportunities for Men and Women; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I am not quite sure what Papers I am moving for. When I look at the history of this subject during the last year I note that we had a Second Reading on the Anti-Discrimination Bill; we had stacks and stacks of evidence submitted to a Select Committee; we had two Reports from that Select Committee, added to an amended Bill; we had Recommittal proceedings and then we had a Third Reading. So, in view of that great number of Papers already in the hands of your Lordships, I am wondering what Papers I am asking for to-day. I deliberately leave out the Papers in connection with proceedings in the House of Commons because I hold very strongly the view that it was an utter waste of time for these two activities to be running in parallel. I felt that when your Lordships gave a Second Reading to the Bill introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, the House of Commons might have been a bit reasonable and waited until we had produced our Report, and we, having produced our Report, perhaps have taken over whatever Bill we might then present to the House of Lords, and continue it in the House of Commons. Therefore, I am deliberately missing out, in my list of Papers, the activities of the other place. I shall do so throughout what I have to say this afternoon.
I find myself in the position at this Dispatch Box this afternoon of being under a certain amount of pressure as the Chairman of the Select Committee and from my Party to introduce this question on their behalf. So I assure your Lordships that greatness has been thrust upon me in both capacities this afternoon.
I have been wondering during the last day or two whether it may be significant—it may also be coincidental—that Princess Anne was married on the day we decided to have this debate. I have

643
been looking at the matter very carefully because I recognise that in this country there is no sex discrimination in equestrian circles, and that so far as horsemanship is concerned even women can rise to the highest ranks. At the same time, I think of something else: the Princess happens to be fourth in line to the Throne, only because she is a woman. Had it not been for the fact that she has two younger brothers, she would be second in line to the Throne. I wonder whether this is something that ought to be considered in the future: whether, when a woman happens to be second in the family she should also be second in line to the Throne. However, that is not something for our decision this afternoon, but may be a matter for the future. However, I think about those two different things: the question of her tremendous success in the field of horsemanship and her position as the fourth in line to the Throne.
My Lords, this wonderful document was produced from the Government. Since it was published all of us have had an opportunity of discussing it at great length. Therefore, I turn to page 27 of that document where it says:
"The Government's proposals in this Consultative Document are put forward for consultation and discussion. Before reaching final decisions on these proposals, the Government wishes to have the benefit of the views of interested bodies and persons."
Well, apart from the other place, my Lords, here is where that process starts. We are this afternoon discussing this Paper on equal opportunities. I hope that it might be a profitable discussion.
May I begin, in a personal sense, therefore, by saying that when I was asked to preside over that Select Committee, I was completely independent. I heard the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, on the Second Reading of Lady Seear's Bill, talk about this not being a question for legislative activity; that it was purely and simply a question of educating people to make progress so far as sex discrimination is concerned. I confess at once that I was impressed by her arguments. But I took on this job. Independent, I did not vote on the Second Reading of that Bill. I took the Chair in the Select Committee with a completely open mind.
After hearing evidence for nine months, my Lords, except during the Parliamen-
644
tary Recess, I came to two conclusions: first, that the existence of discrimination against women in employment, training and education was proved beyond any doubt whatsoever. This applied particularly in the sphere of promotion. Even if a woman got into a certain industry or profession, her progress to the top was certainly discriminated against, and she did not have the opportunities for promotion that are available to men.
The second conclusion I reached was that it was no use appealing to better nature without the support of legislation. I am completely convinced about this question. In point of fact, the Government, in paragraph 12 of their present Paper which we are discussing, came to exactly the same conclusion. I welcome this more than I can possibly say because it shows that there is some parallel in the thoughts of the Government and the Select Committee on this issue.
My greatest disappointment was when Her Majesty's Government rejected the Committee's amended Bill. I expressed this disappointment from the Bench behind where I now stand on the day when the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, said that the Government could not accept the Bill which the Select Committee had produced. But at the end of the day we have some satisfaction, and here it is: at least we have compelled the Government to think. If they will allow me to say so, their attitude on Second Reading was very different from the terms of this Consultative Document. They seem to have come around at least to something like the approach we hoped for. When Her Majesty's Government have really got down to this question, they have produced a beautiful document—it is almost feminine in its style, with its glossy character. If I may again speak in a personal sense, one of my great disappointments, having been Chairman of that Select Committee, is that I have never been invited to accept an honorary fellowship in Women's Lib. My difficulty would be as to what garment I should discard.
I want really to broach one main question; namely, why did the Government not accept our new Bill? That is what it amounted to. Why did they put it aside and say, "No, we must produce something of our own." They could have amended the amended Bill that the

645

Select Committee produced. The result has been a great deal of delay; and, in these economically difficult days, it has caused a great deal of expense. The Select Committee had at their disposal possibly the greatest Parliamentary draftsmen of all time. In the sense of draftsmanship, we think we have produced a magnificent Bill. We heard evidence that Her Majesty's Government are now suggesting they will be trying to obtain through public debate. As a result of our deliberations, and from listening to evidence, I suggest to noble Lords, and to the Government in particular, that the Government cannot do much that we did not do. If the Government had accepted the Bill which the Select Committee produced, it could have gone on to the other place, and it might well have been that before the rising of the House for the Summer Recess it could have been on the Statute Book.
My Lords, there are some differences which need to be aired. I am very conscious that I have been at this Despatch Box for 12 minutes. There is a great deal to discuss on this subject, but as there are a number of speakers on the list there are many things I will leave to them. One of the matters that I do not intend to discuss is the question of marital status, which is rejected by the Government in their Consultative Paper. However, I hope that my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner will deal with this at a later stage. Having mentioned the list of speakers, I may say that missing from that list is the name of my noble friend Lady Summerskill. My noble friend was ill last week and did not have the opportunity of putting her name down, and if she speaks later in the debate, your Lordships will understand. I mention this because I valued so much the contribution of my noble friend in the Select Committee.
Our Select Committee advocated a Sex Discrimination Board, and this was the main point of our Bill. Her Majesty's Government, on the other hand, suggest referring it to the industrial tribunals and also the establishment of an Equal Opportunities Commission. I would say that the former is so encircled by controversy that I think it would be very dangerous that a subject of this sort should in any way be referred to them. So far as the Equal Opportunities Com-
646
mission is concerned, it is given no teeth. I would submit to your Lordships that our suggested Sex Discrimination Board had teeth in a way that the other two have not. This seems to be something that the Government need to do at the moment. I do not know Why it is. When they took over three years ago, there was a Prices and Incomes Board. Today we have a Prices Board and an Incomes Board. Why cannot we have one body dealing with all these things? Our suggestion would be completely inclusive and would concentrate on a particular subject. We said it in Clause 13 of the Bill. I hope that the Government will look at this matter again with a view to achieving concentrated activity.
My Lords, so far as conciliation machinery is concerned, we are glad that Her Majesty's Government have accepted the proposal of the Select Committee of using the Employment Department for conciliation. This is good in every respect. When we discussed the matter with officers 'of that Department, we were delighted that ultimately they could see no real objection to taking over that duty. I must express some dissatisfaction with the education proposals. In my view, education should have been approached in exactly the same way as employment and training. Her Majesty's education inspectors are far too busy to undertake extra duties as outlined in the Government's Consultative Paper.
My Lords, the Committee might be criticised for their limitations. We decided against extending Lady Seear's original Bill beyond employment, training criticised for their limitations. We decided against extending the Lady Seear's Bill beyond empoyment, training and education, purely and simply because it was a Private Member's Bill, and if it were extended financial clauses would have to come in. But there are many other facets which are not in our Bill to which the Government refer in their Consultative Document. First of all, there are pensions. I believe that, in the same way as is envisaged for men, women should have the full rights of the occupational pensions scheme, because I believe that the reserve scheme offers many more benefits.
That brings me to the question of retirement at 60 and 65–60 for women

647
and 65 for men. It has been proved conclusively by all the figures available that women live longer than men. Should they not now therefore be regarded in the same way as men so far as the age of retirement is concerned? When I say that, I do not think in terms of 65 years of age. I am completely convinced that we are not far off the day when the retirement age should be 60 all round. It may well be that because of our present employment difficulties we cannot face this at the moment, but it may very soon be the case: and in many industries and professions 60 is now the retiring age for men as well as for women. I think the time has come when this should be given consideration.
My Lords, I must say a brief word on mortgages. During the course of the evidence before the Select Committee many people suggested that women had not the same opportunities for obtaining mortgages as had men; that they were turned down just because they were women. I am bound to say that in no single case was a concrete illustration given, and because of my relationship with the building society movement, I would say, "All right; shop around." I do not know of any leading building society in this country that is not prepared to regard women, all things being equal, in exactly the same way as men for the purpose of granting mortgages. There are exception, which are dicussed in our Bill, as well as in the Consultative Document, and one of them is the Armed Forces. I understand that my noble friend Lord Winterbottom will be dealing with this which he can do so much better than I can. I would only say that if your Lordships go out through the door of this Chamber into the Royal Gallery and look at Maclise's great mural of the Battle of Trafalgar, you will find two women on it. In my researches when I was in the other place I found that there were many more than two women on that battleship during the battle of Trafalgar. I am wondering whether the time has not come when the W.R.N.S. might he thought of as part of the crews of battleships, even in battle. For the life of me I do not see why these days that should not apply.
The other exception to which I want to refer is the Clergy. I am delighted to see
648
that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London is participating in this debate this afternoon. We received evidence from a bunch of lovely ladies who were determined that they wanted to be in the Clergy; they wanted to be vicars and even bishops as the day went by. At the end of their evidence, when members of the Committee put it to them that they might be offending against the hierarchy of the Church, it was interesting how quickly they climbed down. Then ultimately the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester (as he then was) gave his evidence. If I may say so, he was not very enthusiastic about what those ladies had said. He gave the hope that the Church of England at least were thinking seriously about this matter, and it was on those grounds alone—I think I am speaking for the Select Committee—that we decided that the Clergy should be an exception so far as the Bill was concerned. We hoped that the Church were doing something about it; and I can speak, I am sure, for all my colleagues on that Committee when I say that we cannot wait to hear what the ultimate result will be.
I have had second thoughts regarding smaller firms. The Consultative Document says that any firms with less than 25 employees should not be considered in this Bill initially. I have thought differently about this and I cannot for the life of me understand why firms who employ less than 25 people should not be included in future legislation. It seems to me just as important for them as for the larger concerns.
I have been speaking for too long, my Lords, but I want to say a word about the starting date. Her Majesty's Government have suggested in the Consultative Document that any legislation they introduce on this subject might be applicable from December 29, 1975. I do not agree; I think the matter is much more important and much more urgent than that. I believe that it should at least coincide with the implementation of the Equal Pay Act in November, 1975, and perhaps before. It seems to me that if we had this kind of legislation on discrimination earlier than the Equal Pay Act it would pave the way to the implementation of the Equal Pay Act and the two could run in parallel at the end of 1975 and would both be fully considered. So may I conclude with the

649
point with which I began, and repeat that to my mind the great disappointment is that the Government did not accept, with amendment maybe, the recommendations contained in the Bill which the Select Committee produced. I am quite sure that we would have made much more progress had they done so. When we discussed it on Recommittal in the House only two small Amendments were moved and I think were accepted by the House. The members of the Select Committee had no objection to that. The House did not show itself basically to be opposed to the terms of the Bill. I am quite certain that progress would have been much quicker and that this great subject would to some extent have been on its way towards accomplishment had that Bill then been accepted. I conclude by thanking the House for the attention and kindness which it has shown to a maiden speaker at this Box. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.15 p.m.
BARONESS SEEAR: My Lords, I should like to say how very glad I am that the Government have responded to the extent of producing this document, Equal Opportunities for Men and Women, with the promise that legislation is going to follow. Your Lordships will not be surprised that I read the document with somewhat mixed feelings: in some regards I find it entirely acceptable and even, in some places, an improvement on what we put forward as a result of our deliberations in the Select Committee; in some respects I feel it to be inadequate.
Before examining the content of the Document, however, may I, like the noble Lord who preceded me, refer to the last page in which the Government are asking for consultation, representation and comment from the general public? I received a letter from a woman who was a member of a group to whom I was talking about the content of this Document and whom I was urging to read what the Government had put forward. I have not checked whether everything she says in her letter is accurate, but regrettably too much of it is in line with my own experience for me to think that in substance it is untrue. She says that in trying to get hold of the document she first of all visited the local Department of Employment who (and I quote) "had never heard of it". After ringing round
650
many of the local offices with no success, she decided to save time and ring Her Majesty's Stationery Office. It took 25 minutes for her call to be passed from various people, the last of whom informed her that the document could not be sent and that she had to call for it.
Her husband valiantly made the journey and stood in a queue for an hour, only to be told that the Stationery Office did not have the document and did not think they would be receiving any copies of it in the future. They referred him to the Department of Employment at St. James's Square. As by then it was after 5 p.m., that meant another journey. The next clay St. James's Square was tackled. Your Lordships may be aware that there are three offices situated in that area. The first office had no copies whatsoever; the second one had one copy which they had to retain; but, believe it or not, the third managed to produce a copy. If consultation is to be a serious matter—and I believe the Government genuinely intend that it should be—I urge that better provision should be made to see that the general public can have the information on which to base consultation.
This is not a Committee stage, and in discussing this document I do not propose to go into great detail on the various clauses that raise matters for discussion. I should like to take a broader view and look first and foremost at the scope and content which is proposed for legislation, and then, secondly, at the all-important proposals for enforcement. In some respects what I am proposing to say is slightly different, though not different in principle, from what I said at the Second Reading debate; and if in some respects I have slightly altered my view, the Government can, after all, only deeply sympathise with me. My alteration of view I should prefer to call a development of my ideas on the subject.
On the question of the scope proposed for legislation, we on the Select Committee in putting forward the Sex Discrimination Bill limited our proposals to covering the areas of education, training and employment. We did this because the Bill was primarily a Private Member's one. As your Lordships are well aware, the wider the coverage in a Private Member's Bill, the more difficult it is to handle and to achieve success. I

651
greatly hoped, and still hope, that the Government, in taking over legislation in this subject, with all the advantages that they have in putting forward proposals, will consider wider coverage than we were able to put into our Private Member's Bill. In particular I would follow the noble Lord, Lord Royle, in saying that we greatly hope that the Government will look again at the question of pensions and retirement. We urged this matter when the Social Security Bill was being debated, and we feel very strongly that it is most unfortunate at this time, when a great deal of change is going on over the whole range of pensions, that women should be once again excluded.
As your Lordships are well aware, a great expansion of occupational pension schemes is going on. Many firms are revising present schemes or introducing new ones. If it is explicitly laid down that women do not receive benefit from these schemes, as the years go on and more and more women reach retiring age they are going to be at a very serious disadvantage in comparison with their male colleagues, because they have been denied the right of access to the schemes now being introduced. Surely it is not too late to ask the Government to look once again at the right of women both to share in occupational pension schemes and also to be brought within the scope of the Government's own proposals concerning the retirement age. Like the noble Lord, Lord Royle, I accept that at this stage we may not be able to bring the retirement ages of men and women into line, but surely we could aim at doing so over a given period of years.
I would remind the House that in the Select Committee we all felt (and this was something which was based on the strong burden of the evidence that we heard) that of all the areas covered—education, training and employment—not the most spectacular, perhaps, but basically the most important was educaton. The whole question of discrimination begins with education and even in the home before the educational process starts; and I do not feel that the educational section in the Government's proposals is anywhere near strong enough. Like the noble Lord, Lord Royle, I do no believe it is good enough to leave it to the inspectors. I urge the Govern-
652
ment to recognise that unless we get the educational part right, and root out discrimination in the schools, then what is included in the proposals—which greatly depends upon a change of attitudes which must begin in the schools—will largely be a dead letter, in so far as the legislation, when passed, eventually allows it to be so. The Act will do something, even if basic attitudes do not change; but it is far more important to change the attitudes. This is needed more than anything else, and I am afraid that the whole section on education is a great deal too feeble.
I turn to the question of exclusion from the Bill of other matters besides pensions, and in particular those concerning financial opportunities. The noble Lord has said—and I bow to his far greater experience in the field of mortgages—that women are not discriminated against in this field. My information is that while there is a much less discrimination than there used to be, some women, at any rate, still believe that they are discriminated against in this way. They may be wrong, but if there are some people who are, or feel themselves to be, discriminated against on these grounds, there could be no harm in covering this point in the proposed legislation. Certainly there are other financial consideraions affecting women. I had a letter not long ago from a widow who told me that she had two jobs: in addition to her day-time job she taught at a technical college during the evening. She went to a finance house to negotiate a loan, and was told that she had to have a male guarantor. I can only take her word for that, but apparently she is prepared to vouch for its accuracy. Even if such things happen only rarely, even if they happen to only a few people, they should not be allowed to go on, and an appropriate new clause in the proposed legislation would make it impossible for them to do so. It would do no harm and could possibly do considerable good.
Then there is the vexed question of the exemptions. Of course we all accepted that there have to be some exemptions, but the fewer there are and the more narrow the grounds, the more satisfactory the situation will be. "A genuine occupational requirement" was the phrase that we used, and it is necessary to have it. But I cannot say I am entirely happy at the list of grounds for exemption

653
which the Government have produced. I accept the argument of authenticity. Obviously, the leading lady will have to remain a lady, and one will have to say so. Some of the other grounds which are listed here could be interpreted too widely and some of them, though they might be reasonable in the short term, I think should have a time limit on them—for example, where the question of communal living is referred to, in Clause 2(11)(e). No doubt it would be difficult to make the necessary provision overnight, though it could be done over a period of time. I strongly object to the two possible grounds for exemption which are put forward in Clause 2(13)(a) and (b). I would remind your Lordships that Clause 2(13)(a)—and the Government do not suggest that they support this but they say that this might be regarded as grounds for exemption—says:
"Where it would be offensive to public taste or decency for a man (or a woman) to do the job".
Surely, my Lords, that could be interpreted by an appropriate body so widely as to exclude a large number of people. It is true that one man's decency is another man's prudery, and a clause which is drawn as widely as that leaves so many opportunities for loopholes that it should be reviewed.
Clause 2(13)(b) says
"Where it could be shown that for the performance of personal services strong preferences among customers or clients made the employment of a man (or a woman) essential to the business".
Again, "strong preferences among customers or clients" is very vague. A great many customers or clients have become so accustomed to the idea of being served by a male or a female that they take it for granted that there will be sex discrimination regarding people rendering that particular service; but if presented with the need to consider someone of the opposite sex, no doubt after a very short period of time they would accept it as in itself a perfectly reasonable and obvious thing to happen. I very much hope that eventually those proposed two clauses will go out of the window.
Then there is the exception with regard to the Churches. I was sorry in many ways that we in the Select Committee had to agree to that proviso. I would, if I might, say with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Royle, that I did not quite
654
agree with his summary of the evidence given by people who were representing the women who wished to be accepted into the Church. From my knowledge of them, I do not think it was any fear of the hierarchy that made them modify their point of view. I think the hierarchy would support me when I say that this particular group of women are not easily intimidated The reason why I personally would go along with it was certainly not that given by the noble Lord, Lord Royle. Speaking personally, I should regard this as an issue of Church and State. I should not be happy that the State should legislate for the internal affairs of the Church. That is a different and quite broader question which I do not propose to raise today.
I am sorry that we have gone ahead with the exemption for midwives. For the life of me, I cannot see (and as a single woman I speak with hesitation on this point) why, if you can have a male gynæcologist, you cannot have a male midwife. Of course one would put in the proviso that no woman who objected to have a male midwife would be forced to have one; but that a man should not be able to be a midwife seems to me extraordinarily illogical in the whole context. It means that it limits the training of men who may take part in duties on the district which it is highly desirable he should do. I would point out to your Lordships that since we changed the terminology from matron (a title which, I suppose, was rather inhibiting for a good many men) to chief nursing officer, men are, if not swarming, none the less going in considerable numbers into the position of chief nursing officer in a hospital. I should have doubted whether it was really appropriate to have in that position someone who had not gone through what is still regarded, as I understand it, as the full nursing training which covers both general nursing and midwifery. It seems a very odd exemption indeed. Reasonable objections in such circumstances must be considered, obviously, of individual women who would not wish it; but they could surely be covered without this blanket exclusion of men from midwifery.
I was glad to see that the Government came down heavily against the statistical argument, which is brought forward again and again, that women should not be

655
employed because it can be shown statistically that the women's absence rates are higher than the men's absence rates. I am grateful to the Government that they have nailed that one for good and all. One does not in any sphere of life deal with the average woman; one is always dealing with a particular woman, and arguments about how the particular woman is going to behave, based on statistical deductions from women as a whole in all spheres of life, are I suggest extremely misleading. So let us not hear any more of that; and let us thank the Government for having made it quite clear that they do not intend to go along with that suggestion.
On the question of the protective legislation, your Lordships may be aware that we had considerable discussions about this in the Select Committee and we were not entirely of one mind. I personally am glad that the Government have decided to amend the protective legislation. But here I have two qualifications. First, I hope that there will be no change in the protective legislation until the Equal Pay Act is fully enforced. I fully accept the criticism that was made by women members of trade unions that to remove the protective legislation until the Equal Pay Act was in fact effective would put some women at considerable risk. These two things should go ahead together. The second requirement before the removal of protective legislation will, I hope, be fulfilled during this Session. That is the revision of the safety and health legislation which is proposed in the gracious Speech. When we know the content of that legislation, and when we are satisfied that we are moving in what seems to me to be entirely the right direction—the direction approved by the International Labour Organisation, that there should be a better standard of health and safety for everyone, male or female, in work, and therefore the need for special protection is removed—and when we know that the Equal Pay Act is in fact in force, then, and only then, I personally should welcome the revision of the protective legislation which is proposed in the Consultative Document. So much for the main areas of legislation proposed.
I now turn to the very important and very difficult subject of enforcement. It
656
is in this area that I have been having further thoughts in comparison with what we said in the summer. I was not happy at that time that we had entirely got the answer right, and I am certainly not happy that the Government have the answer right. Enforcement in this field of discrimination, be it in the field of race or in the field of sex, is, as we all know, extremely difficult. But I take my stand on two points. First, there must be real sanctions—and I am afraid that I do not see adequate sanctions in this document—and they must be sanctions which, in appropriate cases, really bite. But, having said that, I must add that I do not believe that discrimination is going to be removed primarily by the use of sanctions. It will require strong sanctions in the background, but I believe that it will be removed in fact by the persuasive, educative work which must go on in society and of course, above all else, in the field of employment. These two are complementary but separate. I am extremely glad that the Government have separated the work of the Commission as a persuasive organ from the enforcement machinery. My criticism is that the enforcement machinery is not sufficiently strong. The persuasion will be far better done if in the background there is real enforcement, with real sanctions.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, will the noble Baroness allow me to intervene, because this is an important point and one which has attracted a good deal of attention and, if I may respectfully say so, misunderstanding? She is differentiating now between enforcement of individual complaints, on, say, the employment front, which is one matter, from enforcement of areas of discrimination which have not been spelt out in the Consultative Document but which may be uncovered by the Equal Opportunities Commission. What I think at the moment is obscure is whether the Commission ought to be able to enforce their own potential solutions to the unspecified areas of discrimination that they then uncover; and, if so, how. This is quite a different matter and it is a very difficult one, and if the noble Baroness is going to expand upon this it will be immensely helpful to the Government to hear what she has to say upon it.
BARONESS SEEAR: My Lords, that was precisely what I was proposing to do. Let us look at the enforcement side.
There are, it seems to me, two types of enforcement. There is the individual case which is important and has to be dealt with but is not at the centre of this whole issue. Discrimination is not going to be got rid of—we have learnt this on the race side—by dealing with a series of individual cases. I reluctantly accept that, so far as individual cases are concerned, they will have to go, initially at any rate, to the industrial tribunals. I accept this because the Equal Pay Act uses the industrial tribunals; the Industrial Relations Act unfair dismissals clauses use the industrial tribunals; and (although I know that the mere mention of the Industrial Relations Act is anathema in many quarters) the unfair dismissals clauses are being used and are being handled by the industrial tribunals. This may not be announced from the housetops, but I have taken care to check on this point, and it is undoubtedly going on. It is one of the sensible things that the trade unions are doing, without putting up a placard to announce that they are in fact doing it.
So it would, it seems to me, be far too confusing if the individual applicant had to ask: "Have I a case under the Equal Pay Act which goes to the tribunal? Am I suffering unfair dismissal which goes to the tribunal? Or is it really a case of opportunity and I have to take it somewhere else? "I had serious doubts about the industrial tribunal, and I repeat them now because the tribunals are manned to a large extent—two-thirds—by representatives of employers and trade unions many of whom in the past were up to their eyes in the business of discrimination. It was for this reason that I personally did not want the tribunals to handle these cases. But the practicalities of the matter seem to me to make it essential that they should do so, and I would only urge the Government to look very carefully at the revision of the tribunals, the manning—the "womaning" or whatever one likes to say; the "personing"—of the tribunals in order to see that that fear proves to be a bogus fear.
I also very much hope that it will be possible for cases to find their way from the tribunals to the courts, be it the
658
N.I.R.C. or be it one of the other courts. I know that the White Paper says there is an appeal on matters of law. I have taken this up with people who have been handling cases on the industrial side and I gather that the interpretation of the phrase "on points of law" can be, and in many cases is, pretty wide. Perhaps this is not the place to say this, but it is not unduly difficult to get a case taken from the tribunal to the courts on a point of law which perhaps the stricter lawyers in this House would regard as being rather too generous an interpretation of that phrase. But I hope that it will be interpreted as widely as may be.
There is one other thing I wish to say about the individual case. I am aware that the individual woman will be hesitant in taking up cases, particularly these key cases on promotion. She will make herself unpopular not only with her employer but also with her fellow workers in many cases if she says, "I ought to have been promoted, and not you"—which is what it amounts to. She will need support and help. I know that the Report says that the Secretary of State, through a special unit of the Department of Employment, can take up cases of individuals. But I am not happy about that. I think it is asking too much for the ordinary woman to distinguish between the part of the Department of Employment which handles the tribunals and another part of the Department which is handling the case on her behalf. There seems to me to he a schizophrenic quality about the role of the Department of Employment in this connection which may be extremely confusing to the ordinary person who will find it difficult to know whether she has gone to that part of the Department which is on her side or to that part of the Department concerned with enforcement.
In my view, it is absolutely essential that there should be an organisation outside the Department which is able to bring cases for the individual woman, if necessary without her name being made public. I hope that the Government will look at this again. I believe that this organisation needs to be a hoard—though not necessarily the sort of board that we put forward in connection with the Bill hack in the summer. I believe that a board should be able to do this, and also should be able to deal with

659
organisations and professional associations and to bring actions for groups and not only for individuals. I think they should have proper powers, such as the Race Relations Board have at the present time. Such a board should have the sort of powers for which the Race Relations Board asked in their previous report but were unable to get from the Government. However, such powers should not be used very frequently; and this is where we come to the relationship between the board and the Commission.
Real progress will come, I believe, from the work of the Commission. There should be a Commission concerned with equal opportunities policies; and at this point—and at this point only—I am not at all sure that we could not have a Commission concerned with equal opportunities policies for both sex and race. On the enforcement side, no; but on the equal opportunities policy, why not? After all, what we need in order to get good equal opportunities policies are good selection procedures, good training procedures, good appraisal and promotion procedures for all employees, of whatever colour or sex. If we look at it from the point of view of the employer, upon whom, after all, a good deal of it turns, it will be ridiculous if somebody comes along from the Equal Opportunities Commission to say, "What are you doing about the equal opportunities policy for women?" on Monday and somebody comes along from either the C.R.C. or the Race Relations Board (when they have sorted this little one out between them) on Tuesday and says, "You ought to have an equal opportunities policy for immigrants". What they want is a good management policy about equal oppotunity to cover everybody, including immigrants and women.
What I should like to see happen is that when the board (I am talking now of the board) has reason to believe that all is not well in an enterprise they will say to that enterprise, "We are referring you to the Commission". It should be this way round, not the other. "The Commission will come and help you to put your house in order", and the Commission will go in, with no powers, but with persuasion, knowledge and experience, and will urge the organisation concerned to reform its ways, and they
660
will work with it in getting out those equal opportunity policies which that organisation ought to have.
Then when the Commission have done the best they can they will either say to the board, "We are satisfied that progress is being made" or, This lot are incorrigible. Now bring up the whips and scorpions and put the sanctions on them." People will listen to the Commission if they know that there is such a board in the background; if they know that the Commission themselves have no powers; but are there, so to speak, to try to make the organisation conform to both the spirit and the letter of the law, and will do their utmost to see that the organisation ceases to discriminate, but that, if it does not go along with the Commission, the Commission will go back to the board and say, "We have tried all we can but this lot are no good at all". I believe that in this way, with the separation of the powers, with real sanctions in the background and with a really well-informed and acceptable—because they have to be acceptable—Commission who can work with industry we shall begin to get the changes and the removal of discrimination which has to come by the use of both these instruments.
My Lords, I apologise for taking so long. The whole question of the enforcement machinery is very difficult, I have somewhat changed my mind and extended my views on this matter, because although I was moving towards the idea of separation before I find it difficult to see the exact relationship. I would not have discussed this question with the people working in the race relations field, but in this area of equal opportunity policies in employment (which is the phrase that everybody in the area of race is using all the time), if we see it for what it is, namely, getting organisations running their businesses in a totally non-discriminating way, then at that point, and only at that point—not on the enforcement side because that is a different point—I believe we could do a very good job indeed by bringing the two together.
I see that I have spoken for over half an hour, so may I finally say that I believe there is the germ of a very good Bill here. I do not think it is a very good Bill yet but if we listen to the comments which will come in from all sides and if the Government really

661
mean business as I believe they now do, then I think we may see legislation that will spell the end of discrimination in this country.
3.49 p.m.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, there are now more women in this country than men and so we are concerned this afternoon with a good part of the rights of the majority. As your Lordships know, if there is one thing more powerful than an idea whose time has come it is an idea whose time is a little overdue. The Government's procedures must take into account many different attitudes and opinions and effects, but on the principle of equal opportunity their stand could not have been put more clearly or with less compromise than in the words of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in his foreword to the document we are discussing. He said:
"The Government wants to eliminate unfair discrimination on grounds of sex wherever possible and to change the prejudiced attitudes which give rise to it."
As I hope the noble Baroness will see, we do mean business. Your Lordships will remember that my noble friend Lord Colville, who will be dealing with the points raised in this afternoon's debate in his winding-up speech, announced last Summer, on May 14, that the Government would introduce legislation, paving its way with the Consultative Document before us. My noble friend's promise has been kept, the document was issued in mid-September and the legislative proposals were outlined in the gracious Speech. This legislation will, we intend, join a formidable programme of measures designed to make the country fit for women to work in as well as to live in.
Of course, our aim is in no sense partisan; we acknowledge the introduction, with our support, of the last Government's Equal Pay Act, about which I shall have something to say a little later. Indeed, it is our deep conviction that we cannot continue to make successful progress towards equal pay without the corollary of progress towards equal opportunity. So the Government are most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Royle, not only for the choice and timing of his Motion, not only for the way he moved it and the stimulus that he provided for our long list of speakers,
662
but for the very notable contribution made by the Report of the Select Committee under him to public discussion on this subject. Together with the Report of the Select Committee of another place, this Report has been studied with the greatest care by the Government in preparing our proposals for legislation.
Even as we accept differences in thinking on some points, and even as we accept some castigation from the noble Lord initially, we honour and value his services and those of colleagues—not least for the very clear and enjoyable English in which they set out what they found. Would that it were always so! I thought that the noble Lord was a little severe on the Government desire to go further with the consultative process. I must say that we intend to go further.
This afternoon's debate is a part of that consultative process framed by the document and I can assure the House that in many significant respects the Government are still "all ears". On the day of publication of the document over 100,000 copies were distributed throughout the country, and there has since been a steady demand. Was the noble Baroness perhaps a little selective in her example? I will, in any case, look into it; and the Department of Employment will look again at the distributive process. The time allowed for consultation was 21 months, and the closing date for comment is the 30th of this month. I realise that this is not very long, although I cannot think that it has caused any real difficulties; but I know that your Lordships will acknowledge that we did not wish to delay implementing our declared intention of an early introduction of legislation. In any case, the proposed Equal Opportunities Commission will be taking a permanent and on-going consultative role.
I should now like quickly to look at some of the proposals, particularly those relating to the field of employment.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Earl. He said that this Commission would have a permanent and on-going role. I take it that the Government's mind is still open as to what the machinery should be—or are they really committed on this aspect?
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, I shall have something to say about the Equal Opportunities Commission in a minute or so and I hope that that will answer the noble Lord's question. I wanted to look at some of the proposals, and particularly those affecting employment. Although, of course, these proposals apply to both men and women, it is the lack of equality of opportunity for women which gives rise to the greatest concern. The Foreword to the document recognises that women have tended to be concentrated in the less skilled, less well-paid jobs and are poorly represented in management and in most professions. I think that Lord Royle's document, if I may use his words, talked about women being "at the bottom of the barrel".
The proposed legislation will have three objectives; to widen the range of opportunities for women; to help remove unfair discrimination against them in the employment field; and to investigate the need for further measures, including legislation, to help them to contribute to society on equal terms with men. But I want to make one thing very clear. The object of the proposals is to enable women who wish to do so to make the best use of their qualifications and abilities, and to have an equal chance with men in the employment field. There is no intention on the part of the Government to force women to extend their role in employment outside the home. On the narrowest and least romantic grounds, if work in the home is not socially useful, what can be said to be so? On what else is society based?
The Government propose to make unlawful unfair discrimination in chosen employment on the grounds of sex. As your Lordships will know, the Select Committee endorsed a similar provision. But the Government proposals go further. Not only do they cover recruitment, training, promotion and dismissal, but they also provide for equality of opportunity in shift working and overtime and equal treatment in connection with short time, lay-offs and disciplinary measures. The proposed Bill would make it unlawful for employment agencies to discriminate in offering vacancies and submitting clients to jobs. It would also be unlawful for organisations offering courses of vocational training to people over school-
664
leaving age to discriminate in the provision of training facilities. The scope of these provisions will include the Manpower Services Commission set up under the Employment and Training Act, and the Employment Service Agency and the Training Services Agency which will operate these services on the Commission's behalf.
My Lords, before moving on to further aspects of the proposals aimed at improving equality of opportunity in employment I should like to mention that, as foreshadowed in the Consultative Document, the Government have now asked Her Majesty's Inspectors to undertake the study of the extent to which curricular differences and customs contribute to unequal opportunities for boys and girls. As an ex-teacher I feel strongly about this. When I came into Government I interrupted what I thought was a promising underground career in trying to place women in finance and industry as well as in teaching and the Civil Service. I agree with the noble Baroness that we must get the educational sums right and I am pleased to see that my noble friend the Under-Secretary of State is here.
It is, as I have said, obvious that there is the closest connection between progress towards equal pay, on which we already have legislation, and progress towards equal opportunity, on which we do not. The gap between men's and women's earnings has narrowed; but the gap will not narrow sufficiently on the basis of equal pay alone. This is one of the reasons why the Government are introducing legislation against sex discrimination. Because the reform of our attitudes towards the working role of over half our population is so large and on-going an issue, the Government feel, as did the Select Committee, that there is a need for a permanent body to look at the problem steadily and to see it as a whole. So we propose to set up an Equal Opportunities Commission with powers to inquire into the relative positions and opportunities of men and women, to publish findings in the form of reports to the Government and generally to help in the essential task of educating and persuading public opinion.
Your Lordships may wish to know more about this proposal. I know that the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition would

665
wish this. If I may, I will ask my noble friend Lord Colville to put flesh on it, since the Home Office will he so closely involved. But I must not pass on without acknowledging that the Government do differ in opinion from those like the noble Lord, Lord Boyle, who would wish to see the Equal Opportunities Commission invested with powers of enforcement as well as of inquiry and persuasion. We believe that what I might call the cultural role of this legislation, the task of changing attitudes, should be kept separate from law enforcement.
In what is, as I have said, so large and diverse an area of human life we do not wish to circumscribe too much the work of our Commission. Our Commission can look at the equal opportunities for men and women in any sphere of life. The Select Committee's Board was, and properly so, concerned principally with employment. That said, the Government consider that the vigorous enforcement of sex discrimination legislation is crucial to the objectives we share with the Select Committee. In a sentence—and may I adapt one of the Select Committee's fine sentences—we believe that the overwhelming weight of evidence establishes beyond doubt that unfair and unnecessary discrimination on the grounds of sex does exist in this country, that this is both unjust to individuals and damaging to the economy, and that legislation can make a significant improvement. Of course, legislation is valueless without enforcement. We intend to entrust the process of enforcement to industrial tribunals.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, if the noble Earl will forgive me for interrupting him for a moment, may I remind him that the Select Committee, when they had amended the Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, dealt with this subject in Clause 13 of their proposed Bill. They actually included this kind of activity in their proposals.
THE EARL OF COWRIE: My Lords, yes, I was referring to the Board, but I acknowledge what the noble Lord has said. The use of the tribunal machinery in enforcement will place at the disposal of parties involved in a complaint the services of the Department of Employment conciliation officers, who will attempt to achieve a mutually acceptable settlement. I think the noble Lord,
666
Lord Royle, accepts this. In the past, they have been able to do this in over 50 per cent. of cases referred to tribunals. When a settlement at this level is not possible, then we believe that the tribunals provide the most speedy and convenient vehicle for dealing with individuals' complaints in a relatively informal atmosphere. Moreover, they provide a more comprehensive coverage of the country than would be possible for a specialist anti-discrimination body. They have had almost 10 years' experience of handling sensitive issues of employment under various legislation. The expertise they have acquired will provide an excellent basis for the handling of the type of case that will be brought under sex discrimination legislation and under the complementary Equal Pay Act, which will also be enforced through tribunals.
The Government agree that it is desirable for more women to sit on these bodies. We have already taken steps to increase the number of women on the panels from which their membership is to be drawn. In the last two months, 80 women members have been appointed to the panel. This means that at present there are 130 women members of tribunal panels in a total membership of 1,300. Finally, the use of tribunals makes possible appeal on questions of law to the National Industrial Relations Court and to higher courts whose decisions over time will build up a body of case law reinforcing the consistent application of legislation.
My Lords, may I say a word here about exceptions? On the question of exceptions, the Select Committee favoured the American model where jobs may be restricted to one sex only where it can be shown that sex is a bona fide occupational qualification. Guidelines are issued by the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The Committee agreed, however, that the Bill should not apply to the clergy or to private households. We have heard something of that this afternoon. It seems to me that the Committee have gone along with Sydney Smith in thinking there are really three sexes—men, women, and clergymen. Though differing to some extent from the procedure adopted in the United States, the effect of the Government proposals would not really be dissimilar. The Government have made

667
it clear in the Consultative Document that they firmly believe that all exceptions weaken the principle. Nevertheless, we feel that the proposed legislation should specify some, although in fact very few, exceptions which would be likely to he expected and supported by the majority of the public. We must always remember that in legislation affecting a very wide area of human life we must take the public at all times with us. In addition to the clergy and private households, it is proposed that the Armed Forces, the police and prison services should also be excluded.
Of course some provisions must be made to cover special circumstances and to avoid creating situations producing manifest anomalies or absurdities. That would bring what we all want into disrepute. The proposals provide for a general exception where sex could be shown to be a genuine occupational qualification. To avoid inconsistency in interpretation, it is proposed that the Bill would set out criteria, and five such criteria are in fact laid out in the document. They are clearly spelt out and I do not think I need take up the time of the House in repeating them, but I do not think they leave wide loopholes. I repeat that the justification for each claim for exception would have to be proved.
The document goes on to mention other possible criteria which the Government are not proposing but which, nevertheless, they recognise may have to be taken into account. These are, first, where it would be offensive to public taste or decency for a man—or a woman for that matter—to do the job, and secondly, where it could be shown that for the performance of personal services strong preferences among customers or clients made the employment of a man, or a woman, essential to the business. The Government would welcome views as to whether the Bill should include such criteria, and perhaps we shall hear some this afternoon. We feel that on the grounds of difficulty of forecasting caseload on the enforcing authorities, small undertakings might be excluded, at least in the early stages. But I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Royle, that provision will be available for the progressive reduction and possible eventual elimination of the figure of a limit of 25 and fewer employees.
668
My Lords, I come now to statutory restrictions. In the Consultative Document the Government are also proposing the repeal of some of the statutory restrictions which limit the working hours of some 25 per cent. of adult women in employment, and which also limit their working with moving machinery. This was an area where the Select Committee reported that they were not unanimous in their attitude towards existing legislation for the protection of women at work. As your Lordships will know, many of these restrictions originated in the last century and were fully justified in the light of working conditions at that time. However, the Government feel that it is not necessary, under modem conditions, to retain these restrictions. Their repeal will enable women to undertake the full range of duties and responsibilities on an equal footing with their male colleagues. Where there are restrictions on the hours of employment of women under other legislation they apply equally to men. Let me make it clear, however, that it is not proposed to repeal restrictions relating to maternity protection; for example, employment with lead processes or exposure to ionising radiation. Here we are in agreement with the Select Committee.
There are two other areas where existing statutory restrictions might be regarded as denying equality of employment opportunities. The first is that women who might wish to work in underground mining (though not necessarily at the mine face) are prohibited from doing so. The second is that certificates of enrolment as midwives can be issued only to women. From what the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said, it seems to me that male midwives might become a major platform in the Liberal Party's Election Manifesto. But the Government have not proposed in the Consultative Document that these restrictions should be repealed but would, nevertheless, welcome the views of the public and of interested organisations.
May I close by saying something of the steps that have also been taken within the Department of Employment. The Employment Service actively encourages employers to consider candidates of both sexes for vacancies notified to it. This service has now been extensively modernised and improved. Many of the features

669
of the new service will be attractive to women, I think. They include a network of specially designed job centres situated near shops and offices, with vacancy displays and a speedy, informal self-service. They will also have counselling and advisory facilities which will assist women returning to employment, although one must remember that we are at the beginning of a long road.
May I say a word about training which I know is close to the heart of the noble Baroness? In the past, the proportion of women in Government-sponsored training was small because most of the available courses were in Government training centres which catered primarily for craft training in traditionally male occupations. But with the arrival of the Training Opportunities Scheme a much wider range of training facilities has become available, particularly in colleges, and the number of women in training, I am glad to say, has risen rapidly. In March, 1970, for instance, only 4 per cent. of Government trainees were women; in March, 1973, over a quarter of all the trainees were women, and the number is continuing to increase. To help women who wish to return to work but cannot undertake full-time training because of their domestic responsibilities, an experimental scheme of part-time training in clerical and commercial occupations has been introduced in selected areas of the country. A decision on expanding the scheme will be taken when the results of the experiment have been evaluated.
I look forward very much to the rest of the debate and am proud of the chance that I have had to place my acorn in this eminently fruitful soil. It is sometimes said that our age is sex obsessed. I would say that when Lord Royle's Committee drily and delightfully referred to their lack of sympathy with the definition of "discriminate" which would make it illegal to note or observe the difference between men and women, they hit the nail on the head. Interest in the difference is as old as Eden. But there are clear signs, and this document and this debate are surely among them, that we are losing the obsessiveness and beginning, not without difficulty or pain, to look at ourselves in a more hopeful way, clearly, and with an equal eye.
4.12 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, in view of the very large number of your Lordships who will be speaking in this debate, I fear that it may not be possible for me to stay to the end of our deliberations. If I should have to go, to fulfil a long-standing engagement, I offer my apologies to the House, and to the noble Lord, Lord Royle, in particular. I shall be particularly sorry if I cannot be here to listen to the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, because on a number of occasions I have played the role of St. Sebastian to the barbed arrows that she from time to time shoots at those who sit upon these Benches. I would most readily have played that role again this afternoon, and if I am not here I hope that one of the other Lords Spiritual will be present to receive whatever she has to say.
I express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Royle, not only for the amount of work that he has done as Chairman of the Select Committee on this matter, not only for the courtesy with which he received me when I came to give evidence before it, but also for the fact that he has initiated this debate this afternoon. For surely this is a matter which now accords with the general tenor and outlook of society at the present time. It is not so very long ago since the main part of women in society was to be a decoration at the best and a drudge at the worst. We should all be thankful that things have changed so very much during our own generation, and we must hope, therefore, that this document, and the Bill which we hope will accompany it, will finally clinch the matter so far as out society is concerned. I would therefore wish only to comment on one or two of the matters that are raised in this Report.
First of all, may I say something about the statutory changes which are suggested. The repeal of certain legislation will, I think, remove some safeguards which have existed in the past, but it is right that they should be removed. We ought, however, to hear in mind what might be the possible consequences of this, especially upon family and home life. We now more fully accept that for many married women the first years of their married life can be devoted to the rearing of a family and the creation of home life

671
and that later on they may wish to go out into employment. This can have its risks as regards the stability and happiness of home life, and therefore I hope that alongside the repeal of this legislation will go a recognition of the importance of producing flexible working conditions and shorter working hours so that it is possible for women who wish to work also to devote some of their time to the important matter of their homes.
As regards the exceptions under the statutory changes, I share the views of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, in failing to understand why it is necessary to exempt midwives from these provisions. Surely it is absolutely proper for a man who is properly trained to act as a midwife. I should want to be much more fully convinced about this exception before I could vote for it, if I found it in a Bill that may later come before the House.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has pointed out the importance of education in the whole structure of this matter of equal opportunities. I think the House will feel that this is quite integral to the Commission and to any Bill that may come before us. I have had experience of being chairman of two institutions of higher education which became coeducational, and the experience I found was one of great interest. I approached both with great apprehensions. I discovered very quickly that those fears were entirely groundless. One institution was a college for training teachers, and in that respect we were forced by the Department to go two-sexed whether we liked it or not. The other was an institution well known to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and also to the noble Baroness, Lady Stocks, which itself felt that it was improper from the educational point of view to be merely a college for women. We were somewhat perplexed by the terms of our trust, which required of us to provide the best possible higher education for women. But we discovered that in fact we had no difficulty in altering the terms of our charter, because it was pointed out that we could not provide the best higher education for women in a college which was concerned solely with the education of women. This was true about the provision of the teaching staff, for you could not get the very Lest teachers to come to
672
a college which was confined solely to women. Also, we discovered from the scientists that in their research work, which is done largely by a team, they were not interested in the sex of the members of the team but only in their ability to contribute, and therefore if the college was to provide the best possible research it must be on a two-sex basis. I see in this experience somewhat of a parable for the whole of the matter that we are discussing.
As regards schools, speaking from these Benches I can claim that the Church of England, at any rate, has a fairly good record, because of the independent schools with which we are concerned 24 are boys' schools and 18 are girls' schools. I think, however, that educationists would agree that it is important at that level for some segregation, at any rate for part of the time, because, so I am told, the academic development of boys and girls in their 'teens is apt not to be on the same level; therefore, it is a good thing that they should receive at any rate some period of their education separately. But again the fact that so many schools are, at sixth form level, introducing boys into girls schools, and vice versa, is an indication of the way in which the tide is flowing. Again, with the shortage of good teachers for sixth form work, it is all the more important at that level that there should be co-ordination.
There is one particular area of education in which I am glad that the Government will make things possible which Lord Royle's Committee would have math; impossible. I refer to the cathedral choir schools. I think that the Select Committee Report would have made it impossible to start a new cathedral choir school, if it were necessary. Those of us who listened to what was taking place in Westminster Abbey earlier to-day will appreciate what an enormously important cultural element in our national life is the cathedral music of our country. It is important that the boys' voices should be given full opportunity, and it would be a sad thing if the cathedral choir schools were not given full opportunity of existence and development.
May T refer to an important stake which the Church has in education; namely, in our church training colleges for teachers. There are 27 such colleges

673
in this country; 23 of them are coeducational, only one is for men only, and three for women only. In our training colleges there are altogether 12,000 women receiving training and 7,000 men. Again I think that we can claim rather a good record in this respect.
Some reference has been made to the exceptive clause for the clergy, and I wish to say something about this. First of all, I hope that your Lordships will accept that this is at best a very narrow sphere. In the administrative side of the Church's life there is no sexual discrimination whatsoever. If your Lordships were ever to visit that other legislative Assembly that works not very far from here, you would see a great many women as members of the General Synod and taking their place as chairmen of its work. Indeed, a little nearer than Church House at No. 1 Millbank, in one of the most important offices, the Third Estates Church Commissioner is a woman. In that respect there is no discrimination at all. Nor is there any discrimination within a very large area of the work of the Ministry of the Church of England. We have a number of women workers, a number of deaconesses, and a number of women who are now lay readers. But it still remains that for the Church of England we have not yet come round to accepting the possibility of the ordination of women to the priesthood. I am grateful, therefore, for the White Paper making the exceptive clause for what it refers to as the "clergy".
My recollection of the reactions of the Select Committee to my evidence accords rather more with that of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, than with the noble Lord, Lord Royle. I would certainly agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that the ladies who appeared before your Committee were not ladies who would have been in any way frightened or overawed by the Bishops; nor need they have had any fear that it would have been the Bishops who would have been their chief opponents. I think I can claim that if the voting record of the Lords Spiritual, both in this House and certainly in the General Synod, is examined it will be found that they have been in the vanguard of progress. It would not be the Bishops who would be the chief people who would disapprove of the ordination of women.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, will the right reverend Prelate allow me to agree with him completely about that, particularly in the light of some figures we have seen in recent days?
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. Nor also, would I hope, though I have to accept his authority on this, that the Select Committee made the exception for the clergy solely on the grounds that I had assured him that the Church of England was giving this very careful consideration. That certainly is true but, as ill many other matters, the mills of God grind rather more slowly than some of us would like. I pleaded before the Select Committee really on two grounds. One was that which has been mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that this would raise a difficult question of the relationship of Church, in its widest aspect, and State. This of course does not apply only to the Church of England. There are many Churches which would have varying attitudes towards the question of the ordination of women. Whatever their views, I feel fairly confident that the noble Lord, Lord Soper, and the noble Lord, Lord MacLeod of Fuinary, will agree with me that, whatever their Churches themselves want to do, they would, with the Church of England, fight to the death about being told to do it by the State.
My second reason for gratitude for this exception is that this matter also touches very tender consciences; they may be prejudiced and the prejudices may be wrong, but they may also be theological, and therefore we ought to be careful in approaching this matter. I would ask noble Lords to remember that, as I hope, the term "clergy" as used in this Report applies not only to Christian Ministers but also to Rabbis of the Jewish Church, and in this country, where we are becoming so pluralist in so many ways, it would apply to the Ministers of the Mohammedan Church, or indeed the Hindus, and so on. We should, therefore, be touching very dangerous and delicate ground. I am sure that in this matter it is wise to provide an exception, looking to the Churches and the religious bodies concerned to be sensitive to the way in which thought is going.

675
Indeed in the Church we have a big job of education to do. I venture to think also that we have a big job of education to do in the nation, for however much legislation there may be, basically this removal of discrimination is going to depend upon the outlook of ordinary people. Therefore, I welcome the setting up of the Equal Opportunities Commission, for I very much hope that it will embark upon a careful educational programme so that we can remove the many prejudices which are, I believe, basically the things against which we have to fight.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask the right reverend Prelate a question? This is not a barb; it is just a gentle question. He has told the House that the Church does not ordain women, but he said that on the administrative side there are very large numbers of women. On the television this morning I looked into Westminster Abbey, and from the choir to the priests, to lesser functionaries and all the workers in the Church responsible for that delightful service, I did not see one woman.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, I cannot speak for Westminster Abbey, but the noble Baroness would find a great many lady churchwardens in parish life, and a great many ladies who act as vergers and people in the choir, and so on. I think that this is a matter again where possibly the tide of development might make its mark.
LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTON: My Lords, was there not one woman who played a very important part in Westminster Abbey this morning?
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, but not a member of the administrative side of the Church.
4.30 p.m.
LORD SOPER: My Lords, I wonder whether I may use this intervention as the occasion, if not the text, for what I have to say. This document, which I welcome as a Consultative Document, as a ballon d'essai, is one which very specifically indicates two areas of procedure. One is legislative and the other is educative, and it is on the second of those issues that I rise with a profound sense of discomfort. If indeed I venture to
676
disagree with my noble friend the Lord Bishop of London on the whole attitude that the Church has been taking, and continues largely to take, I know he will regard me as speaking from the inside and not the outside, and if there is rather more sackcloth than lawn in what I have to say it is because he himself has indicated that it may well be that we are here the residuary legatees of a process of indoctrination, a process of bad education, which still persists even if a great many people to-day have long since forgotten the name of the church they stay away from. It is for that reason that I would venture to attract your Lordships' attention for a little while to the two predominant characteristics of the theological background to this discrimination against women, the first of which, in a process of Fabianism, is apparently being dealt with by some churches; and if my sorrow is vicarious, I do not want to pretend that we are very much better, as Methodists, than the Anglicans, but we have at least gone some distance to solve this problem.
As your Lordships will know, it stems from the accident or the historic fact that the first Apostles were men and were living in a man-dominated age; and it has been assumed for long enough in the main stream of church life that special forms of grace inevitably flow in masculine channels. It has often been the fact that the veneration for one woman has been the conscience money for the denigration of most of her sisters. It is, in my judgment, a condition which still prevails, though I am very happy to agree with my noble friend the Lord Bishop of London that the situation is being improved and that one by one the churches are coming to recognise that this is an impertinence and, indeed, a blasphemy.
But there is another constituent in this continuing process which is just as dangerous and to which no advertence has been made to-day. It is the persistence of a belief, which is still at least regarded by many church people as obvious and is paraded as self-evident, in the infallibility of the Scriptures. If you once accept that proposition, that they are inerrant, then you are in trouble with St. Paul, as quite properly you might to be, for it is St. Paul who is responsible for the assertion that women ought to wear a particular headgear in

677
church and that they should keep quiet anyhow. In a recent wedding, the inclusion of the assumption that a wife should obey her husband has called attention to this fact, and has drawn attention to a most curious rejoinder on the part of an official of the Church that this is palliated because the bridegroom is expected to "worship" his bride, which seems to me a very dubious piece of advice, inasmuch as it contravenes the Second Commandment.
However, what I have to say is not in any jesting spirit, except to remind myself that when the Church is excluded then the Church falls into the kind of situation which I find in a document which I was invited to read by the Council of Civil Liberties, in which, in reference to the exceptions, we are coupled with lavatory attendants. Lavatory attendants and the Church are to be excepted, it is said. There is nothing wrong with being a lavatory attendant, but I take a certain amount of umbridge at the association of the Church with that not causal but certainly statistical reference in the booklet of the Council of Civil Liberties. My Lords, it is high time that the Church clearly and obviously stated that which is much more clearly stated in this Consultative Document, and that is that it is blasphemous to make any discrimination in the higher reaches of life between those who happen to belong to either of the two genders.
I turn, therefore, to the actual document. With regard to the whole question of exceptions, there is of course a limit in most generalisations. If you say there is such a thing as the survival of the fittest, that is limited by the reflection that it is only the survival of the fittest to survive. If you say that there should be equal opportunities for men and women, that is limited by the prospect of the capacity of men or women to accept those advantages or those opportunities. There is the very wise statement in this document as to an occupational qualification which, because of the very nature of that occupation, prohibits the application of this principle. Obviously, you cannot offer equal opportunities to sing bass in a quartet; and you cannot offer equal opportunities for the parts of Joseph and Mary in a Christmas tableau. You can obviously ask people to regard male midwives as a possibility, but obviously male wet
678
nurses create a much more difficult proposition. Though it refers to it occasionally in philosophy, what seems to me to be lacking in this particular document is a clear enough definition of what are the permissible conditions of exemption; and although not everything that comes across the Atlantic is worth following in these Islands, yet the evidence from the Civil Liberties group and their legislative efforts in the United States is that, on the whole, the only two exceptions which are completely valid are the exceptions of the play actor and, as they say, of the wet nurse.
I am sure that the noble Baroness was quite right in pointing out how dangerous it is to infect the various causes for exemption with the introduction of the principle of what people would like or what they would not like. This is most dangerous because, in my judgment, it would defeat the whole purpose of the Bill, and would in fact ignore the proposition that perhaps the first of all the requirements is that there should be a continuous process of persuasive education on the part of the Commission, to which they believe such emphasis must be placed.
A word about protective legislation. I hope it will not be withdrawn until it has been clearly shown that it is replaceable. There are cogent arguments for the fact that, in the full employment of such an Act as would flow from this Consultative Document, previous protective legislation would be out of date and unnecessary. Not only do I believe at the moment that the abolition of these protective measures would put certain women factory workers at risk, but what is just as important, I think, is that they should be protected against the very natural temptation to be able to acquire more wealth, particularly in view of the fact that for many of them, since man is not yet a domesticated animal, they have two jobs to do, not only the job at work but also a great deal of the job in the home to which they are committed. For that reason I hope the Government will not consider the repeal of such legislation as an interim measure, for it will give protection until the full purpose and expression of any legislation for equal opportunity comes into force.
My Lords, the question of enforcement raises very large issues, and I hope that

679
there will be very much more careful deliberation as to the extent to which the private desires and the private intentions of ordinary people will be safeguarded in conjunction with the general benefactions that can come from social legislation. I refer particularly to the sort of legislation which, through the Commission, will put the responsibility to take action on the person who feels himself or herself to be misjudged. I would, if I may, use an illustration that comes out of my own experience as a social worker. I doubt whether many of your Lordships fully realise the sense of fear, almost amounting to terror, that this kind of responsibility puts upon ordinary people. There is genuine fear of taking action. That fear is partly the lack oif a sense of savoire-faire and partly the sense that they are the victims of a society which is remote to them; and the programme of alienation which has gone on for so long has perhaps had its most deleterious effect in this field. I hope, therefore, that the Commission will take to itself greater powers; and, as the noble Lord, Lord Royle, said, I hope it will have some teeth in order that it may do more than consult. I hope it will have the power to speak on behalf of people who are too frightened to speak on their own behalf. This will apply particularly to poorer people. Other people, I think, will have the opportunity and the poise to make their complaints directly to the court or to the tribunal, but there are a great many people—and I speak for them—who need the comfort and assurance of some friendly hand and some responsible body, and the Commission, I think, would be that body.
I am disturbed at the suggestion that the Industrial Relations Court and the Industrial Relations Tribunal should be the point of reference. I have very little doubt in my own mind that this Court and the Industrial Relations Act will have a pretty short life. I hope it will: it deserves to die, so far as I am concerned. But meanwhile, can it be expected that, in the general surrounding atmosphere of dislike, hatred and repudiation, the kind of programme referred to in the debate to-day will have a dog's chance of surviving? I think it very unlikely. If indeed it is good enough that there should be a Race Relations Tribunal then I
680
think there is every need for an appropriate tribunal to deal with this issue of equal opportunity.
Finally, my Lords, welcoming as I do this Consultative Document, I am particularly impressed by certain of the aspects of it which immediately strike a personal note. I would, if I may, delay your Lordships to remind yon of one of the exceptions to this proposed equal opportunity which for me has great opportunity and is displayed, I think, with considerable circumspection in the Report. I happen to be responsible for an hostel for alcoholics. I am not now going to embark on a temperance lecture, but to say that this hostel is run by a group of youngsters none over 30, and it is a remarkable tribute to their capacity to deal with this most difficult group of human beings, the alcoholics. In order that the group may work effectively it must be balanced as regards the sexes. For that reason I am very glad—having made certain very obvious criticisms so far as I am concerned towards this Consultative Document—to pay my tribute to such endeavours as have been made to recognise the exceptions which would not easily fall into any of the absolute categories but which nevertheless represent an intelligent and, I think, a generous recognition of what is required in a society which is much bigger than law and in which reality is much richer than thought. I hope that out of this Consultative Document, out of the Commission which will be set up—and which in my judgment is by far the most important of the things the document endeavours to Jo at this stage—not only will there be equal opportunities for men and women, but also in the achievement of those opportunities greater and better opportunities will be vouchsafed to both.
4.42 p.m.
LORD REIGATE: My Lords, it is not my intention to detain your Lordships for very long, but as I think I am the only Member on these Benches who served on the Select Committee I should like to say a few words. It is not my intention, either, to make a Second Reading speech on a Bill which, presumably, has not yet been drafted, let alone deal with what will be committee points on a long and I should think a pretty arduous Committee stage of a Bill

681
which, incidentally, I hope will be started in your Lordships' House. Surely this is far and away the most appropriate forum to deal with that kind of Bill. I want to give a fairly warm welcome to the Consultative Document. I feel now that I ought to apologise to my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross for the slightly snappy remarks I made at him earlier in the year when he announced that the Government were going to produce their own document and that Lady Seear's Bill was not going to be proceeded with. I must confess to my noble friend that I had some suspicion of the Home Office which is ingrained and almost innate in me after 25 years in politics. But I am glad to be able to wear sackcloth and ashes and to retract any suspicion I had of my noble friend or his Department.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE or CULROSS: My Lords, may I say to my noble friend that he is entirely absolved.
LORD REIGATE: My Lords, I can now shed my sackcloth and ashes and come forth in a white sheet of repentance. I want to welcome the document and also to say that after reflection I think it right that a Bill on this kind of subject should be brought forward as a Government Bill, as indeed was the Equal Pay Bill. There have been too many occasions when a Bill of great public importance, but which politically might be rather hot to hold, has been covertly passed as a Private Member's Bill. I think it far better that such Bills should stand forth, with the support of both sides, as an example of a Government measure.
I must tell your Lordships that despite the benign and wise chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Royle, I did not find the work on the Select Committee one of the most enthralling tasks that I have ever had. But none the less I think it was a worthwhile task and I do not think that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, who ultimately will be able to take great pride in her achievement, will feel that our work was entirely wasted. I am almost disappointed at the astonishing unanimity which has greeted the document so far. I recall that at an earlier date there was only one speech made here on the Committee stage. It was rather hostile to the Bill and I did not either follow it or agree with it.
682
Nevertheless, my Lords, I think we have to accept that there are quarters in which there will be opposition, or perhaps I should say there is opposition, and therefore should like for a few moments to dwell on my own approach and why I became a reluctant convert to the need for legislation.
I think that there were two reasons for this: first, the general antipathy to legislation as such and, secondly, some doubt as to the effect of the Bill; whether it would not in the long run create more prejudice than it cured. But I was totally converted by the evidence that came before the Committee and which proved to me absolutely incontrovertibly that in this country, through prejudice, neglect and apathy we are wasting the talents and the labour of a large section of the population—a wastage which we can ill afford.
During the deliberations in the Select Committee a number of themes kept recurring, rather like the sort of light motifs in a Wagnerian opera. There was the timid little woman whom the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, always champions so ably. There was the most fascinating statistic which the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, produced at a very early stage in our deliberations, and which actually comes into the Report. It was that 50 per cent. of the draughtsmen in Scandinavia were women as compared with only 1 per cent. in this country. This is a most extraordinary discrepancy and it converted me to the fact that there must be apathy and prejudice throughout industry of which perhaps I had been unaware. Someone might say, "So what?" although I am sure that your Lordships would not use a vernacular phrase. But the fact is that since the last war there has been in industry, if I may dwell on this particular case, an endemic shortage of draughtsmen, and this has held back many industries. I cannot believe that Scandinavians are any better draughtsmen than their British opposite numbers. I presume that the shortage has arisen either from prejudice or apathy on the part of employers and employees, or possibly even from an unholy alliance of both of them. That perhaps is the most extreme and glaring case and, as I say, it was cited in our Report.
My Lords, there are other cases which we came across and which have been

683
mentioned. I would mention one other which is rather a glaring exception at the present time. That is the shortage of labour in transportation. Almost every day one can see advertisements for train drivers for London Transport. But there are none for women. Why not? There is this desperate shortage but they are not acceptable. Does London Transport not accept them, or do the employees not wish to work with women? We must recognise that there are those who have a vested interest in restricting the field of recruitment to their own employment. That, my Lords, is the type of argument which made me realise that legislation was necessary. However, as I say, there has been hardly any opposition in your Lordships' House, and the Press have been very favourable.
I have been searching around to find who was an opponent of legislation with whom I could argue, as it were. I am glad to say that I find that in September, my old friend and former Parliamentary colleague. Mr. Enoch Powell, described the Government proposal as a "huge piece of idiocy", and told a Chamber of Commerce that he thought that the "huge gust of incredulous belly laughter from one end of the Kingdom to another would dismiss the Document".
Now Mr. Powell, as I have known for twenty-five years, has a logical mind. His ideas are logical, but very often pursued to an illogical conclusion. But his argument, which is a serious one, is, I think, shared by others, and runs thus: it applies to equal pay, but it is valid also as regards employment. I quote his words:
"So long as their remuneration was less than that of men, all employers would be wanting to replace men by women, and the women's remuneration would be bid up until it was level with that of the men.
"An employer who insisted on advertising for men only when he could get the same performance in all respects from women at a lower price would speedily be driven out of business by his competitors."
My Lords, that is impeccable in logic and perhaps akin to views which others hold. In a sense, that is how it ought to work. But employers are not always as avid or efficient in the pursuit of their own interests as Mr. Powell thinks. They connive, willingly or unwillingly, at these restrictions that are clearly unde-
684
sirable. I think that one must therefore remind those who oppose these proposals that restrictive practices are just as noxious in the field of employment as they were, or are, in the field of trade.
May I remind your Lordships, lastly, that it was a Conservative Government which passed the Restrictive Trade Practices Act in 1956, and I hope that a Conservative Government will very soon pass a Bill which will abolish the restrictive employment practices which the report of the Select Committee has so clearly shown to exist.
4.54 p.m.
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, the most favourable thing I find about this Green Paper—which has obviously turned White from shock—is the title, Equal Opportunities. I consider this a great improvement on the more restrictive title, "Sex Discrimination". I also feel that it is very much better that a Bill of this sort should be handled by the Government, rather than be introduced as a Private Member's Bill, because the Government can increase its scope and do very much more than even the most skilful and adequate Private Member's Bill could do.
Like some of the other speakers, I was originally rather dubious about legislation in this field. But after a number of years in various types of work and seeing what is going on—or rather what is not going on—I reluctantly came to the conclusion, with a great many other people, that legislation was absolutely necessary. This Document, which talks about equal opportunities, seems to me not even to begin to deal with many of the fundamental problems. I find that there is too much cosy flannel where a tougher and more durable legislative fabric would be far better, and in fact is needed. I find there is a blurring of words when crisp, clear objectives are needed, both in statements and in action. Legislation without a really strong power of enforcement seems to me to make exceedingly bad law.
As to the Introduction to the Document, to which the noble Earl drew attention, and which is a very pleasant piece of writing, there is nothing wrong with the intentions expressed, but the problem is that it is not used as the basic framework in which any viable legislation of

685
this sort ought to be set. By this, I mean that if we are going to deal with equal opportunities to-day and, within that concept, with sex discrimination, then alongside the legislation dealing with sex discrimination there must be both affirmative action and preferential legislation, where necessary, in order to bring the position of women up to the point at which they can take advantage of the proposals which are listed here. This has not been done.
We hear a lot about investigations, inquiries, future discussions, surveys, studies. My Lords, for years and years there have been studies; there have been investigations. If there is one thing that goes across the board in practically every women's organisation, in all the political Parties, it is the common ground on which there is lack of opportunity for women and a great deal of sex discrimination. If we are to put any legislation into being, it seems to me one has to look at the situation in the context of a society in which, frankly, we do not need a study at this moment by Her Majesty's Inspectors of Education to know that the curriculum for girls is largely quite inadequate compared with that for boys. Indeed, the curriculum for boys is also inadequate if boys and girls are to live together later and become husbands and wives and parents in this society.
It is this whole outlook that I find so very backward-looking, and not likely to appeal to, or in any way reflect the feelings of, so many young people. This legislation may be being discussed by the middle-aged, but it is not just for the middle-aged; it is for people now and is also looking towards young people who will be growing up in the future. In order that girls should have this opportunity, first of all, as has been mentioned by other noble Lords, a great deal needs to be done in the educational field; and we have enough information. The Schools Council, which is mentioned at the end of the Document, has already done immensely valuable work which could be taken into being almost right away. There is a sentence on single-sex schools:
"There is no doubt that large numbers of parents wish their children to be educated in single-sex schools."
Is this the opinion of the present Secretary of State for Education?
686
It may well be the opinion of a number of people whose children have grown up or are growing up. However, I respectfully suggest that if any information is to be sought about that then young married couples and young people who are emerging from schools should be asked their views. If that were done, I think there would be quite a different answer. Co-education would also mean that, so far as equipment is concerned, the boys would be able to take their part and learn (after all, we are told that marriage should be more of a partnership) to do their stint on the domestic sciences side, while the girls would be able to use laboratories. They would have a fluid use of equipment and young people would be brought up together.
Then I find that a very grave omission—except in the good intentions right at the beginning—is the complete absence of any specific plans for the woman who wants to return to work. The noble Earl mentioned a pilot experiment in part-time training for women; and if this were successful, it would be carried on further. The need for this has been recognised for many years.
About four years ago, when I was working for a magazine, I was running a project called, "Women in Search". We got out a questionnaire for women who wanted to return to work. We were then able to direct them to training and retraining courses and to suggest what type of employment they could enter. They were asked for details of their home circumstances, age and educational ability. A fairly good representative cross-section of people replied; the response was very good. Running this project meant that we had to be in touch with practically every local education authority and to be aware of all that was going on in the field of training courses: residential, part-time and correspondence courses. We found the variety and extent of such courses to be absolutely lamentable. Reading more up-to-date literature, I find that to-day, although there have been some improvements in some spheres, very little progress has been made in terms of really increasing the opportunities for women.
If one is to encourage women to go into work or to go back into work, and if one is also trying to eliminate sex discrimination it seems strange that in a

687
Consultative Document of this sort it should not be clearly stated that one must provide the kind of facilities to enable many women to carry a dual workload. There is nothing about this in the Consultative Document except the vague statement by the Secretary of State in the Introduction. There is no reference to the setting up of more day nurseries and nursery schools, although the whole area of child care brings difficulties for many women who want to work. More nurseries, incidentally, would do away with much of the unregistered baby minding. This is a different subject, but is one which has some extremely bad effects. This, it seems to me, is the context in which we should be discussing these proposals to-day.
When it comes to the exceptions, I agree with my noble friend Lord Soper that we should go according to the American model. One could take a "posse of prams" through the list of exceptions; and every one of them, if cleverly manipulated, could nullify the effect of the rest of the Act, except in those areas which are to-day considered mainly women's work. If I may, I will add my voice to those of the Liberals and the Church on the question of male midwives. One of the great and practical disadvantages of not allowing them to take the examination is that it prevents men becoming health visitors in this country; for they need to train as midwives in order to qualify. If one of the difficulties is, as I understand it, to find a name for the male midwife, may I suggest that "male delivery nurse" might cover the point.
One of the other exceptions to which I am averse is that of the Prison Service. I cannot see why this should be one of the exceptions, because to-day a great many women, for teaching or other purposes, go into the male prisons and vice versa. I worked in Holloway Prison some years ago, first as a lecturer and then as a prison visitor. It seemed to me at the time that it would be very much better to have mixed staffs in both male and female prisons. I have seen this abroad and it works extremely well. It reduces a great deal of the tension and it stops a great deal of antagonism, provided that you have the right people to do the job. You must put in not the
688
"statutory woman" or the "statutory man" but the best people available. It seems to me quite wrong to make the Prison Service one of the exceptions.
Finally, on the question of enforcement machinery, I agree with my noble friend Lord Soper that it is a mistake to bring in the National Industrial Relations Court. Here, it seems, is a piece of machinery like a defective knitting machine that drops more stitches than it makes. It is as if somebody said, "What on earth shall be do with it? The unions do not use it, the employers do not implement it. Ah! I know! We'll use it for the women." So it starts with this really bad reputation. It is also strictly limited to the industrial field; it does not cover all the gaps which are so apparent in this Paper which, in the enforcement area, deals only with employment. Enforcement should operate in training, education, and all sorts of other things.
It seems to me that what is needed is that the Equal Opportunities Commission should, in one part have this investigatory role, should be examining the scene and encouraging employers and employees, but that in another part of it there should be a strong piece of enforcement machinery. I am not fussy about what you call it. It can be the Equal Opportunities Court or Board rather than the Sex Discrimination Board if the Government do not want to go back to the original Bill. It should be even stronger—and I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, about that—than that set up under the Race Relations Act, for we have seen that that too needs strengthening. It should be a type of machinery where legal aid is available. I understand that this is not so under the machinery outlined in the Government's Consultative Document, whereas it was so in the machinery outlined in the original Bill. It is true that, as Lord Soper said, we are not talking of the very articulate people who can fight for themselves and push their way in and out of things. We are talking about people who, most of them, first of all must get used to the idea of being treated as people in their own right; and who then have to be helped. We must make it easy for them to seek help in remedying their complaints and not make it harder, which is what often happens.

689
I hope that the Government really mean this to be a Consultative Document and that they will take note of the remarks that I and others make. Mine have been critical; but it is an equal oportunities document and the Bill will, I imagine, be called the Equal Opportunities Bill. At least let the Government turn it into something which will do more to ensure equal opportunities than the very restricted Paper which is before us to-day.
5.9 p.m.
THE COUNTESS OF LOUDOUN: My Lords, I have read very carefully the Government's proposals in the Consultative Document and find in them nothing new or surprising. In fact, the conclusions are basically the same as those arrived at by the Select Committee of this House of which I was proud to be a member. While hearing evidence it became increasingly clear that there was discrimination and that it starts at a very early stage—in the primary and junior schools, and possibly even younger, in the home. Unless the problem is tackled at its roots, very little impression will be made on it. Of course attitudes are changing, but at rather a slow pace.
I have always been of the opinion that bringing up a family in a happy, well-ordered home to produce sensible, level-headed and productive members of society is the greatest job that a woman can do. But I recognise that there is a minority of women to whom, either by temperament or circumstances, this job would not appeal. It is this group that needs to be safeguarded. I do not think anyone will disagree with the statement that there is discrimination, but how much and how to improve the situation is not very clear, at least not to me. Legislation in itself is not the complete answer and, as I have already said, it is vitally important that the question of discrimination in all walks of education should be studied very carefully. So I am pleased to see that the Government intend to undertake a study of the extent to which curricula differences and customs contribute to unequal opportunities for boys and girls. I think the results of this study will prove most interesting. After all, these children are our future parents.
My Lords, the question of single sex schools was another difficult subject con-
690
sidered by the Committee. But many such schools now admit a small number of the opposite sex, and problems, and the knowledge of how to deal with them, are being discovered all the time. I know that this is only the tip of the iceberg, but it is a step in the right direction. I have purposely not mentioned the most glaring examples of discrimination—student grants, day release courses and admission to courses of higher education, in particular in medical schools. But these I will leave to other speakers to deal with.
To conclude, my Lords, yes, let us do what we can to eliminate discrimination. I am no fierce advocate of women's Lib., and have no intention of burning anything. In fact, I believe that the extremists do more harm than good. But at the same time, while doing all that we can to help, let us make quite sure that we are not in any way destroying the concept of the family, with the father at the head of it. I may be old-fashioned, but I firmly believe that this is the only real, solid foundation on which to build a worthwhile society.
5.13 p.m.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I wish to apologise in advance to your Lordships and to my noble friend Lord Royle if after speaking I leave the Chamber. Unfortunately, a long time ago I undertook an important engagement for this evening in the industry in which I work, and I am afraid I cannot free myself from it. My noble friend Lord Royle in his splendid and (may I say?) semi-maiden speech, which obviously came from a distillation of many hours sitting as Chairman of your Lordships' Select Committee, indicated that I was going to intervene in your Lordships' debate to speak on a very narrow field; namely, the role, rights, duties and opportunities of women in the Armed Forces. As the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, said in part of his most interesting contribution to the debate, the Equal Opportunities Commission has excluded from its purview the position of women in the Armed Forces. May I say that I am going to argue that this is wrong, and I will give my reasons in the course of what I have to say.
My noble friend Lord Royle started with, I think, an extraordinarily interesting point when he drew the attention of

691
your Lordships to the fact that in the painting depicting the Battle of Trafalgar there were clearly shown two women among those involved in that great battle. I think that too little is known about the role of women in the 18th century navy in this country. [Interruption.] My Lords, I think some of your Lordships must be indulging in chauvinistic male pig laugh. I say that they played a most important role. If your Lordships would like to read something which I have found absolutely fascinating, I would recommend a book called Man Midwife, by a ship's surgeon called John Cleverton. He was in fact a ship's surgeon on board a man-o'-war on the glorious 1st of June. He came back to England after, I think, three years at sea and because he had not been paid during that period, collected three years' arrears of pay, plus prize money, and he used what was then a very substantial sum to take a course in midwifery with the great Hunter brothers. In those days, of course, they did things better and they spoke much better than we do. Then they did not call a man a gynaecologist; they called him a "man midwife". The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, would appreciate that point. Nowadays we call rat catchers "rodent exterminators". These men were men midwives; that is what they were called. I will not develop that theme further. All I will do is to commend to your Lordships' interest this book which is full of fascinating reading. The women were there, doubtless darning socks and doing things like that; but come the clash of arms, they acted as nurses, and in fact performed many of the functions that trained nurses would do to-day. I am afraid that Lord Nelson had something of a puritanical streak in him, and I suppose the rot set in at about that time, because he used to put the women ashore at Gibraltar when the fleet sailed into the Mediterranean. I think this was a step backwards, and not a step forward.
My Lords, I was hoping to-day to say something of value in relation to the role of women and equal opportunities for them within the Armed Services. Perhaps it might be argued that the opportunities to serve Her Majesty in the Armed Forces are such that certain women might wish to avoid them. But
692
I think this is untrue. I think that the sense of duty among women is as great as, or greater than, among men, and certainly in the last war women played a most important role in the Armed Forces.
There is another important point which I do not think anybody has yet mentioned, but which I think is relevant. A book, written by an extraordinary French woman called Simone Weil, pointed out that no one has any rights unless other people perform their duties; that duties must come first, and rights follow. This, I believe, is the reason behind the fact that I understand it is a general principle that men talk from this side of the House on the subject of women's rights rather than women, because it is only if we perform our duties that the rights that women undoubtedly have will be achieved.
I should really like to re-read the speech that I made in February, 1971, in the Defence debate. But I am certain that there is some convention that prevents me from doing this although it would make life a great deal easier. Basically, I made that speech at a time when we were presenting to the country the concept of the military salary; and, as your Lordships will remember, it was that the individuals in all the Armed Forces were evaluated compared with those in civilian life, and the basic pay for a particular job was that which would be received in a civilian environment. But since a member of the Armed Forces sacrifices certain rights which the average citizen possesses, the right to change his job, et cetera, an X factor was added of additional pay—the figure was drawn purely out of the air—for the serving soldier to compensate him for his loss of civil liberties. But members of the women's Armed Forces were not paid the X factor: they were paid a Y factor, which was a much smaller figure—in fact, a notional figure only.
As may be imagined, this decision was reached within the Armed Forces after a pretty far-reaching debate on the validity of this argument because, while professional opinion is still that you cannot, at this moment in history, treat a woman on an exact footing with a man in the Armed Forces, this is not a universally held view. The two arguments against equal treatment are, first, that

693
women are not equally postable and cannot be sent anywhere in the world at any time; and, secondly, that women do not bear arms. I think that both arguments are fallacious. Taking first of all the point of universal posting for a woman, the argument put forward in 1971 was that you cannot send female members of the Armed Forces to Gan, where you have a thousand men and twenty women, because this would lead to an appalling disaster. Of course, that is complete nonsense. As I said then, it depends on the character of the girl. A girl can go wrong in Gan; she can go wrong in Godalming.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: Why Godalming, my Lords?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, any place beginning with "G"—Goole if you like. Nevertheless, I say that what matters is not the location but the situation. Those members of the military establishment who were arguing on my side said, "You cannot imagine what good it will do to the men there. It is not a question of women qua women but of (shall we say?) hope. One man who knows a great deal about this subject said, "The men will blacken their boots; they will brush their hair, and everybody will be very much smarter, oven if they are only travelling hopefully." I think we have got ourselves into such a tangle on this subject that, as I said, the supposition that a small number of woman, under, I am certain, a most competent woman officer, are more likely to get into trouble in Gan than elsewhere is highly improbable.
As regards the second argument, that women do not bear arms, I would remind your Lordships that during the last war women operated weapons systems. In the last war they fired anti-aircraft guns, and in this present era they control Radar—and Radar watches aircraft and guides missiles to them. Women operate weapons systems, and they are equally at risk wherever they are posted and whatever they may be doing. It is not right to say that women do not possess courage. I believe that women's courage is as great as, or greater than, that of men. It is not only a question of their power to endure but the fact that, as we have seen, they also possess the traditional
694
military virtues. A member of the W.R.A.C., for example, has recently won the Military Medal in Northern Ireland—and Military Medals are very hard to come by. Therefore I believe this argument that women are not as employable as men within the Armed Forces is fallacious. For that reason I believe that women should be removed from the inhibition placed on the Equal Opportunities Commission in considering cases which are brought before them.
At the moment in time I have been talking about, of course I was referring to pay; but to-day we are really talking not about pay but about opportunities. The case I raised in 1971, I am certain, still stands; and this is real discrimination. In the Air Force at that time we were short of skilled engineers, and we offered attractive terms to professional engineers who would be willing to join the Air Force direct from industry. If a man transferred he immediately entered the Air Force with the rank of squadron leader; if a woman transferred she entered with the rank of flight-lieutenant. I was against that. Now the Royal Air Force has some extremely competent engineers, and I believe that this is an example of discrimination which is not monetary but arises from an attitude of mind. Again, just as a side remark—possibly rather a "snide" one—I believe that there are only two Prime Ministers in the world to-day who really understand the traditional use of military power as a factor in politics. Both of them are women: one is Mrs. Meir and the other is Mrs. Gandhi. Both have used their armed forces effectively, and I should like to see some of their instinctive knowledge of the importance of armed force and armed power coming nearer home to Europe than one sees at present.
The only drawback that women have which causes them to be different from men is their lack of physical strength. They have not quite the physical strength of men, and this must limit their employment within the Armed Forces in certain ways, but not in the essentially military area. But wherever there are power controls—and more and more machinery is operated by power controls—this limitation can be overcome. What I find interesting is that in the present situation, when the only way in which men

695
and women can get additional pay is by changing jobs, in the business with which I am concerned. Many of our lorry drivers are leaving us. We are replacing them by bringing in women—women who are leaving the W.R.A.F.—and we are now getting a whole series of ex-W.R.A.F. women acting as our lorry drivers at men's rates of pay. This is a very interesting inversion of the situation. These women are as competent as men; furthermore, in France (where we see a similar problem) they are driving trains and fork-lift trucks. In fact, they are doing everything that a man can do, because men cannot be found to do these jobs. This proves, to my mind, that the only obstacle to genuinely equal opportunity is the obstacle of attitudes. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London touched upon this point, and it has also been mentioned by several noble Lords. I believe this is a fact that we must recognise.
I have been interested in this particular situation for a very long time, not through any sense of chivalry or because of a wish to be a knight-errant charging to the help of damsels in distress—because most of the damsels I know are not distressed and do not need help—but because I believe that we, as a nation, wish to play a major role in world affairs, and the one asset which we possess and do now use happens to involve the majority of our people. As the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, pointed out, we are here talking about the majority of the British people—in other words, the female share of our nation. I believe that this country has certain advantages which other countries have not. I believe that the attitude to this problem is much wiser in this country than it is anywhere else in Europe. One need only compare the attitude to the position of a woman in this country as compared, say, with that of a woman in Italy. We have an immense depth of strength on which we can draw, if we are wise and sensible. It is for this reason that I hope the Government will go as far as they can to allow women to develop the potential they possess for the service of this country; and I believe that this is of particular importance in the area of the Armed Forces, where we are dependent upon volunteers.
5.30 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, we have listened to an exceedingly interesting speech from the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, and I should like to say how much I agree with a great deal of what he has just said. It is an aspect of this important problem which nobody else has dealt with. My mind goes back to the year 1941 or 1942 when I and two other noble Baronesses in this House—I am sorry that neither is present at the moment—the noble Baronesses, Lady Summerskill and Lady Stocks, were members of a Commission appointed by the late Sir Winston Churchill to inquire into the work of the Women's Services. The Commission was presided over by Violet Markham and produced the Markham Report. It was a quite remarkable document at that time. I entirely endorse everything that the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, said. That happened twenty years or more ago, and women at that time showed an extraordinary capacity in a terrible War which devasted the whole world, and they played a great part during that time. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, raised this matter to-day because although it does not come into the Report it is one to which we should all pay greater attention. Nobody could have done it better or more succinctly than the noble Lord.
I congratulate the Government on producing this document. Of course there are various things that can be criticised, but I think it is a very interesting, simple, well-written and well constructed document. It means that the Government intend to have some legislation on this matter, which, as has been stated, has been studied ad nauseam. But I think it is excellent that the Government have asked for people to make comments. There is one other congratulation that I should like to make on a matter which is not strictly in the White Paper, but this is the first time that I have spoken since the Opposition have most gallantly and wisely elected a woman as their Chief Whip. I should like to congratulate the Opposition very much indeed on Lady Llewelyn-Davies's appointment. I am only sorry that she is not here to hear what I am saying. I hope that someone will pass on my remarks, because we

697
are all delighted that she has been elected. I am sure she will be a great asset to this House as well as to the Opposition.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, if I may interrupt and thank the noble Baroness, may I say that my noble friend Lady Llewelyn-Davies is in fact doing women's and men's work at the Shadow Cabinet at the moment.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, the basis of this document is the Equal Opportunities Commission, and it seems to me that legislation will be effective or not effective as the Equal Opportunities Commission is formed. I strongly agree with the words in this document that the Commission must have on it a substantial proportion of women. How many commissions are set up and reports made in which they have one or possibly two women!—this is the phrase the "statutory woman" which the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, and I have been fighting in this House for a long time to change. I hope that this Commission will be made up of men and women, 50–50, if not more women, as its members. There is a phrase in the document in paragraph 4.6 which says,
"… the present vicious circle in which employers do not recruit girls because so few suitable candidates come forward and suitable girls do not apply because so few employers, they believe, are willing to take them on".
There is a terrible truth in this. This is something which must be changed. Obviously this change depends very much on education. Here equal opportunities are most certainly not available.
We need more women in all professions. We need more women doctors. We have several doctors in this House, but we have one great woman doctor, the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill. I have heard her say many times how difficult it is for girls and women to go to university and train for the medical profession, and how difficult it is for them to get training at universities because the numbers are always weighted in favour of men. Paragraph 3 of this document stresses the great need for medical training. I also feel that the national industries very seldom have on their top commissions any women. Are there any women on the commissions in the coal industry, the electricity industry and the air services, whether B.E.A. or B.O.A.C.—in
698
fact all transport and railways which are used by women as well as men all the time? Certainly there are none at the top. We have had the example of the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, pressing very strongly regarding changes of which she disapproves in the B.E.A. and the B.O.A.C. services, yet she is the only person who is speaking up on that subject. It is a great mistake that we do not have more women on the nationalised commissions which play a large part in our lives.
On the subject of education, many points are made in this document which are of great importance. Speaking personally, I am not in favour of the abolition of single sex schools, because if people want to go to single sex schools I do not see why they should not do so. I am also in favour of schools for boys and girls together. But it seems to me there are far too many headmasters of these schools and far too few headmistresses. There, again, it could be said that it was thought there were not a sufficient number of academically trained women for these jobs, but I am absolutely certain that there are. The prejudice against women as heads of large mixed educational establishments is considerable. I would do away with this prejudice.
I have said before now that I have had some experience in local government and have been chairman of an education committee, and so on, and it is difficult to get people to realise that when you have a great school of 1,500 or more pupils a woman as the head of that school is just as good, if not better than, a headmaster. The document draws attention to the fact that many more women today want to be employed while carrying on their home life. I am sure that that can be done: we all know of the great improvements and case with which a lot of houses and homes can be managed, and women can go out to work, either part-time or full-time as they wish. I hope that it will be realised that the modern generation, as well as those of older age, are keen about this matter because it can be done with great advantage to the whole community.
In the Document there is a paragraph about discrimination against married women. This is most important. Not so long ago married women teachers were brought back into the teaching profession. But I believe that now, if there

699
is a surplus of teachers—I do not suppose this often happens, but it has sometimes happened—it is the married women who go out first. That seems to me most unfair, because they can make a great contribution to the teaching profession. That is another form of discrimination that we should be against. There is a paragraph in the Report about women who want to increase their skills, possibly coming back into employment and wanting to retrain or learn more about some different employment. I welcome very much the opportunity which is pressed for here for day release to enable those women to do more difficult and responsible jobs, and that they should be given those opportunities to retrain. All that is excellent.
On the paragraphs on protective legislation I find myself in two minds. The White Paper comes down in favour of the abolition of protective legislation, but it is also true that so long as workers, women or men, can be given very bad and very dangerous jobs and are working very long hours, women will be more vulnerable than men. There is a case for examining the proposals carefully. I received only this morning, due to the kindness of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, a paper from the National Council for Civil Liberties—a document which I should have expected to be strongly in favour of the abolition of protective legislation. But in fact in one of its paragraphs it comes down strongly in favour of protective legislation for women in certain cases. So I find myself slightly divided about this. My inclination is to support the proposals in the Government's White Paper, but I should like to hear more on the subject.
One subject not mentioned in the White Paper is that of women and the Church. I have always wanted women to be ordained under the same training and conditions that apply for men, and I hope very much that the absence of any reference does not mean that nothing further is to be done about this matter. Now is the time for legislation. This debate shows that the differences expressed on the subject are really differences of detail but not in principle. In principle, I think we are all ageed, with the possible exception of Mr. Enoch Powell—and that does not upset any of us. We are agreed that legislation on
700
this subject is ovedue. We want an Act of Parliament that will, in the words of the Home Secretary,
"eliminate unfair discrimination on grounds of sex, wherever possible, and to change the prejudiced attitude that gives rise to it."
My Lords, if the Government do this, they are much to be congratulated.
5.42 p.m.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, the Government have asked for comment and criticisms in this White Paper, and I am sure that we are all indebted to my noble friend Lord Royle for giving us the opportunity this afternoon of saying what we think. May I raise a few short points and then perhaps one rather longer one. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, I am sorry that the Government's area of their proposals is not larger, but is in fact smaller, than that of the Select Committee. We on the Committee heard a great deal of evidence of discrimination against women otherwise than in employment—mortgages; guarantees; discrimination in public places; housing; students' grants, and above all, of course, in pensions and retirement benefits. The sole reason why we did not seek to cover any of those subjects was simply that we felt that if we dealt with employment and education and training, which were alone within the long title of the "Bill", it was as much as a Private Member's Bill could do. I do not see how any Private Member's Bill can ever cover so complicated a question as pensions. But I regret, now that the Government are going to introduce some legislation, that they have not dealt with any of those matters at all.
Secondly, I am disappointed that, although our Bill covered education, and made discrimination against women in the field of education unlawful, this Bill proposed in this White Paper does not really deal with it at all. All that the Government are saying is, "The Minister has sufficient powers. You leave it to the Minister and to the school inspectors." We dealt in paragraphs 7 to 30 of our Report with nothing at all except the mass of evidence we had heard about discrimination that goes on in education; how the Ministry until quite recently was recommending to local education authorities not to give the same science facilities to girls' schools or mixed schools as

701
they did to boys' schools. We found that in one Northern grammar school, which was a mixed school, with the same facilities open to girls as to boys, in the science fifth form there were just as many girls as boys. It is not that girls are not interested; there is discrimination in facilities. So, too, is it the case in the curricula where woodwork is only for boys, while girls are to go off and do domestic science and have no choice. Now what we are told is this: "Don't put anything at all in the Bill about this. Of course it goes on. Of course we are very shocked about it. But there are sufficient powers in the Ministry. You leave it to the Ministers of Education, and the inspectors of schools under whom this practice has been going on for years, and they will put the whole thing right." My Lords, I feel somewhat sceptical about that.
I am not at all happy about some of the criteria. On marital status (these in a sense are almost Committee points), we recommended inclusion of marital status in the Bill for reasons which we gave in our Report. I can see no reason why it should not be included. I am particularly unhappy, furthermore, about "public taste or decency", which I should think would cover anything in the world. No illustration has been given. The only one I have seen, I think in a newspaper, was the presumption that this refers to women attendants in men's lavatories. Well, I do not know why that should be against public decency—it has gone on for years in France—or why there should not be men attendants in women's lavatories. They have doors. Every family—I was going to say, "every family has a lavatory", but even that, I am afraid, is not quite true. But most do, and men and women use the same lavatory. I cannot understand the reason for that assertion. But a coach and horses, I should think, could be driven through anything if we make an exception for "public taste or decency".
On customer preference, we were particularly strongly warned by the American experience not to allow an exception for customer preference because, they say, "If you once start that, employers will always try to go on discriminating on that basis." I am sorry to have to disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady
702
Seear. The Committee did not agree with the view which she expressed this afternoon when she said that these proposals ought not to come into force until equal pay does. We said that the Bill should come into force, I think, six months after it was passed.
BARONESS SEEAR: My Lords, may I intervene on a point of clarification? I said, only in connection with protective legislation. I did not want the protective legislation removed until the Equal Pay Act came into force.
LORD GARDINER: I am very sorry, my Lords. I must have misheard the noble Baroness. One of the matters I do not understand is why this legislation is not to come into force for over two years. I quite appreciate that it is important that when equal pay comes into force there should be in existence legislation against discrimination. What I cannot understand is what is wrong with legislation against discrimination coming into force before that. The whole fons et origo of the Government's proposals is that they are convinced that there is a great deal of wrong discrimination going on against women, that it ought to be stopped, and that there ought to be legislation about it. If that is so, on what grounds should employers be allowed to continue discriminating like mad for over two years?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, just to confirm my own recollection on this point, before the noble and learned Lord develops it too far, would he show me where in the Consultative Document anything whatever is said about when this legislation is going to come into force? This is another matter upon which we welcome advice and comment.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, I am sorry if I have misread the Document. I understood that it was not to come into force until December 29, 1975. I forget which clause it is, but I feel sure that is said in this Document.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, perhaps I can help my noble and learned friend. I think perhaps we might solve this problem if we get an authoritative statement. I have certainly got the impression from somewhere—I do not know whether it was from the speech made

703
by the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie—that it would be 1975. I am not accusing anybody of anything. I am admitting to sharing the confusion of my noble and learned friend, but it would be helpful if we were to be given an indication of the sort of timetable that the Government have in mind. Perhaps the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, will be able to help us in that regard. I must not continue because I am making a speech later.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, may I just interrupt to say that I said exactly the same thing, because I am sure I have read it somewhere.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I think I can be authoritative on this point. From wherever the impression may have arisen, I do not think anybody has made up his or her mind about the timetable and, as I said just now, this is something on which we would welcome advice and the views of the House.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, I am very glad to hear that.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, if the noble and learned Lord will allow me to intervene, it is paragraph 1.6 on page 7.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, it may have been that we have read a reference to equal pay as being the equivalent of when the Bill will come into force. If so, we have misread it. I am very much obliged for the assistance of the interventions.
The only other point I want to deal with is this: I doubt whether proposals on these lines will ever be effective at all. I am afraid that if we were to enact legislation without making substantial changes in what is proposed it would end up exactly as the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act of 1919 which has now been on the Statute Book for 54 years and no successful case has ever been brought under it. That is because it had no proper enforcement provisions. Finally, I wish to discuss the enforcement provisions.
May I contrast our sex discrimination law—and when I say "our" I mean the House of Lords Bill—the Equal Em-
704
ployment Opportunities Commission in America and the Equal Opportunities Commission proposed by the Government. In all three cases they would be the bodies to receive complaints. The Sex Discrimination Board under the Lords Bill would receive the complaints: the Equal Opportunities Commission in America receives the complaints; the Government say, in paragraph 4.5:
"In employment it is expected that the Commission would receive a large number of allegations of discrimination affecting both individuals and general areas of employment."
What happens then? Under the proposals in the Lords Bill the Sex Discrimination Board would investigate the complaint, and if they find that there is a prima facie case and conciliation is not successful they can take proceedings; but they can also investigate and take proceedings although they have received no complaint from an individual if facts suggesting discrimination come to their notice, and they can go on with proceedings even if the complaint is withdrawn. If conciliation is not successful they proceed to the county court or, in big cases, perhaps to the High Court, in both of which of course legal aid is available. The relief laid down in the Bill which can be granted by the court is a declaration that unlawful discrimination has taken place and an injunction ordering the employer to stop it, and damages.
Much the same is true, we were told by the chief counsel of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in America. She said:
"Let me briefly review how our agency operates. The machinery of the E.E.O.C. is set in motion by the filing of a charge by a person claiming to be aggrieved, or by someone on his behalf, with one of our field offices across the country. Such a charge may also be filed by one of our five Commissioners. The charge is then investigated in our field office, and ultimately a decision issued either in the field office or by the Commission in Washington finding that there is or is not reasonable cause to believe a violation of the Act has occurred. If no reasonable cause is found, the aggrieved person none the less has the right to institute a de novo proceeding in the appropriate federal district court."
That also was part of the House of Lords proposal, that even if the Board decided to take no action the individual could still do so. She then continued:
"If the E.E.O.C. finds reasonable cause, it will attempt to secure conciliation. …

705
If conciliation is not achieved, the E.E.O.C. has the right to institute suit in the federal district court."
The Attorney General also has the right to institute a suit himself. She continued:
"If the court finds that the respondent has violated the law, it may enjoin the respondent from engaging in such action, and order such affirmative action as may be appropriate, which may include, but is not limited to, reinstatement or hiring of employees, with or without back pay, or any other equitable relief deemed appropriate."
The back pay would be for not more than two years. She then said:
"An interesting footnote to our legislation is that while the traditional victims of sex discrimination are, of course, women, and while Congress passed the Act to combat discrimination against women, the Act and the women's movement also have had a liberating effect on men. You cannot, of course, rigidly segregate women into certain categories and roles without rigidly confining men to other categories and roles."
She says that in fact there have been a number of complaints, and
"these have involved issues such as segregated job classifications and seniority lines; the refusal to employ men because of draft status; discrimination in retirement age and pension benefits; and employer restrictions on the length and style of hair."
What happens under the Government proposals? After saying that of course the complaints will go, what will be the powers of the Commission? The document says at paragraph 4.5:
"In employment it is expected that the Com- mission would receive a large number of allegations of discrimination affecting both individuals and general areas of employment. Where these suggested that an unlawful act of discrimination had taken place, the complainant would be informed of the legal position and his or her right of access to the tribunals."
The Commission is virtually powerless.
What are we talking about? We are talking about the typist who wanted a job with a company which publishes a provincial newspaper with the new Webb offset process where there is no hot metal; it is a straight typing job. The employers took the view that it might be that some women would be better at this than some men, because they had only employed men. The branch of the union, NATSOPA said: "If you employ a single woman we shall all walk out". This is the woman who goes to the industrial tribunal. Or, take the other one we have all read about in the papers
706
recently—the woman who had every possible distinction in relation to driving and who wanted to be a bus driver, now being employed as a bus conductor. She was very popular with her fellow workers at the depot so they made her a shop steward, but nothing would induce them to agree that the company should employ a woman driver.
What are these people to do? They are to go to an industrial tribunal. I have seen a statement in the papers that Mr. Carr had said somewhere that legal aid would be available. Ordinarily of course it is not available. I cannot find anything about that in the Consultative Document. So they are to take proceedings, which may be expensive and which they have to pay for themselves. And who is the complaint to be decided by? It is to be decided by an industrial tribunal which ordinarily consists of a legal chairman, a representative of employers and a representative of trade unions. Most employees who now go to an industrial tribunal go with assistance from their trade union. But who are the people who discriminate in the field of employment? It is the employers and the trade unions. Is the woman bus driver going to get help from her union in going to an industrial tribunal? You do not usually have burglary cases tried by a jury of burglars or by a jury of the police. This is the great difficulty which the whole Select Committee always saw in these cases going to the industrial tribunals.
I must just add this. There is a great deal to be said for the same body dealing with pay as deals with other conditions of employment, because, of course, pay is only one condition of employment. Then it will be said, "Well, it was your own Government which sent equal pay to the industrial tribunals". I quite agree, and I must make it plain that I not only agreed with that decision, but strongly advocated it. In our Industrial Act we proposed that unfair dismissals should go to industrial tribunals; but that was in the pre-Beeching days. It was in the days when both the High Court and the county courts were unreformed and arrears were getting longer and longer. Even if it had been possible to find more judges, there was always the problem that there were not enough courts in which to sit, and arrears were piling up. As Lord Chancellor, I was

707
satisfied that it would have been absolutely impossible for the courts to deal with them if, as we were told in relation even to unfair dismissal, there might be 30,000 to 60,000 cases a year. Of course, that was long before the Courts Act. The situation is now reformed. For some reason, although their jurisdiction has increased, the county courts did less work last year than the year before. Their work is actually decreasing. There is no reason to think that the county courts could not deal with this work now.
My Lords, I have no complaint against the way in which the industrial tribunals are run. In this country we are still very bad on administrative law. I used to urge bodies like the Society of Public Teachers of Law that they should seriously include judicial administration in their courses. Birmingham University has included in its Law Faculty the Institute of Judicial Administration, and they are looking at the administrative tribunal. In relation to this issue we have always acted pragmatically. No one has ever sat down to work out the criteria by which we should decide what kinds of dispute ought to be tested in the courts and what kinds of dispute ought to be tested before tribunals. The fact that equal pay went to the industrial tribunal is an example of acting quite pragmatically. It was said, "If we are going to carry this through and have a separate discrimination tribunal which could also deal with disputes on pay, there is a good deal to be said for the county court". But I must frankly say that I am unhappy, as was the whole Committee, at the idea of this work going to industrial tribunals, for the reason which I have given.
When one is told that there can be an appeal to the N.I.R.C., the matter grows worse still, because, as we all know, no sensible employer ever goes near that court, and most of the trade unions will not. So what is a member of a trade union, whose policy it is never to go near the courts, to do? I think this is a very unhappy conjunction, and if the Government ever propose that this should work as the proposals are now set down, I cannot conceive of any woman employee ever taking a case there at all. Not only has she apparently to pay for herself, but there is a threat in the document that
708
she may be liable to pay the whole of the costs of both sides. It seems to me that this is simply not practicable, and I hope very much that we shall give serious consideration to the enforcement provisions.
My Lords, may I end by asking one or two questions. I should like a definite answer about legal aid, because this is extremely important. I cannot help feeling that if the Government were going to provide legal aid they would have said so in the document, or we should have heard about it from the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie. From the fact that we have not, I conclude that no legal aid will be available at all. I believe that this by itself will kill the Bill stone dead from a practical point of view. May I ask for some explanation of what is said about charities in paragraph 2.38. I am sure it is my fault, but I do not understand it at all. Could we be given an idea whether legislation would be likely to be introduced? Lastly, on the question that has already been raised about employers employing 25 or fewer as against eight or fewer, could we be told, if not now at some time, how many employers there are in the country who employ 25 or less, and how many there are in the country who employ eight or less?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Not without notice.
LORD GARDINER: I realise it could not be done without notice. I naturally welcome the fact that the Select Committee's Report has convinced the Government that something ought to be done about discrimination. I very much regret that they have given up education altogether. No amount of discrimination in education is to be in any way unlawful; it is being left to the same Ministers of Education, the same inspectors of schools who have allowed it to go on for so long, to remedy it. As to the rest, I hope the Government will think again about the practical side of the subject, because looking at the sort of women who are discriminated against I really cannot see that it is the least bit likely that any of them will ever go to an industrial tribunal in the circumstances set out in the Bill.
6.7 p.m.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: My Lords, I rise to support in general the objectives of the Government as stated in this Paper, but I have doubts on some

709
aspects of the legislation referred to in it. I speak as one who has been involved in industry for many years, and for part of that time I had a great deal to do with the management, employment and development of the use of women. I am, however, giving entirely my own views this evening.
My Lords, for many years I have been conscious that industry has not made the best use of women, in skills, specialist activities or management. In so far as I have been able, I have endeavoured to promote their advancement in the spheres with which I have been concerned. There is no doubt that there has been much apparent prejudice against the employment of women in certain jobs. I say "apparent" because much of this prejudice is not real, but arises from social circumstances which become hardened into tradition, combined with a general unwillingness to change. At the present time I see signs of change throughout industry, but I believe that it needs some acceleration which I hope will be brought about by the Bill coming from this White Paper.
One of the main social circumstances which has caused this resistance to the employment of women is the fear of unemployment. I worked in the North-East from 1929 to 1933, over the period of the depression. During that period, the Department with which I was concerned was set up on a new factory site. This Department needed a clerical staff in one section of about 40. The management decided that they would staff it entirely with men. The reason for that was because of the acute unemployment in that part of the world: and the feeling that it was most important to give employment to men who would become the fathers of families. In fact, some years later great difficulty was caused by this, because as these young men got older quite a few deserved promotion and it was extremely difficult to give them that promotion. Fortunately, the company was expanding and many of these young men were transferred elsewhere in the country.
At a similar time there was an unwritten rule that in a factory with a payroll of 12,000 or 13,000 no women should be employed in the works; that is to say, apart from the central offices. This was partly due to the reason I have
710
just given, the fear of unemployment and the need to reduce it. But another reason was that the process workers were on a three-shift basis, and there were legal objections to employing women in that way. There were no legal bars to their being employed on day work; yet they were not. A tradition thus grew up which it is very difficult to break down.
Much of this discrimination disappeared during the war, but much continued. A few years after the war I was involved with some sales departments up and down the country, and in those sales departments the senior workers were called "sales clerks". They had a certain amount of responsibility, in the way of correspondence with customers and speaking to them on the telephone. In many of these offices these clerks had to be men, and the reason given was that it was impossible to have women talking to customers. That was a lot of nonsense then, and it is nonsense now. The custom took a long time to break down, but it was broken down.
Again, in management it was rare to find a women manager. Some 15 or 20 years ago I was involved with a particular company, a subsidiary company of the group I was with, where a manager's job became vacant. I knew a woman who I thought would do the job well; she was fully qualified technically "and in every other way. Uncertain of what the reception would be if I put up a woman for the job, I asked the managing director in question and he replied. "God forbid!". He did not know the woman in question, and I am sure he was not anti-female or with a poor idea of women's capabilities. But there never had been a woman in a job of that seniority, and at the time there were few women available with the technical training and background.
In all the cases I have mentioned—and I could mention many others—there was not really prejudice against the employment of women; it was a custom arising from environmental factors and an unwillingness to change. The most important need is to promote an atmosphere in all spheres of employment whereby women are given their due place in the pattern of employment, and in this I see the Equal Opportunities Commission playing an important part. There have been great advances, but they have

711
not come fast enough. Most organisations do want to advance the cause of women. The noble Lord, Lord Reigate, referred to the fact that there were so few women draughtsmen. I believe the reason for that is that in the main in this country draughtsmen have come from the shop floor. They have started as engineering apprentices and worked up through the various trades in the factory. There are few women going in as engineering apprentices, and thus there are few women draughtsmen.
When it come to specific cases, it is easy to designate jobs which should be open more freely to women. The Select Committee of both Houses found many such cases. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, last week referred to the fact that she had never seen a London Underground train with a woman driver or guard. We know of the difficulties with women bus drivers. I have no doubt that there should be more women in some of the professions. On the other hand, it is undesirable to proceed on the basis that men and women are identical or that their aspirations are identical. This is stated in the White Paper. I do not think it can be denied that many more men than women enter industry for a career. One may say that women do not go into industry because they do not believe they are going to get on in it. On the other hand, training for industry requires working in a great variety of places—in factories, on the shop floor, and all over the country. I believe that women are much more inclined to go into work in which they feel they have more sympathy, such as work in retail shops, offices and commerce.
It is therefore essential that management balance its staff so that people's aspirations can be fulfilled, and the numbers of each sex employed is an inevitable factor. I referred a short time ago to this clerical section of 40 men. In industry a large proportion of the women who come in intend to spend only a short time there; they get married and move out. Some may return after they are married, but there are relatively few who really seek promotion or wish to make a career of their job. For those who do want to make it a career, are capable of promotion and will develop the skills necessary to attain promotion, there is usually no difficulty.
712
In industry, much training is lengthy and consists of extended periods to gain experience in various activities, interspersed with short courses or long courses on a sandwich basis. This applies especially in education for management. Every organisation needs to mark early the potential managers and senior managers, and to arrange for them to be given the wide basic experience in their twenties and early thirties. As industry gets more complex in its processes, its industrial relations, its marketing and control systems, so it is necessary for the potential manager to be identified early and given wide training. This may cover a period of years and means moving people about the country.
A special difficulty which arises with women is that if and when they get married there tends to be a clash of careers which makes it difficult to move them to other locations. This also happens in some cases with a young man who marries a girl who has some specialist skill which can be practised only in one place. This means that when an employer takes on a young woman with the potential of becoming a manager he has to make sure that she will be prepared to move about the country to gain the varied experience that is necessary. It is difficult for the girl, the woman, or the employer to know that this will be possible, and as a result there is bound to be some discrimination in this respect. One may say that if the girl or the woman is of the right calibre and shows that she is prepared to undergo the training, then there is no reason why she should not do the job. But if a woman is interviewed on this basis and says she is not prepared to be moved around, because she may get married, or possibly may be engaged to be married, and she does not know what her husband or future husband is going to want, then there is this discrimination. One must give some credit to industry that, in the main, it does wish to find its managers among its young men and women, but they have to go through the proper training before they can emerge as managers. We want to ensure that those women who are capable of it can fulfil their aspirations, but we should not create unnatural situations in which the sex of the applicant cannot be taken into account when it ought to be.
6.21 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I have listened to the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, with very great interest. He has spoken from his own experience in industry. I shall, before long, be referring to industry. I hope that he will not think it any discourtesy on my part if I begin in a different way.
I have been tremendously encouraged by the publication of this Paper by the Government, and even more so by the debate which has taken place to-day. I am encouraged because I am old enough to have participated at the beginning of this century in the women's movement for equality. I became a socialist in its first decade because I believed in the equality of all human beings, men and women, and of whatever race or colour. In those days it was the struggle for women's equality which was dominant in the sphere of discrimination. One thinks back to Mrs. Fawcett, and all those associated with her in demanding women's equality. As a teenager I used to go to the gates of Holloway Gaol time after time to meet my girl friend who, after a hunger strike, was weak, and under cat-and-mouse treatment was released until she was fit again and then taken back to prison. My earliest associations in politics were with the struggle for women's equality. If I have since been more closely associated with equality on grounds of race or colour, it has been only because at the beginning this was a more lonely struggle, whilst in politics one has had so many able voices urging women's equality such as, for example, that of my noble friend Lady Summerskill when she was in the other place.
I want to make one reference to a subject where I may be taking a different line from some of my friends who are feminists; it is the subject with which the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, has dealt; namely, the place of women in industry. I do not take the view that a recognition of the equality of women means that we ought to withdraw the restrictions which, on their behalf, are now practised in industry. There are 2 million women working in our factories. There are restrictions. There is the nine hour working day; the 48 hours a week; starting and finishing times, and rest hours. It does not seem to me to be necessary when one stands for women's equality to ask
714
that those provisions should be removed. One has to look at society as a whole, and the great majority of those 2 million working women in the factories work not only there but in their homes as well. They work in their homes for at least 40 hours a week, and that work as housewives should be recognised as a service to the community in addition to their work in industry. We should not regard it as illogical that those of us who stand for women's equality want at the same time to safeguard their conditions in industry.
I have gone through this Paper in detail and have many comments to make on many of its aspects. I shall refrain from doing so because in time we shall have the Bill itself, and we shall have the Committee stage. I only want to draw particular attention to certain aspects that I regard as specially important. The first is in relation to women's pensions and retirement. At the present time women are excluded from many of the occupational pension schemes. In my view, if we are to have a measure for women's equality, that exclusion should be ended. Perhaps I may give this encouragement to those who sit on the opposite side of the House: I remember that the Conservative Opposition in another place, during the discussion on the Equal Pay Act 1970, strongly criticised the omission from that Bill of ending the exclusion of women from occupational pension schemes. At present the occupational pension schemes do not include 30 per cent. of the female manual workers in our factories.
The second point that I would urge in relation to pensions and retirement is that both the occupational pension schemes—when they relate to women—and the State Reserve Scheme provide lower pensions for women. In my view this should be ended. Under the Social Security Act, 1973, women's pensions will be one-third lower than men's, although their contributions are of equal value. This is justified on two grounds: first, that women's expectancy of life is greater, and it is argued that it is unfair to men to subsidise the longer payment of pensions to them. This strikes me as a sectional view of what is socially desirable. In practice, it is denied in other respects. Manual workers now subsidise white-collar workers, whose expectancy

715
of life is greater, and single men subsidise the pensions of widows of married men. I hope very much indeed that when the Bill is finally introduced it will provide for women to be given pensions equal to those of men.
VISCOUNT AMORY: My Lords, I am following the noble Lord with very great interest on this point, and I wonder whether he would allow me to interrupt him. In the case he quoted, where women had the lower benefit by way of pension for the same contribution, would the retirement age have been five years earlier or not, and would that have made much difference? In the case of a pensions scheme that I was familiar with and which both men and women could join, I remember that many women preferred not to join—it was a contributory scheme—because they took the view that they were not going to be likely to be in industry for more than a few years, and therefore it would not be worth their while joining. So, as to our relative numbers, as the noble Lord has said, many fewer women went into the scheme than men.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I recognise that that problem is very relevant indeed, just as the problem of retirement at 60 or at 65 is relevant. All I would suggest is that where equal contributions are made the pensions for women should be equal to those for men when they become of pensionable age.
My Lords, the next point with which I wanted to deal very briefly is one which I think particularly applies to many of our trade unions—and I say this from the Labour Benches—where there is a limitation of membership and a limitation of employment. I think trade unions are beginning to think again on this problem, but I would urge very strongly that any Bill which is ultimately introduced should include, as was proposed in the Anti-Discrimination (No. 2) Bill, a provision that it should be unlawful to deny membership of trade unions, professional associations or employers' associations on the ground of sex, and employment in their spheres.
My Lords, references have been made frequently during this debate to education. I believe it fundamentally impor-
716
tant so far as women's equality is concerned. The poor job opportunities, the low pay and the discrimination in employment largely reflect the discrimination which has been practised in the schools. The evidence which was given by the Department of Education before the Lords Select Committee, over which my noble friend Lord Royle presided, showed that girls form only a comparatively small minority of the pupils who take, for example, mathematics and science. It showed that only one-third take "O" levels in mathematics and only one-fifth "A" levels in mathematics. There was a similar minority in chemistry and physics. This indicates an attitude in education which would seem to exclude girls from these technical and creative spheres. I should like to see local education authorities encouraged in their duty of widening the educational opportunities for girls.
Let me add one word—and I am sorry that my noble friend Lady Birk is not here—about what she said concerning one-sex schools. I went to a boys' boarding school, a charity school, and I say that one-sex schools are bad. They are bad, first, because of the habits which they encourage among those who are there, particularly as they move towards adolescent age; but, secondly, they are bad because the absence of working or living with the opposite sex means that when, as teenagers, pupils leave those schools there is a reaction towards the other sex which is—perhaps the word "disastrous" is too strong—quite certainly bad from the point of view of human relationships between the sexes. While I am not suggesting that one-sex schools can be prohibited immediately by law, I would very strongly urge that education authorities in this country should seek to end them by all the influence that they can exert.
The speech of my noble friend Lady Birk makes me add one further thing of a rather similar character, and that concerns her plea that there should be women on the staff of men's prisons and men on the staff of women's prisons. I have been three years in British prisons, where one never saw a woman except on an occasional visit. I had eight months' solitary confinement, and the only time I ever saw a woman was in the distance at the other end of a long passage. She

717
was not young or attractive, but the thrill I had, after months in solitary confinement, just to see that old woman rambling down the end of that corridor! The artificiality of keeping men only together in prisons and of keeping women only together, and excluding entirely the idea that there should be women on the staff of men's prisons and men on the staff of women's prisons, is disastrous physically and psychologically to those who have to exist in those conditions for any period.
My Lords, the last point I want to make is in regard to enforcement. The proposal that enforcement should be in the hands of industrial tribunals is absolutely impossible. Not only is it impossible because of the controversy which has arisen around them in the trade union movement: it is impossible because the problem of the relationship between men and women is entirely different from the problem of industrial relations. There is the example of the Race Relations Act, with which I was rather closely associated. Under that Act we have a separate Race Relations Board because the problem is recognised as different. The problem of discrimination between men and women is also different, and if we are to have tribunals they should be equal opportunities tribunals which are directed to this problem alone. I also beg Her Majesty's Government to give the Equal Opportunities Commission real powers. One of the criticisms of the Race Relations Board is its inadequate powers. Any Equal Opportunities Commission must have much greater powers than have now been given to the Race Relations Board if it is to he effective. It must be given the powers of investigation and of prevention; otherwise it becomes negative.
My Lords, I conclude by saying that men and women are different—and thank the gods that they are! But, in the course of evolution, men and women are closer together in the human family than in any of our animal ancestors who have evolved towards us. Women have minds, they have creative capacities, just as great as any men. If in this period of time we can be fulfilling what the pioneers in the beginning of our century sought, the equal opportunities to women to realise those possibilities, then we shall have contributed greatly to the progress of the human race.
6.42 p.m.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, I had not intended to speak this evening but I succumbed to the blandishments of an old friend of mine, the noble Lord, Lord Royle, who leads this discussion from the Opposition Front Bench. I really want only to make one point. I do not wish to go into details; we have heard a great many details extremely well put. The point I should like to put is as important to the large majority of women as to men still in this country who are against the emancipation of women. I always like to go to the beginning of things. I went to Genesis and I found myself in a difficulty because in the first chapter of Genesis it says:
"… God created man in his own image … male and female, created he them."
In the second chapter of Genesis we read:
"And the Lord God said, 'It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet …'".
And he put Adam into a deep sleep and created Eve from one of his ribs. I do not know which of these stories is true. I have consulted the right reverend Prelate and I have been given a certain explanation. Be that as it may, one thing is quite certain: that Eve was the first person to eat of the Tree of Knowledge.
LORD SOPER: My Lords, may I intervene for just a moment? There are two records of creation, both imaginative rather than scientific. The first is the prophetic, the second the priestly. So far as I am concerned, and I think that my noble friend will corroborate this, it is better to accept the prophetic, the first. Priesthood has always been rather more dubious.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, I will accept the noble Lord's advice. It does not alter the fact that Eve was the first to eat of the Tree of Knowledge. Whether or not she was alarmed and overcome, she gave of the apple to Adam; whether she gave the full half or not remains a mystery. As we all know, retribution was quick to come. Man was destined to labour and toil by the sweat of his brow and has seemed successfully to have escaped from this retribution through mechanisation and computation and goodness knows what;

719
whereas Eve, who was condemned to pains at home, seems to have remained more tied to her job. I wonder very much whether Eve was a good mother. After all, she brought up two sons; but Cain killed Abel, and Cains have been killing Abels ever since.
Why I am interested in the emancipation of women and the opportunities for them to become full citizens of this country and other countries and take their share in the world in general is because I think it will make them better mothers. There is the old saying, "The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world" I think it is a very true saying. If we have at present (and always have had) a great deal of violence and revolution in the world, I am not sure that the mothers should not take their share of the blame in that result. I feel that if a woman can take her part in the world and know the sort of world in which children will have to live, she will be able to bring up these children to face it in a better way. We have all learned, perhaps more recently than before, that it is the first years of a child's life that are so impressionable. It is those first years that are in the hands of the mothers.
Never mind about tribunals. On this aspect I agree with a great deal of what was said, particularly by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner. I am very worried about the sort of tribunal that may be set up; how the appeals will be taken to it, and whether there will be legal aid and so on. Those are very important details, as also is the question of women's pensions and so on; but I think that what we really have to impress on the female population of our country as well as the male is that it is important for women to have the fullest possible education in citizenship apart from any career that they wish to take up. If they have that, if they understand better the sort of life their children are going to face, then I think they will be better mothers, that we shall have a better generation of young people and that in that way what we have done to-day will be more fully justified than in any other.
6.49 p.m.
BARONESS STOCKS: My Lords. my noble friend Lord Brockway may have got the start on me: but not by much. I have been an active feminist since I was
720
18 when I marched in the first Women's Suffrage procession. Therefore I cannot forbear paying tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, for the persistency and tact with which she has conducted this campaign, which is, after all, our common cause. I have doubts about the extent to which one can legislate against prejudice. I have had doubts about the Race Relations Act. I think it has deprived many students of lodgings they might otherwise have had in lodging houses which had previously announced that they were not prepared to take coloured students. That sort of thing may happen. But it is still more difficult, I think, with attempts to legislate for sex equality. Race discrimination is a comparatively modern problem. It has become a problem owing to the extreme mobility of the 20th century world. Sex discrimination is age old; it is as old as recorded time. Therefore I think it is more difficult to legislate against.
A number of points have been raised in the course of this debate. I should like to fasten on the speech which was made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, since he and I have served the same college in various capacities. I was very sorry to note his suggestion that the Church of England should be cramped in its style as regards women's ordination by reference to the backwardness of, let us say, the Mohammedan community. I do not see why it should. I do not see why it should not stand up for the principles which it believes to be the right principles in regard to the treatment of women. Therefore I do not see why it should not go forward to equal treatment of women as regards ordination.
My Lords, there is in Hong Kong a young woman called Joyce Bennett who was properly ordained as a priest of the Anglican Church by the Bishop of Hong Kong and is now ministering as a fully ordained priest. I learn from the novels of Anthony Trollope that deans and bishops are appointed by Governments. Why therefore should not a Government who really believe in sex equality offer the position of dean or bishop to the reverend Joyce Bennett of Hong Kong? What would happen if they did? I know what would happen if the Government operated their very large powers of interference to interfere with trade unions

721
to bring about the engagement of a female compositor. All the printers would go on strike, and probably there would be a General Strike to follow. What would happen if the Government appointed Miss Joyce Bennett as a dean or a bishop? Well, my Lords, I do not think that the entire clergy would go on strike; I have no doubt that some would. But may I say finally—and when I say "finally" I mean finally—that I do not think Miss Joyce Bennett would accept such a position, as she is a young woman, as befits a student of Westfield College, who dislikes publicity and would regret having to cause pain to any fellow churchman. Therefore I do not really think that is the solution. But, my Lords, it would be great fun if it happened.
6.52 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I do not like people who put down their names at the end of the list of speakers but I want to plead "not guilty" to-day because last week, although I had 'flu, I was not delirous. I' phoned up the House and said to a man —I emphasise that it was a man—that I was going to speak. But I firmly believe that when I told him the subject, and when he knew who I was, he had a Freudian lapse and forgot to put down my name. It is a most amazing thing, and it is the first time it has happened in the whole of my Parliamentary career. But there you are, my Lords, and here I am. I have spoken on this subject so often at various times that to-night I do not want to be guilty of tedious repetition, but I want to make just one or two points.
I listened very carefully to the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, and if I had been much younger I would have sat back and said, "Now he says that things are getting better. Things will be all right You have only got to sit back and wait a little time, girls, and all your troubles will be over" My Lords, I got into Parliament in 1938 and I have heard men say that over and over again. I rise up to-night to say to the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, that he is young and I am very glad to hear that he has been doing what he can for women. But he has a long way to go if this Document before us to-night is the best thing that the Government can produce.
722
May I make one point immediately? Whatever noble Lords say about the position of women to-day, we cannot gloss over the discrimination, the shocking discrimination, between men and women which is revealed by the recent statement that the average weekly earnings of a man are £40 and of a woman only half that, £20. These figures reflect the whole attitude to women's labour throughout the country. A woman is regarded as cheap labour. She is regarded as an individual who need not have the same consideration as a man. Men know that women are unorganised—although I was pleased to hear yesterday that there are 3 million women in the trade unions—and in consequence they can be exploited. This debate is being held on an important Wedding Day and I must confess that I was a little disappointed to note that when Princess Anne was questioned on the subject she failed to approve of women's emancipation. I felt, like my noble friend Lord Royle, that she should have positive views on the subject, owing to the discrimination exercised against her as Heir to the Throne in favour of her two small brothers.
My Lords, this discrimination goes throughout, and it is accepted. Again I want to emphasise when I put that question to the right reverend Prelate that it was an amazing scene; sitting looking at the Abbey and seeing that vast array of men administering the affairs of the Church. We had the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London telling us that everything was all right. He said, "If I went down to a suburb I would find a woman churchwarden" Women are poorly paid, and in the worst jobs possible. So, my Lords, this change in our affairs is of supreme importance and we cannot be fobbed off as we have been in the past.
I would remind the House that the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act, to which women attached so much importance, was passed half a century ago; and as I say we have been fobbed off with promises ever since. And I would add this: Governments may change but there has been one powerful factor common to them all; namely, the Civil Service which is notoriously anti-feminist. As a member of a Select Committee I was left with a strong impression that the representatives of the employers and the administrative grades

723
of the Civil Service had a common interest and a cherished battle cry: They shall not pass!" I have served near the Civil Service in another capacity and I have observed this for myself. In spite of our efforts, what is the result in the Civil Service today? We have one woman as a Joint Permanent Secretary.
The noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, talked about statutory women. Wherever we look in jobs that carry a good salary, in jobs that carry some prestige, we see one woman in the shop window. So, my Lords, we really must not accept Government promises that something will be done and then just sit back and wait. This Document, which has been produced just before a General Election—although last year and the year before the Government adopted an entirely different attitude towards the problems of women —reflects the views of men who aim to obtain the women's vote with the minimum sacrifice of male prestige. I saw the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, jump up just now and say, "We have not promised anything. We have not given any date for legislation" Of course not. The noble Viscount need not tell me that. The Government never give dates for legislation. But they are, in my opinion adopting—as Governments before them have done: I am afraid there is very little difference when it comes to politics—delaying tactics. I have been to so many conferences and so many deputations that I have lost all memory of how many and in what years they took place. But there they are, a blur of them down through the years, all asking for the things that we are asking for today.
We have recently had two Select Committees which interviewed all the individuals and organisations that were most closely concerned with discrimination. Now we are told in this Document—and I quote:
"The Government believes that the most promising way forward must be by means of inquiring, publicity and persuasion, functions which the Equal Opportunities Commission will carry out and thus serve as a catalyst for change".
Ye gods! Fifty years ago that was said to women when the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act was passed; that was how change was to be brought about. I am glad to sec that there is a right reverend Prelate here, and I am sure
724
that he will agree with me that that sentence could not be improved upon by the Established Church which has made a life study of keeping women in their rightful place according to its own lights. I have heard to-day that they are kept in their rightful place—churchwardens in the suburbs.
THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD: My Lords, I am sorry, but I was not present when my right reverend Brother the Bishop of London made his speech, but I understand he did not mention that Convocations have said they believe there is no theological objection to the ordination of women. Well, that is a big step forward because all the dioceses are going to talk about it. There is something happening. It is not only a case of having women churchwardens: we are making some progress.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, does not the right reverend Prelate know that that has been done year after year, decade after decade; that that has been said to me by the right reverend Prelate years ago, that a change would taken place'? We are telling the nation that we women are sick of waiting and we have no faith in these promises. We want to see legislation on the Statute Book.
We were told to-night by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, when he jumped up to assure the House that the Government were not committed to any legislation—
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I have been taunted by the noble Baroness twice on this. If she will look in the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow, she will see that I said nothing of the kind.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, my noble friend said that the promises related to 1975, and the noble Viscount said, "No, that is all wrong". And quite rightly, because that dealt with equal pay. Perhaps in his summing up the noble Viscount will tell us specifically what the legislation is going to be, what it is going to contain and when it is going to be introduced.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: No, my Lords.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I want to come back to the matters

725
that I raised on the Queen's Speech, when I sought to focus attention on the proposal of the Government to remove the restrictions on the employment of women under the Factory Act—what is called "protective legislation". I speak very strongly on this subject. I believe this proposal to be utterly opposed to the interests of those harassed, overworked women, married, say, to a mean man or a bully. I am not asking for generous concessions, for these are the present restrictions. Can one say that they are very generous? These are the present restrictions for a married woman. Her work should include a limit of 48 hours a week, which must not start before 7 a.m. or end after 8 p.m., and 1 p.m. on Saturdays; and overtime should be limited to 25 weeks in the year. These are the restrictions which are now going to be changed.
It has frequently been stated lately that battered wives are now going to town halls, to doctors; and now the battered wife becomes a rather familiar, tragic object in our midst. Recently we have been told that 3,000 battered wives have been accounted for. The Sunday Times, last Sunday, told us that 700 battered babies are reported a day. Here, I believe, is irrefutable evidence that legislation is still needed to protect the most helpless married woman from being available to work unsuitable hours at the expense of her family. It is no good telling me that she need not do it if she does not want to. A woman in a poverty stricken home, with children, with a man Who drinks too much and who does not care where the money comes from, often becomes afraid. She is passive; she dare not object, and she will go and do a job. This is why legislation is introduced. It is no good telling me that times have changed, that machinery has changed, that the 19th century was different from the 20th. My Lords, human nature has not changed. These women are still there, needing our protection. It is absolutely outrageous to think that in this document the only piece of legislation to which the Government have committed themselves in Appendix 1 is this brutal little Bill which the employers want. If the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, chooses to read the evidence given at the Select Committee he will see that the employers are in favour of get
726
ting the married women—particularly those in the North—into the factories all night.
My Lords, why has this been put in the document? Is it not going to be debated here? Why have the Government committed themselves to what the employers want? That is the only piece of legislation they are certain of introducing. I would say that working women are already doing a disproportionate share of the work at home, and it is not necessary to prove equality by permitting them to do more outside. And to suggest that this is done in the name of equality—what sheer nonsense! We know perfectly well that the woman who works in a job outside gets the family's lunch, goes and buys it midday, and rushes home to cook it at night. Now we are told that in the name of equality she should be allowed to work all night. What cruel nonsense! It is only those people who are so removed from the likes of these women who dare consider introducing legislation of this kind. I ask the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, what permission had he, or the Government, to put this in this document. Surely it is undemocratic. This House has not accepted it.
We have heard to-night people express views on the subject and say that they thought this was reactionary. I was glad to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, mention the National Council of Civil Liberties' views on this subject. I would ask the House to read the document they published just recently. They argue the case against these proposed laws. In summing up they state that if the repeal of protective laws is to be the price of an anti-discrimination Act, then it would be a price paid by working-class women for a law that at least initially benefits the middle-class. Therefore I would ask the House to think carefully before they accept the piece of legislation which has been set out in Appendix 1 without permission from both Houses of Parliament.
Finally I want to say this. While a great deal has been said, and we have heard it to-night, about discrimination in employment, in education and in training —and it could be said by the way, my Lords, that this has nothing to do with

727
the document; nevertheless it is fundamental to the whole question—there always seems to he a reluctance, even a coyness, about debating discrimination even in marriage. The law has not moved with the change in women's status. This was emphasised in the Social Security Act, when on the question of pensions and so on we had long debates. If one wants to find an injustice that this Government have perpetrated, one has only to look at the Social Security Act. In marriage there is a discrimination which I believe Parliament must recognise. There is a consistent failure to recognise marriage as a partnership in which the contributions of both spouses, whether in the form of financial support or work in the home, should be taken into account. This is fundamental to the question about removing protective legislation. Here is this woman in the home who is now going to be denied any protection. She has no legal right to any share of the family income. I have mentioned this before, and I repeat, that we shall never solve this problem until we get nearer the home and make the woman in the home a partner, because she is making such an important contribution to the household that she deserves a share of the family income.
7.12 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am feeling rather sorry for the noble Viscount. I hope he will not attempt to answer all my noble friend's questions, because the one thing I do not want to hear from the Government is definite proposals covering some of the suggestions in this document. If I understand correctly, the Government—and I hope they mean this—are hoping as a result of this Consultative Document to get opinions: and they have certainly got them from your Lordships tonight. My noble friend Lord Royle introduced this debate, as it seems, hours ago, but I must admit that I had some part in urging it on, because I felt that this was the right time.
I have a certain sympathy for the Government, If only because I know the limitations of my own part as a member of Government—though not in certain activities that I have been able to follow as an individual. I think the Government may feel a little hurt, having carried out one of those U-turns with regard
728
to which their experience increases all the time. I remember that in the earl days when we first debated Lady Seear's Bill I did not detect much enthusiasm for legislation on the part of the Government. Then we decided to put it into Committee, and the Select Committee met. It was very carefully picked, except for one appalling blunder, Freudian lapse, or whatever it was, because initially I seem to remember that we did not have a woman on the Committee.
I may say that I was not the man responsible for the Freudian lapse of failing to put the name of my noble friend Lady Summerskill down to speak to-day, because it would never occur to me that such a debate could take place without one of her forthright contributions. My noble friend is difficult to follow because of her strength of feeling. I have not got quite the command of language that she has when she comes to a matter on which she feels so strongly, but I am bound to say that this is a matter—and I have made it clear to the House—on which I have felt strongly for many years, largely due to my experience in industry. The House will recall examples I have given, which I have known from my management experience, of quite unreasonable prejudice.
I believe the fact that we have advanced so much is largely due to the work of the Select Committee presided over by my noble friend Lord Royle, the work of my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner, the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and others. I would ask my noble friend Lady Summerskill to accept that there is some progress being made. As my noble friend Lord Brockway said, he spent three years in prison as a conscientious objector in the First World War, and was a suffragist. I had not realised that he had been a leading suffragist as well. I know he was a keen rugger player. In those days you obviously had to be fairly tough to stand up to it. But I think we are making some progress.
I had an experience earlier this year. I happened to be presiding over a rather ancient professional dining club of a kind which normally in Victorian times—it actually goes back into Regency times —would not have admitted women. I suddenly realised that I was playing a part in getting a Sex Discrimination Bill

729
through your Lordships' House and also presiding over a club which depended upon professional and other qualifications for its membership. I found this intolerable. So I went to work—it was one of the most difficult political exercises I ever engaged in—and I got satisfaction in the end. What I proposed was accepted, and there was only one resignation—and I think it was desirable to have one resignation to mark the fact that there was some achievement. I think we are beginning to move.
My noble friend Lord Winterbottom made an original speech in regard to the Armed Services. He expressed a view which I happen to know is also supported by some very senior officers, that even in this area there is a degree of discrimination, without having to go back to Trafalgar and, apparently, Lord Nelson's rather reactionary attitude before that.
My Lords, what has emerged from this debate is that whereas the Government have gone some way and there are some fair words, they have not in fact gone far enough in their proposals for them to be seriously effective. I accept that a change of attitude and the removal of prejudice is vital, and this is part of the process that has gone on in your Lordships' House. It is believed to be going on in the Government, and I hope will go on also in the political Parties. I certainly do not exonerate the Labour Party in regard to prejudice. It is clearly necessary that the legislation should be effective.
My noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner, and other noble Lords, I think have shown conclusively that there are defects in the proposals. I do not propose to talk at any length on the limitations of industrial tribunals and the Industrial Relations Court. I must say that I did slightly suspect—I wish to be very careful about the courts—that this proposal was perhaps rather extending the range of the court in the hope that it might make it a lot more respectable in the eyes of the public. I make no reflections on the judges who preside, but I would confirm what my noble and learned friend said as to the decision which the then Government took in regard to certain matters, to make use of industrial tribunals. I remember some of the arguments that were used against,
730
and which had to be refuted on the grounds that the courts could not otherwise cope. The situation has now altered. So first I would ask the Government—and I put particular emphasis on this—when they consider this debate and any changes in their proposals, to take into account the forceful arguments that have been expressed in that area.
Concern has been expressed with regard to the exceptions, but with regard to public taste or decency—and we shall have the same problem with regard to a Bill which on the whole is likely to command general support regarding indecent display and the protection of the public—I must say that a particularly dangerous definition could be involved. I acknowledge that it is exceedingly difficult to find the right description, but my personal inclination would be to have no exception at all if it is to be worded in such general terms. I wonder how far, even now, prejudice fills us so that we think that certain exceptions should be necessary which really are not necessary at all.
There are two other areas which have caused particular concern. One is the position with regard to occupational pensions. This is a highly complex and technical matter, but I am bound to say —and perhaps this is the one Party political remark that I shall make—that it is very difficult for us now, with the legislation actually passed in the last Session, to get this right. Nevertheless, it is an area where there are objections, even though I do not accept all the arguments of those who have advocated a totally different attitude to the degree of women's entitlement to pensions.
In this connection perhaps I may say something about the Civil Service. I am a little depressed by what my noble friend Lady Summerskill said regarding the Civil Service, because I was hopeful, as was my noble friend, that progress was being made. Obviously you cannot suddenly get a whole series of women Permanent Secretaries overnight, but the noble Viscount might perhaps ask the Lord Privy Seal to let us have a report on the Armstrong-Jellicoe reforms (I almost said the Shackleton-Armstrong-Jellicoe reforms) on this matter. This has significance in relation to the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, in connection with industry. I may have made

731
this point before, but the noble Earl speaks with immense knowledge of industry. In earlier years, if I wanted a technical answer concerning management and particularly concerning organisation and methods, the best person from whom to get it was Lord Stopford, now the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, who then presided over the O. and .M. Department of I.C.I. Of course, the Civil Service studies in this area raise particular problems. I am bound to say, even at the risk of there being a possible waste of training, that it is still the duty of the Civil Service, in common justice, to provide that training, because women suffer from a number of other disadvantages and handicaps, particularly with regard to pregnancy and a break in their careers. It would be intolerable if industry did not provide equality of opportunity in training. I think it was of great value to our debate that the noble Earl should have raised these points, because these are what we must get across to industry.
The final area of concern has been the educational one, and I am bound to say, having talked to many former Presidents of the Board of Education and to past Secretaries of State for Education, that I am not hopeful that their persuasion will be anything like effective or quick enough. As we have seen in other areas—I believe it arose in regard to the Government Training Funds Bill and the Ordnance Survey—there has been a reluctance on the part of the Department of Education and Science to intervene. I am bound to say that this is a major area of concern.
I will not take up the time of the House for very much longer, though I could go on at great length. What I would say, in conclusion, to the Government is that there is a very clear message from this House. There may he arguments on certain aspects of detail. and particularly difficult are those relating to protective legislation which concerns women. Having seen women doing jobs in industry which they would not have been encouraged to undertake in the past, such as working in anodising plants, and so on—and the Committee was split on this—I should like to see some relaxation of those protections. But I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Soper. and other noble Lords have said, that it would be quite unwise to go straight for this in one fell swoop. In
732
this area, in particular, while we wish the Government to go as fast as they can towards removing some of the inequalities of opportunity, we do not wish them to move too fast in removing some of the protections which have given at least some justification to what might be called the old-fashioned, male, protective point of view.
I would say this to the Government. When they bring in their Bill, which I trust will be soon, I hope that they will take into account the opinions that have been expressed. They must face the fact that, whatever may happen in another place, in your Lordships' House (as happened recently with the Health Service Bill) it is very likely that we shall put into the Bill—as we do, with our less strict Whipping and Party alignments—proposals to meet any deficiencies of the kind that we have found in this document. The Government may feel a little hardly done by. I believe that they have come a long way. but they have not gone quite far enough yet.
7.28 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I do not think I really feel too hard done by—
LORD SHACKLETON: You ought to!
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, will allow me to develop my argument—I have only said one half sentence. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. has encouraged the noble Lord. Lord Royle, from the opposite Despatch Box, to speak with great eloquence and distinction on a subject which we genuinely wish to have discussed. The noble Lord is quite right in saying that the Consultative Document which has been produced is something which we did and do want, and shall continue to want, people to look at and to give opinions upon. This afternoon and evening has seen nothing if not a constructive debate on the contents of that Paper.
I must say to the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, that really there is no force of law in Appendix I, which sets out the provisions in the Factories Acts. If one does not list the propositions and the sections and subsections that it is proposed to dispense with, everyone is in such a muddle and a confusion that they cannot apply their minds with any

733
accuracy at all; and it seems to me to be no felony to set out what one has it in mind to do in such a form that it can be looked at constructively and in detail by those who are genuinely interested in the matter.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, what is the hurry? Why put that in Appendix 1? The noble Viscount has heard in this House to-day that there is no agreement that this should be done. What is the hurry for putting this in and perhaps failing to tell the House of other legislation that he might introduce?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I think with respect that the noble Baroness will have to listen to my speech as it develops. I agree with the noble Lord. Lord Shackleton, that it is of immense value to receive from my noble friend Lord Courtown more evidence of the need for legislation of this sort, because that is what the speech amounted to, and to have the whole issue set in its historic perspective by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stocks, who go back to the very beginning of this issue. I have been in Her Majesty's Government for about 18 months; but, whether or not there have been new developments on this subject, nobody can say that this Government have not passed an immense amount of legislation on detailed aspects of discrimination against women. I shall not go through the list because it is too long for me to rehearse in this speech. We are now going over to a much more general area.
I have a fairly large number of matters on which I ought to try and comment, if briefly, in the rest of my speech. The noble Baroness has it in her mind that we should look at protective legislation—this is something which I picked up from her speech on the humble Address—and I know there was a disagreement on this matter in the Select Committee. There has been a disagreement again today because the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, tended to like the removal of this protective legislation, as did the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, whereas there was a certain lack of enthusiasm on the part of other noble Lords. It was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Soper; I am afraid I cannot remember at this particular moment
734
whether he was for or against. My noble friend Lady Elliot was worried, too, and the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, mentioned this matter upon which we have had a good deal of discussion.
What one has to face up to is that if we are going to have any genuine occupational qualifications which may, not on a generic basis but on an individual job basis, be grounds whereby a man or woman may be employed to the exclusion of the other, if we have general legislation which debars women from undertaking certain work we have to consider whether this amounts to a genuine occupational disqualification for people being employed in that job at all. I do not wish to go farther than the generalisation, but it is a proposition which has to be taken seriously by those who consider the protective legislation which goes back over a long period. Therefore no doubt we shall have to return to this matter in due course. But it is a difficult and serious subject, one which raises various philosophical and legal difficulties and is not susceptible to a simple brushing aside as being wholly right or wrong.
Perhaps I could deal with one or two of the more clear issues which have been raised. As I expected, there has been a certain amount of discussion about the pension side and the social security side, particularly in the Act which has just been passed on this subject. As the Consultative Document indicates, the Bill that we are thinking about will not require equality of treatment for provisions relating to retirement or death. That is just the same as the Equal Pay Act which was put into law by the Party opposite. There are two particular aspects on this on which I should like to make the Government's policy clear: first of all, the social security scheme and, secondly, the occupational pension provisions which have been specifically mentioned this afternoon.
The State social security scheme has its own specific and detailed legislation, and the Government's policy is contained in the Social Security Act that was passed in July this year. All aspects of social security, including women's rights under that legislation, were the subject, as has been said already to-day, of a long and comprehensive review before the Bill was introduced and also in debate in the

735
course of its passing through both Houses. It is a complex field; there are a number of inter-acting factors. I am advised—it is not a matter which I can pretend to understand in detail—that women are more favourably treated than men, and there are sound reasons for these differences in treatment. It would be impossible and intolerable to withdraw the preferences for women in the legislation, such as widows' pensions, and the Government could not accept the extension of those preferences to men. They would be very expensive and there would be little public demand for them. We do not think that they can take priority in terms of finance for the need to provide more help over groups like the elderly, widows and chronic sick. The Social Security Act contains in addition the policy for the future development of the occupational pension scheme and the new State reserve pension scheme which is being established for those who do not have an adequate occupational pension. Here the Act is of particular benefit to women. It provides the framework for a major advance in their pension rights. Pensions matter even more to women than to men, because on average women live longer.
This new Act for the first time ensures that working women will be able to acquire the earnings-related pension in their own right. It also makes it obligatory for recognised occupational pension schemes to provide cover for the widows of their members. It does not require identity of treatment for men or women, nor does the Government believe it right that it should. It leaves those responsible for occupational pension schemes free to have this equality if they wish.
One of the great advantages of these schemes is they can reflect the circumstances of individual employers. In particular, the Government have already acted to ensure that the rules for approving schemes for tax purposes should be administered in such a way as not to stand in the way of equality of treatment if that is what is required under that particular occupational pension scheme. All these pension matters as they affect women were fully debated. Decisions have now been taken; the Government's policy is geared to come into operation on the basis of that Act,
736
and it is the Government's firm intention that this scheme should be allowed to run for some years without substantial amendment; otherwise, if we start tinkering with it at this stage, it will not achieve its objectives, let alone get off the ground at all. That is the reason why the Consultative Document contains nothing on this subject, for better or for worse, and we shall be glad to hear whatever noble Lords may wish to say by way of amendment to this Bill when it comes forward.
On the education side a number of noble Lords have mentioned some points. The noble Baroness said that our proposals were too feeble. The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, mentioned this and so did the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner. The Government were perfectly certain that it was correct to include a section on education in the Consultative Document. After all, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, said, a great deal of time was spent in the Select Committees on this subject, particularly, as I know, in this House. It is quite right to say that some of the disadvantages that women encounter in employment can be linked back to educational practices and attitudes. It has already been indicated that the study by Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools of the extent to which curricula differences and customs contribute to unequal opportunities for boys and girls has already begun, and we are expecting this study to be completed in the first half of next year. That goes to the root of the problem that the noble and learned Lord and others mentioned. Information gathered through this survey is already beginning to be analysed, but it is still a little early to comment on the effect that we may get in terms of curricula. But the effort has already started on this matter.
On careers guidance, which is the next stage after the curriculum has been got right, an education survey by the Inspectorate has been published on careers education in secondary schools. It identifies what has already been done and evaluates its effectiveness because of the general anxiety of pupils, parents and teachers to ensure that careers education becomes fully effective for all pupils in secondary schools. So again we are trying to see what is going on and evaluate its effectiveness.
The measures which the Government are prepared to take in order to eliminate

737
discrimination in employment will apply also to education in terms of employing teachers. The Equal Opportunities Commission, it is proposed—and this is in the Consultative Document—will be able to include education among the broad areas that they will have the duty to investigate and report on. Apart from these two aspects—that is, employment in schools and the role of the Equal Opportunities Commission to look further into the whole subject of education—we think that there is no need to legislate (and this I think is what noble Lords have been speaking about this afternoon) no need to pass further laws, because the powers are already there. This is spelt out in the Consultative Document. They are there to be used. They are, I think, already starting to be used. They will be used, and they will ensure that discrimination does not occur in maintained educational establishments. "Very well," noble Lords may say; "they ought to have been used before" But that does not alter the fact that if the powers are there, there is no necessity to take further powers in legislation.
The universities are specially mentioned in the Consultative Document because of the question of admission of women to higher education and to medical schools in particular, which was one of the matters that came up in the Select Committees. On this subject, although a good deal has been going on the most important point is that a meeting was held on Friday, November 9, with the Department of Education and Science and representatives of the University Grants Committee and representatives of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. They indicated that they would send in evidence to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State about their admissions and other practices of university government which are affected by the proposals in this Consultative Document. There was a very extensive discussion of the document and its implications. The question of admission to medical schools I think was also discussed at length; no doubt the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, will be particularly interested in that, as will the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill. The representatives of the Vice-Chancellors undertook to have subsequent talks with the principals and authorities of medical schools, and the
738
Vice-Chancellors will prepare a document which will in due course be available to the Government and to the public. So again on this front the results of the work of the Select Committees are already becoming apparent and progress is being made. This may make up to some extent for the lack of actual legislative proposals in the Bill we are discussing at the moment.
We then have the question of exemptions: what ought or ought not to be included? I agree that this is a very difficult subject indeed. The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, if I might invite him to one of our prisons to-day, would I think find rather more women about as welfare officers. I think he is a trifle old, if I may respectfully say so, to go to borstal, but we have some female assistant governors at borstals and I think he would find that things have changed a little since he was there last. But there is still a genuine difficulty, which is worth discussing, about whether we have discipline staff in close contact with people of the opposite sex. I am perfectly open to discussion on this matter, but I think some people would see difficulty about it, certainly in the conditions of some of our more ancient establishments which are not as easy as they might be.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, it I may interrupt, I hope that the noble Viscount will not go on encouraging my noble friend, who clearly feels in his life of wide experience that he has missed out on borstal now.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I believe that we shall really have to change the law for the noble Lord if we want to get him in there, but I will perhaps take him as a guest.
The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, said that one could drive her proverbial posse of prams through what we have set out; and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, mentioned this, as did the noble Lord, Lord Soper. I have read the National Council for Civil Liberties' document with great interest, and what one is really faced with here is the proposition that if somebody is going, as we did, to take the point that there may have to be exceptions, it is up to us, in putting forward a Consultative Document, to set out something concrete which people can criticise. That

739
is what we have done. It is not supposed to be definitive. It is not necessarily right. But if people want to add to it or to subtract from it and show good reason for so doing, that is precisely the point of a consultative process. Therefore, on this aspect again I shall study with great interest what has been said. I know the point about the American experience which is mentioned by the National Council for Civil Liberties. It may very well be that we have gone too wide and we shall have to consider this point again; but it is a Committee point, though it is very useful to have forewarning of it in the debate we have had this afternoon.
As for the somewhat specialised area of the Forces which the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, raised—and my noble friend Lady Elliot followed him—this is something that is really in the sphere of my noble friend the Secretary of State for Defence. But I have a few notes on it, and I am told that here, too, the mind of the Department is far from being closed about the question of employing Service women in jobs which have hitherto been reserved for Service men. The examples one has are perhaps not tremendously impressive; nevertheless they show the way the Department's mind is working. We have recently passed a Bill to allow women to serve in the Ulster Defence Regiment; and they are so serving. There is a new scheme to admit women to the Medical Cadet Scheme in the Services.
Here we are up against a practical difficulty because there has to be a greater acceptance of the employment of women in combat units, not only from the point of view of philosophy but also from that of the women themselves. There must be, according to the experience of the Ministry of Defence, a greater willingness on the part of Service women to enter into the same kind of binding engagement as their male counterparts do now. The recruiting of Service women is not, I am told, a matter of immense difficulty, but unfortunately they tend to stay for only a short time. The Services have to recruit some 6,000 women a year to maintain an overall strength of about 15,000, which shows how rapid the turnover is. So there is probably a certain amount of two-way trade in this connection. If the women want to do these jobs, they will
740
have to stay for engagements of a similar length to those of the men who are doing the jobs now. At any rate, the Ministry of Defence is far from closed in its attitude on this matter, and I am sure that my noble friend Lord Carrington will study what has been said upon it.
The other major point that has been raised in the course of this debate is enforcement. I ventured to intervene a little earlier on when the noble Baroness was speaking, and I hope she will forgive me, because I wanted to try to get this matter clarified at an early stage. The noble Countess, Lady Loudoun, is not, I think, right in saying that our proposals are basically the same as those produced by the Select Committee of this House. In fact, a good deal of subsequent debate has been engaged in showing how different they are.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, got our position on the industrial tribunals, and their relationship with the position of those tribunals under the Equal Pay Act, absolutely right. What is new to me (I do not know whether it is new to my advisers, but certainly it is to me) is what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, and the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said about the origin of putting this jurisdiction on the industrial tribunals in the first place. I think that anybody who studies this problem will realise at once that the jurisdiction of any tribunal which is dealing with the Equal Pay Act, and the sort of thing that is likely to crop up under the Bill we are now tentatively discussing, will have an area of demarcation which it is quite impossible to define. One has only to look at the terms of the Equal Pay Act and interpret it side by side with what one is going to talk about in tern, of discrimination under proposals of this sort to see that it is only conceivable to do it in front of the same tribunal. What that tribunal may be is, I suppose, another matter. I am interested in the reason why the previous Government put this equal pay adjudication on to the industrial tribunals. There is no intention whatever on the part of Her Majesty's Government to try to make the industrial tribunals or the N.I.R.C. scheme respectable, because we do not admit that they are not respectable. We are not trying to make them respectable by imposing a new duty on them under

741
this legislation. It is a simple matter of common-sense law and practice because it is impossible to divide the two functions.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, asked about legal aid. It is not available as such in proceedings before the industrial tribunals. I think the noble and learned Lord is far too senior ever to have appeared in front of one, but I have; they are in fact immensely informal, and it is not the sort of proceedings where it is necessary to have counsel and solicitors. It is one of the things which I think is rather dear to the noble and learned Lord's heart, that lay people can express their cases and get justice without recourse to the panoply of the law. Nevertheless, complainants can get free legal advice up to £25 under the Legal Advice and Assistance Act which came into force last April; and, of course, if they go on appeal to the N.I.R.C. then legal aid is available for that. So people are not deprived of legal aid, even under this particular jurisdiction. But whether the matter ought to go instead to the county court, which is I think what the noble and learned Lord was suggesting, and whether the county courts could cope with it, is perhaps another matter. That comment also applies to the speech made on this point by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, who I think, with the greatest respect, had not realised the correlation between the Equal Pay Act and what we are talking about now.
Coming to what is in essence the middle ground of this debate, the noble Lord, Lord. Soper, spoke about the Race Relations Tribunal. There is not one. There is the Race Relations Board, but it does not decide things. I confess, too, that I am very nervous about drawing too close an analogy between race relations and the field that we are now talking about, of discrimination on the grounds of sex.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, was anxious about this middle ground where individuals might find themselves in difficulty in going to whatever tribunal—the industrial tribunal we suggest—and there is of course paragraph 2.27, which shows that the Department of Employment (and I think she mentioned this) could act for individuals in cases where they do not want to go themselves. Machinery of this
742
sort is perfectly understandable and acceptable to the Government; we simply want to try to get the method of working it out right. We accept that people may feel shy or inhibited or otherwise disabled from going on their own, and that is why paragraph 2.27 is included in the first place.
I accept that this is a difficult question which needs to be discussed, but let us be perfectly clear what we mean about enforcement. We have the matter of an individual against whom discrimination takes place. That is one thing: that is a case of a single person who is being discriminated against and wishing to get damages or to get his or her job back, and going for an individual employer, or something of that sort. We want the tribunal to adjudicate on that. When we come to the much wider area I think there has been some confusion in people's minds about the enforcement powers of the Equal Opportunities Commission. I suppose they could act, instead of the Department of Employment, in taking up cases for individuals who are otherwise too shy or disabled, but we think that their whole role should be kept apart from interference in individual cases against individual employers in front of some tribunal. Therefore we have divided these two functions very carefully and we have used the Department of Employment machinery to cover the case that the noble Baroness was in fact speaking about.
As for the Equal Opportunities Commission's own initiative to try to solve problems, is it really conceivable that the Government would accept that where they found legislation was necessary (for the sake of argument) or some other major reform or review of practice or the law was highly desirable in order to prevent or to avoid an area of discrimination which they had succeeded in identifying, they should have powers actually to enact that over the head of Parliament? Because that is the other side of enforcement, if one really analyses it, about which people have been complaining. It is said that they have no powers of enforcement; but they cannot have powers of enforcement if it involves legislation or if it involves interference with existing practices, because this can only be done by Parliament. So that is why their role has been defined, so as to educate, to pinpoint, to advise, to

743
attempt to bring pressure, but nevertheless at the end of the day leaving it for Government and Parliament to impose the exact remedy for the particular abuse that they have come up with.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Viscount for a moment, with the greatest respect I think he is using a slightly sophistical argument. Clearly, in regard to Parliament and the Government (actually, Parliament legislates) where legislation and development of the law is concerned that must remain. It is in regard to enforcement of the law that we wish them to play a part because of the limitations that we felt existed in regard to the present Government's proposals. I may have misunderstood, but it seemed to me that he was mixing the two arguments.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, it may be that I am not explaining this very well and we may have to come back to it, but at the moment the role that the Equal Opportunities Commission has been given is one to explore, to investigate, to try to identify. At this particular stage we do not know what the exact remedy should be. It may be that it is legislation, it may be that it is persuasion; but to give them specific powers to enforce in advance of knowing what the remedy ought to be or indeed what the problems are in detail, would I think be wrong. However, I will leave that with noble Lords because I have been speaking for too long. I think really there is an argument which is more than sophistry on this matter and one that noble Lords interested in the subject would like to consider.
I must conclude, my Lords. I think it is interesting that my noble friend Lady Emmet of Amberley went back to Biblical origins. I certainly do not want to compete with that, but we very specifically, in paragraph 1.11 of this White Paper, made the point that none of our proposals was compulsory. There is no requirement under legislation that we have in mind that women should give up being good mothers, good wives, looking after the home and the children. The noble Countess, Lady Loudon, was very firm on this, and I am sure she is right. Nobody is suggesting that they must have
744
jobs at night or that they must have any other particular sort of employment that might be open to them. We are after opportunities, and opportunities only. We want to ensure that if they want to do a particular job they should be able to do it.
The noble Lord, Lord Soper, spoke about un ballon d'essai. I think it has gone up very well, on the whole. We feel that the sort of discussion that has taken place this afternoon should be supplemented by a number of other papers, like the one from the National Council of Civil Liberties, and anyone else who writes in. We hope that people will write in, and write in detail with the sort of constructive suggestions that have been made this afternoon. Above all may I say this: that I hope they will maintain the good sense and the even humour of the debate this afternoon. We do not want to get carried away on either side of this subject, if I may respectfully say so. We do not want to treat it as a joke because it is not a joke; it is serious, and the Government take it seriously. On the other hand, we do not want to make it into something so earnest and forbidding that the whole subject becomes desperately unattractive to some. Therefore we must keep an even course down the middle and try to make this a sensible piece of progress which will benefit those who really want to get themselves involved.
My Lords, in conclusion I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Royle, that we do not propose to alter the Act of Settlement and allow Princess Anne to overtake her younger brothers. Within the limitations I have spoken about this afternoon, we are very much open to suggestions. I am most grateful to all those who have taken part in the debate, for the way in which they have done it and for the suggestions put forward. If I have not commented on or answered all of them, it is only for lack of time, not for lack of interest. I can assure the House that we will read carefully everything that has been said.
8.3 p.m.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, in my opening speech, which seems a long time

745
ago now, I expressed my criticisms and doubts about the Consultative Document. Therefore the House will be comforted to know that I shall make no effort to answer the debate. All I would do at this stage is to express almost surprise that the debate I started to-day has attracted so much interest. I am very flattered that it should have done so. Obviously, I initiated the debate at the behest of my Party. It was the Labour Party's day for a debate, and it was they who talked me into it. I express my very sincere thanks to everybody who has taken part, without naming them—though perhaps I may be forgiven if I make one exception. To discuss the legal and enforcement situation was completely out of my realm, and therefore I must express my deepest gratitude to my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner for the way in which he dealt with this aspect to-day. I could not possibly have dealt with it myself. It may sound strange to your Lordships' House, but I know my own limitations. I am very grateful indeed to my noble and learned friend for tackling that side of it.
We hope that Her Majesty's Government will produce a good Bill. We have had a debate which has indicated to the Government how many of us feel. When the Bill comes we shall study it very carefully. There may be some very interesting times to come before this matter is disposed of. May I again thank all noble Lords and noble Baronesses,
746
on whatever side of the House they may be, for their interest. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

  DROWNING ACCIDENTS AND SAFETY MEASURES
  DROWNING ACCIDENTS AND SAFETY MEASURES